SCO Down News (3 Stories)

[Shaun M.]

A hacker brought SCO's webpages down, stories here:

[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11190[/url]

[url]http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL[/url]

[url]http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/24/sco_site_down_for_well_over_24_hours.html[/url]

I do not think this reflects badly against the linux community. The
linux community is very broad, and it was to be expected that someone
somewhere would take this kind of action.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Shaun M. <smacker404@hotmail.com> wrote:

>A hacker brought SCO's webpages down, stories here:

>[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11190[/url]

>[url]http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL[/url]

>[url]http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/24/sco_site_down_for_well_over_24_hours.html[/url]

>I do not think this reflects badly against the linux community. The
>linux community is very broad, and it was to be expected that someone
>somewhere would take this kind of action.

It does reflect badly. Let's just see how much crowing and
self-congratulatory crap there is on Slashdot, shall we? I'd
love to be wrong, bit I'm betting most of the anonymous
morons will be all in favor of this.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Nucleon]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:37:08 +0000, ton wrote:

> Shaun M. <smacker404@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>A hacker brought SCO's webpages down, stories here:

>

>>[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11190[/url]

>

>>[url]http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL[/url]

>

>>[url]http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/24/sco_site_down_for_well_over_24_hours.html[/url]

>

>>I do not think this reflects badly against the linux community. The
>>linux community is very broad, and it was to be expected that someone
>>somewhere would take this kind of action.

>
> It does reflect badly. Let's just see how much crowing and
> self-congratulatory crap there is on Slashdot, shall we? I'd
> love to be wrong, bit I'm betting most of the anonymous
> morons will be all in favor of this.

You need to separate the actions of an individual from the actions of a
group. How would you feel if a few people claiming to want the same
things you do did something very bad, and people had less respect for you?

I'm a "member" of the Linux community. I think SCO is wrong, and they
should be and will be punished. Legally. In court. But I didn't attack
them illegally, I was hopeful that nobody else would, and I'm mad that
someone did. Now, because of someone else's actions that I didn't
ask for, condone, or commit, you don't respect me and consider me
immature. That's not fair.

--
Nucleon, <tcfelker@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my
problems to go away.

[Whoever]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>
> It does reflect badly. Let's just see how much crowing and
> self-congratulatory crap there is on Slashdot, shall we? I'd
> love to be wrong, bit I'm betting most of the anonymous
> morons will be all in favor of this.

Once again, you post a smear. What's more a smear that is simply not based
on facts.

Looking at Slashdot today, one can find a thread that occurred Sunday,
discussing the purported (*) DDoS attack. Without reading every post,
there is no clear congratulation towards whomever caused the DDoS, let
alone an assumption that it was a Linux user/Slashdot reader. In fact,
most postings seem to be of the opinion that any DDoS is not good.

(*) Other postings suggest that there was no DDoS. Merely that SCO took
their own website down. I take the view that either is possible and we
will probably never know for sure what happened.

I'm afrad that your own posting reflects badly on you, because, while you
constantly complain about anonymous postings, you show a disregard for
facts and truth that makes a mockery of non-anonymous postings.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>>
>> It does reflect badly. Let's just see how much crowing and
>> self-congratulatory crap there is on Slashdot, shall we? I'd
>> love to be wrong, bit I'm betting most of the anonymous
>> morons will be all in favor of this.

>Once again, you post a smear. What's more a smear that is simply not based
>on facts.

Oh, you mean like you have been doing all along?

Right.


--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[fLameDogg]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 at 20:20 GMT,
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

> The disregard for facts has, in fact, been the province of those
> who, like you, condemned SCO before HAVING any facts. OK, it
> does seem now that they are making claims about code that they
> cannot claim ownership of. But until you had that fact, you
> had no businessing condemning them.

One thing. Why does SCO expect every Linux-using entity on earth to
*not* wait until the facts are in before forking over license fees to be
"allowed" by SCO to use Linux--in binary form only, please?

--
fD

[Whoever]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

> >On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>
> The disregard for facts has, in fact, been the province of those
> who, like you, condemned SCO before HAVING any facts.

Show me where I posted a condemnation of SCO without facts. Can't? Then it
is you who is posting derogatory comments that are not based on facts.
What's that called again? Ah yes, libel.

OK, so, since I post anonymously, it's not really libel. Perhaps
"projection" would be a better term: the idea that people expect
others to behave the same as themselves. In other words, since one makes
non-fact based comments, one expects others to do the same.

> OK, it
> does seem now that they are making claims about code that they
> cannot claim ownership of. But until you had that fact, you
> had no businessing condemning them.

Show me where I condemned them.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

fLameDogg <flamedogg@operamail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 at 20:20 GMT,
>tony@aplawrence.com <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>> The disregard for facts has, in fact, been the province of those
>> who, like you, condemned SCO before HAVING any facts. OK, it
>> does seem now that they are making claims about code that they
>> cannot claim ownership of. But until you had that fact, you
>> had no businessing condemning them.

>One thing. Why does SCO expect every Linux-using entity on earth to
>*not* wait until the facts are in before forking over license fees to be
>"allowed" by SCO to use Linux--in binary form only, please?

Good point, and I agree:
[url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B377.html[/url]

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>> >On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>>
>> The disregard for facts has, in fact, been the province of those
>> who, like you, condemned SCO before HAVING any facts.

>Show me where I posted a condemnation of SCO without facts. Can't? Then it

How do I show where an anonymous poster said anything?

That's the problem: any old anonymous post might be you, but most
of them aren't of course.

It's what I said originally: whatever comes down, you can claim
that you were in-line with it all along, never were wrong, never
said anything contrary to the facts as they happened. Nobody
can dispute you. We might come up with posts that SEEM like
they could belong to you, but there's no proving it.

When I'm wrong, it's on record. As it should be.

OK, so here we are: the first code that SCO released seems to be
stuff they can't claim ownership to. I only say "seems to" because
I haven't seen anything myself, but I do trust the people who say
that it's old BSD code etc. "Their word against ours" seems
a pretty weak response to the rebuttals received.

One would think that if they had anything better in their pocket
now would be the time to pull it out. It wouldn't be a bad idea
to find a sacrificial lamb one could pin the BSD code debacle
on too.

Just to try to forestall the inevitable: let's have no nonsense
about "changing my tune". My "tune" has been the same all along:
without evidence, I can't judge. Now that there IS evidence, I'm
able to refine my opinions.

And you, just because of anominity, are still not worth a thing
in my book.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]