Slashdot Mirror
SCO DOS Harming Innocent Bystanders
An anonymous reader writes "The SCO-IBM-Linux controversy has certainly caused quite a stir. Unfortunately the vigilantes conducting the DOS attacks against SCO are harming innocent by-standers as described in this e-Week story. " Choice conspiracy theory quote: 'Given SCO's behavior recently, it's just as likely that they're attacking themselves in their continued attempt to pump up their stock price'
This is why script kiddies are annoying. They find exploits and other scripts/tools and then randomly use them thinking they know what they're doing.
This is why armchair slashdot readers typically shouldn't be lawyers [myself included], doctors, etc...
I hope they catch the people doing the DoS attack [probably as they brag how cool the attack is over some l33t IRC channelz] and beat their heads into the ground.
SCO maybe "evil" but you gotta think before you act!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I highly doubt that SCO is peforming this attack themselves. There are simply too many others willing to do it for them.
If a SCO executive ordered the self-attack, and a loyal SCO IT person (I want a shot of what he's drinking) carried it out, when the FBI comes calling, how far up the tree would the IT person point when he was arrested?
If a SCO executive was pinpointed in ordering a DOS (unlikely, but hey, Enron being publicly exposed was unlikely), how would that affect the Linux lawsuit? IANAL, but it seems like SCO execs would have nothing to gain from DOSing theirselves and only fines or Jail-time to face.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I don't think so, this is a PR war, and has been from the instant SCO started the FUD campaign. Linux users cannot be seen as a group of geeks with no respect for the law and proper buisness procedures. The very thing SCO needs right now is something to feed to the FUD machine, and the last thing geeks need to give SCO is ammunition.
Eventually SCO will go broke trying to win its laughable lawsuit. IBM has the resources to fight the case and the Open Source Community shouldn't worry about a few lost revenues in the meantime. One of the reasons why Linux has been able to take on Microsoft is the fact the M$ can't undermine the open source revenue stream when it is practically non-existant.
In the meantime, is there any reason why we should stoop to SCO's level?
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Who exactly isn't an innocent bystander here, besides SCO and IBM? SCO has been harming a massive number of innocent bystanders throughout this whole process (for example, the 1,500 Linux-using companies that they sent letters to, costing them legal time at the very least). No, two wrongs don't make a right and it sucks that the DOS attacks are harming innocent bystanders, but why is eWeek focusing on that when SCO is harming so many more innocents?
There is absolutley no justification for DOS'ing SCO.
DOS attacks are the internet equivalent of standing outside someones home playing heavy metal at 140 dB.
I'm puzzled as to what the guys making the attack hoped to accomplish.
To punish them for lying about linux? Their reputations are already in the toilet. Only ignorant fools are buying into their claims anyway.
To protect Linux? If one thinks about it, SCO has not harmed Linux in any meaningful way! The free distro's are there, and will be there for a long time. All they've done is slowed down adoption by the more clueless managers, which is really no big deal. Their legal claims about the GPL being invalid are such arrant nonsense: they won't stand in court. No matter what happens there will always be a GPLed kernel we can use.
To let them know we think they suck? Well, considering the increasingly defensive and irrational stances that they are taking, I think they already know that. The rest of the world is not buying into their claims. Even if their claims of hundreds of "licenses" sold are not wildly exagerated, that would mean 1% adoption rate.
To prevent people from doing business with SCO? I think that's pretty unethical. If people want to do business with SCO, let them. It's their choice if they want to throw good money away on vapor-ware of bad product. Would you prevent a stranger from buying cigarettes with his own money?
I know alot of people think using force to shut people up who say things you don't like is OK. But those people should take a look at the impression this gives to the non-geek world. They just reinforced the impression that OSS proponents are whiny immature people.
I think the guys behind the attacks scored an own goal.