Slashdot Mirror
BBC Links Linux To MyDoom
minus_273 writes "It seems the BBC has a story on their front page titled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', very specifically linking Linux users to the MyDoom virus. Some lines to note: 'If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.'"
That the BBC is being criticized worldwide for making unfounded claims.
who believe that code should be free to all
We just believe that GPL code should STAY free for all like it was when it was published under the GPL. I know such an idea could come only from a zealot... but hey....
Click 'feedback' at the bottom of the page, fill in the article URL, and explain why this really isn't on.
Keep it civil, folks, and with any luck we can get an apology or at least a retraction.
As soon as I saw the story - Please, for the love of whichever god you happen to believe in and/or live in fear of, be polite and give them references - the guy that wrote this article is obviously living stateside and Darl must have corrupted him.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
There's not much one can do about stuff like this. The media wants a story, they'll be happy to distort reality in order to get one.
The most important thing is to let people know we don't approve of the actions taken by creators of these viree. Not by shouting about it, but telling people, calmly, whenever given the chance. Tell your neighbour's dog walker if he/she will listen.
Fortunately popular belief does not rule (most) legal systems.
.: Max Romantschuk
However, there's also the matter of a modus operandi. While the Linux community certainly doesn't like SCO or Microsoft, its members aren't particularly known for writing virus code. In fact, writing Windows virus code would probably require greater... intimacy with Windows than most users of other operating systems would ever want to have.
My guess is that it's either a rogue coder or a coder in the employ of somebody (spammers are "the usual suspects" for employing virus writers lately, but why attack Microsoft and SCO, then?) who's probably using, and used to coding for, Windows. That's far more logical.
there are two elements of understanding any issue in the news
there is an informed, fair and balanced view
then there is the 15 second layman appraisal from viewing bits of media coverage
clearly, mydoom is an attack by linux zealots in the mind of the average layman
clearly, the truth is linux advocates are horrified at what this script kiddie has done
however, the court of public opinion is 99% of the population and the court of computer scientists is 1% of the population
if we have learned anything about wmd and iraq, the court of public opion matters alot, while the microscopic court of the informed matters very little
so what is mydoom all about? angry linux zealots
scream about how it is not so on slashdot, the turth is mydoom is the work of script kiddies, we all know that, but you are preaching to the choir
in the court of public opinion what mydoom is is very clear, and the informed on the issue can do very little about it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
MoFscker
Assume your implication is correct, and it is obvious that the virus writer must have been some Linux-warrior. Then it would make sense for anyone who wants to discredit Linux to write such a virus.
Thus, SCO, M$ or someone else who dislikes Linux could have written it.
I see unfounded and baseless claims about Microsoft on /. all the time, nobody complains or feels aggrieved about those. Regular posts based on outdated perceptions and ill thought out assumptions.
Funny how the media suits people when it is publishing stories that work for them.
Sadly this will get modded to Troll.
Why can't we just all get along? I'm serious. The actions of the MyDoom creators are not indicitive of the actions or opinions of the rest of the community. To say otherwise would be the same as being what you're against. I would have expected better from the BBC, but whatever.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
So we all believe the MyDoom virus attacking SCO was a coincidence? Yeah, right. Face the facts kids, it had disgruntled Linux geek written all over it.
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently. - Henry Ford
Not a troll, but try to remember the inverse of the statement "All Linux Users are responsible for the MyDoom virus" is not "No Linux User is responsible for the MyDoom virus". The validity of the statement "The MyDoom virus author is a Linux User" is not verified -- but drawing any sort of Universal conclusion (affirmatively or negatively) is not valid reasoning.
Maybe because it's an article about MyDoom, not the SCO v IBM court case ?
Do what I did when they reported in a previous article that SCO were the owners of Unix. Send them an email reporting a factual error in the article. I did, pointing out that SCO *claim* ownership but that was disputed by the people they say they bought it from (Novell).
Here's the link you'll need: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm just add your correction and the article's URL.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Mr Evans,
I assume when you went to Journalism school they stressed to you the importance of researching a subject before you start an opinionated rant.
"The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
The MyDoom virus is not sophisticated in the slightest, and any Anti-virus vendor would have told you that. It is not a self replicating worm like Blaster or Nachi that used holes in the windows code to spread itself. It is simply a program attached to an e-mail that rely's on users being dumb enough to run it. If that is your idea of sophisticated then I suggest that you dont try and report on any other IT matters. You say that this represents a new front on the war between SCO and the open source comuntiy. That is pure speculation based on the target of the DDOS part of the virus. Are you aware that the virus also contains code to alow the author and the spamming community to use these infected machines as open relays to send their anoying rubbish. I am of course assuming that you have heard of SPAM but there is no mention of this in your article, very sloppy journalism on your part or an indication of your own personal opinions about SCO and open source software.
"Deep in the darkness of the psyche, vandals and arsonists no doubt have their reasons - and so, presumably, do the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user."
Run-of-the-mill geeks? are you suggesting that you have information to indicate that this was NOT written as your standard virus to facilitate the sending of spam. You KNOW who wrote this was a nerdy crusader who just 'snapped' and wanted a piece of SCO? I'm sure the FBI/CIA/GRU would be very interested in your info. If you have this information then pass it to the authoroties, if you don't then you are widly speculating again. Do you not think that the choice of target in this case MIGHT have been made to discredit the open source movement and conceal the real intent of the virus. You see, you dont have to install a backdoor to a computer to make a DDOS attack, you need to do it so you can use that computer to do your bidding AFTER the smoke has cleared.
"It's just that the reasoning isn't easy for most of the rest of us to understand. "
There is plenty of information available on the internet for you to find this information out Mr. Evans.
"But, in the case of the MyDoom computer worm, the motivation seems clearer. " Only of you spend less that a minute investigating it.
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers into which the worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users."
This is just plain incorrect. The infected computers used HTTP GET'S to the companies web site, not a 'barrage of e-mails' Any anti-virus vendor would have been able to tell you that. Facts Mr. Evans, heard of them?
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system." There is plenty of doubt Mr. Evans if you care to take more than a superficial look at the situation. The open source community is up in arms about this, they feel that they are being framed for this because they are an easy target, esspecialy when non-impartial reporting starts pointing fingers without doing adequate research.
"On top of that, SCO has sued IBM, accusing it of using SCO property because it too uses Linux." Dare I point out that you have failed to find the facts in this case too? There is reams of information on the internet regarding this case and even a cursory glance would have told you that SCO is not sueing IBM because is 'uses' Linux. It is sueing IBM because it alledges that IBM donated code to the Linux kernel that it did not have the right to. These facts have not been proven, and SCO has not even been able
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
As a linux "devotee" (as your article would have it), I feel your article misrepresents the sentiment of the vast majority of the Linux community on the matter of the MyDoom virus.
While it is true that the Linux community in general despise SCO for their actions, it is not a widely-held opinion that the illegal and destructive actions of the MyDoom author are justified, as your article tries to suggest. Rather, the Linux community would prefer to see SCO challenged and beaten in a court of law, as their tactics are based on intimidation and assertion without evidence to back up their claims.
The fact that one maladjusted virus-author, seeking an outlet for his destructive actions, has picked SCO as a target which he, erroneously, assumes will generate him respect from "geeks" does not imply that the majority support his actions.
Your article, while paying lip-service to the fact that "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list", tries to paint the Linux community with a broad brush as unprincipled "hackers", which is, in reality, far from the truth.
You are not doing the BBC's reputation as an unbiased reporter of news any good. I expect better from the BBC.
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
And this is from a organization which allegedly deals in "news" ?
You'd think after the Hutton report, the entire editorial hierarchy would be overcorrecting for any possible hint of an unsupported accusation.[0]
Although this article reads like an opinion column, and has the lack of sources and facts tolerated in such pieces, there is no indication that Stephan Evans submitted this column as opinion. This needs to be cleared up, as Evans spends much of the article chalking up the worm to angry Linux users despite the lack of evidence in anyone's possession at the moment. MyDoom may very well be the work of a disgruntled Linux geek, but Evans seems to be attacking the entire community by association.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Everyone here should tell the BBC that they shall not publish unproven facts in this case.
If MyDoom was written by Linux zealots, wouldn't it be GPLed? I'd like to see its source code! Any .deb or SRPM out there?
Is it on sourceforge? Where's the CVS repo? Can we collectively improve it? Nah...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
If you don't like their reporting, use the feedback form:m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.st
"Linux cyber-battle turns nasty"
Is your reporter Stephen Evans aware that MyDoom is a virus that is perpetrated by MS Windows machines? Meaning the virus was written to run ON windows BY a windows programmer...
Could Mr. Evans please next time indicate where on earth he finds the factual evidence to support his amazing theory that mydoom is the "wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all", or are we now to believe the BBC supports baseless ranting against a group as diverse as those who support open source software? Couldn't it easily have been caused by disgruntled shareholders, maglignant ex employees or al quaeda for that matter?
Thank god you didn't have a luminary such as Mr. Evans sexing up Iraqi WMD stories.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
I don't think you can really justify pathetic journalism because of a few funny jibes on slashdot. SCO is trying to commandeer the work of others. Why shouldn't people make fun of them and hope them harm? Its not like they haven't tried their hardest to piss people off.
If ill informed idiots in the press choose to write articles riddled with errors and specious claims, that is their problem. They'll get their "facts" from somewhere else, at least funny comments on slashdot are entertaining to lots of people - more power to someonehasmyname, Anonymous Coward and Geek of Tech - love your work guys.
Could they have withstood the attack transparently by 302-redirecting www.sco.com to sco.com? Maybe yes, maybe no; we'll never know. Not that it matters either way -- with no products and no customers, they have little need for a reliable web site anyway.
No doubt you have received a large amount of feedback on this story. I really must add my voice. I do not intend to rant or even complain, merely to correct.
The fundamental premise of this story, that MyDoom's attack on SCO implies that the virus was probably written by linux fanatics, is flawed for a number of reasons.
If the servers of kernel.org (the linux kernel archives) were attacked by a virus in this fashion, and the BBC were to post an article baldly accusing, say, Microsoft of the misdeed, the BBC would find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit so quickly it wouldn't know what had hit it. Fortunately, all you will get from the open-source community is a huge pile of email, ranging from rants to considered responses.
A lot of people do feel very strongly about linux, about open-source software and about the SCO lawsuits. Some of these can come across as fanatical,
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Dear Sir Or Madam
As a license payer, I have always been happy that the BBC, to the best of its ability, maintains a high quality, unbiased news service.
However, as a Linux user, I am thoroughly appalled at the comments made by Stephen Evans in his article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" (URL below).
Mr Evans seems to imply that anyone who chooses to maintain his right to open Internet protocols and open data standards by using the free Linux operating system is, in fact, a malicious criminal.
While I accept that there are possibly a very small percentage of "cracker" activists within the Linux community who might be extreme enough to launch DDoS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks against SCO and Microsoft via the MyDoom virus, Mr Evans has demonstrated how little he knows about the topic he has chosen to discuss in his article.
Firstly, writing a virus is no easy task and an irresponsible programmer that chooses to create a new virus needs to have a very deep understanding of the inherent weaknesses in the application or operating system that the virus is intended to propagate through. Since the MyDoom virus spreads via Microsoft Windows & Outlook, it is therefore safe to assume that the creator is an expert Windows programmer.
Secondly, the Linux community is made of knowledgeable computer users who have chosen to use a free operating system rather than the majority choice, Microsoft Windows. Each member of the community has his/her own reasons for making this choice but, essentially, those reasons are encompassed in the following list:
1) Microsoft and other commercial vendors have quite clearly demonstrated support for a rental license model for their software such that, in future, their userbase will be forced to make regular payments to those vendors for continued use of their operating systems and applications.
The Open Source movement, which incorporates Linux as one of its "flagship" products (others being free Unix-type operating systems of the BSD family) believes that software can be created freely and handed out to the community to use and improve freely. This movement has grown despite Microsoft and continues to do so, thus demonstrating there is no need to wage some (non-existent) "war" against commercial software vendors.
2) Some commercial hardware and software vendors (including Intel and Microsoft) are keen to implement DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies in their existing and future platforms. The purpose of DRM is to create hardware and operating system combination platforms that "decide" whether or not a particular application or piece of data can be run or used on that platform. These vendors have chosen to do this not for any concerns of security of their users but because this allows them to license this technology, at cost, to other vendors and their userbase while, at the same time, allowing them to cover up security weaknesses in their own products. The only people that will lose out with DRM are the users who will find that they no longer have the "fair use" of music CDs, DVDs and software that they previously enjoyed to create MP3s/MPEGs of CDs/DVDs they own for portable players, personal backups, etc.
The Linux community defends the right of any commercial enterprise to combat piracy and loss of revenue but not through DRM technologies that restrict the basic rights of all users, not just the criminals, from having fair use of products they legitimately own. Linux will never support DRM technology and Linux users can therefore guarantee themselves a future whereby they maintain responsibility for their dats, not some commercial enterprise.
3) Virus attacks via Microsoft Windows are reported in the media on a weekly basis yet I do not recall a Linux virus ever gaining media attention.
Whilst I would not define Linux as totally secure, the open source model and regular peer code review of open source applications means that security bugs are detected & fixed very quickly. Added to this tha
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
So now I guess the BBC have joined the ranks of CNN, Fox etc... Engaging in revisionist "news" reporting... Nasty...
It only takes *one* person out of millions of developers to write a destructive virus.
The article, however, paints a picture of an organised effort by the "open source community", despite the fact that *all* the leaders of said community have come out to condemn the virus, indeed pointing out that it would damage the community through stories such as this. I'll look forward to the articles on how "the entire Muslim world" is at war with the west; how the Republic of Ireland has once again, and with a single mind, bombed London.
I think the story can best be summed up in it's own words: "There's no proof, of course".
While this is not a clear indication that the spammers sent Mydoom and other viri around the same time, it is mighty curious.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Whislt searching google for any material related to Stephen Evans, i could only find a message criticizing some show in which he argued that the EU is killing the poor Record companies of the world for not letting them expant their copyright claims above the actual 50 year period. The conclusion being that this "reporter" is undoubtedly not objective, nor does he seem eager to dig for truth or a balanced representation of facts. About those claiming that slashdot is "begging" for being accused by sco, by posting ironical messages about the MyDoom virus etc..: As an analogy i point out following argument: "No wonder a woman gets raped if she dresses up sexy". To enlighten those who are not capable of benefitting from the use of their brain, there is no excuse for accusing a person or community without any proof. All of the comments and opinions about who wrote the virus are essentially worthless, (the gardener did it!) unless there is hard proof. Just because you are happy the evil mafioso got shot in the head, doesnt mean you aimed and pulled the trigger. It is much more likely some other criminal was the one. If you want logic, it is most likely the spammer who wrote that virus saw a wonderful opportunity to strike 2 targets at once, as Bruce Perens pointed out, criminals hate linux just as much as microsoft and sco, for their effort to kill off their moneymaking spam schemes and credit-card/account theft (spamassassin. there is no pendant to it for microsoft). So what better thing than shoot your enemy, and have another enemy blamed for it? To those pointing out the double standard of slashdot when it comes to attacking microsoft/linux: The enourmous amount of deliberate lies and distortion of facts spreaded by MS along all those years makes it very easy to go down to their level and strike back. Its like someone insulting you repeatedly, and at some point, you just cant hold it back and you curse back. I think that is only human. Of course everyone in the linux community should behave better, but, we use water for cooking too, and although i think most linux users aspire to make the world a better place, we are just as imperfect as Bill Gates.
pass me those sparticles will ya?!
I got the impression from this article that the author (and, I am sad to say, along with most non-Linux users I know), see the open source movement as something that is some kind of splinter group, socialist--or at the very least anti-capitalist--experiment. If the author doesn't honestly think this way, then I can only rationalize such a slanted article by concluding he is pushing some kind of anti-Linux agenda.
As is the case with any group that has no appointed leadership handling PR, Linux users as a group have an image problem. I think we've been doing pretty well combatting this recently by engaging capitalism (and anyone that understands open source knows that it promotes competition without abolishing the idea of profiting on one's work) in a way that Joe Public can understand. IBM's alliance with Linux, for instance, is a great boon because it adds a bit of polished corporate panache. Whenever I speak to anyone about open source, I'm always careful to explain how the current system revolving around a single company (MS) that is constantly engaging in borderline anti-competitive practices is harmful. I'm always careful to make sure I clarify that this is not Microsoft's fault, though, and I think this is important because it's where the fiery Linux promoter often loses the public's ear.
Most times, ardent Linux users do little but spew venom MS's way. Besides causing the listening party to shut off, this is not quite fair because MS engages software simply as a business, and as such their first responsibility is to its employees, investors, and the largest base of customers they can satisfy--where these goals conflict with elegant software, the software suffers. This is the way the system is set up, and they're playing the game according to those rules.
I always find that once I explain that I don't hate MS, and that I'm a reasonable person, people are much more willing to listen to how open source is the next step in terms of evolving the software industry in a very capitalistic way that ultimately will benefit the end user.
People don't think about the overall business model that MS would have us follow: I write a piece of code that gets high market penetration, and because there are standards and interoperability issues, I never have to work again. I essentially have a monopoly over that platform, and I can effectively set prices within reason and live off the revenue stream continuously generated by that one single effort. This is great for the company who doesn't have to do anything beyond that initial product, but it sucks for customers, paying more and more money into a system for no new product (every time they buy a new machine, they need to buy the OS with it). Once I explain to people that open source is about paying people for the value they can provide on a continuing basis, as opposed to paying forever for a one-shot deal, people are much more amenable to the idea of open source and they begin to understand the ideas behind it.
sev
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
>>
/.
If you don't want viruses to spread, don't...
Viruses don't appear spontaneously. They are spread, not created, by bad security. Someone has to write them and release them That's where to aim your wrath. Otherwise, you're blaming a shooting victim for not wearing a protective vest.
All the BBC commentary (it isn't a news report) did was to make the rather obvious connection between a DoS attack on SCO and the more rabid zealots in the Linux community. This possibility occurred to everyone about 5 minutes after the story broke. Certainly, threats to DoS SCO are not uncommon here on
Association of Linux and viruses in the public eye will spell its end.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The text of my letter:
I take issue with the broad association between the linux community and the childish and destructive internet worm myDoom made in the article by Stephen Evans titled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
As a long time linux user and advocate I want to point out that while the worm writer may also turn out to be a linux zealot it is important to note that linux users in general condem the destructive impulse that causes someone to write a virus as much as the next person. What causes someone to become enamored with Linux and open source software in general is at it's core the constructive impulse to admire and improve on something that was built by many hands and works extrordinarily well.
It is true that we are almost all disgusted by the shameless and groundless way that SCO is attempting to profit from the sweat of thousands of volunteer programmers. If you look at what SCO is doing you will see that they are claiming as their own and attempting to charge for code that was written in the worlds most open and transparent development process by thousands of individual developers and users who added a bug report here and a line of code there. The community quite rightly has a collective feeling of ownership for the work that we have donated our time to assemble and are indignant to have an insignificant company attempt to steal from us.
We are offended -- but we don't feel the need to express ourselves through vandalism. I know that I speak for the vast majority when I say that I am confident that once SCO stops bluffing and stalling and finally lays down whatever cards they have it will all prove to be a huge farce. The only ones who will have suffered will be those who were taken in by the SCO's executives pathetic stock-pumping ploy and bought the overvalued stock of a failed tech company with nothing to it's name but a pack of ambitious lawyers.
Great comments. Unfortunately, you made at least one error in punctuation and one error in spelling, just from my quick reading. I hate to be pedantic, but in this case and others it is worthwhile. Note to the community: When you write to the media, your audience is journalism/English majors who live in fear of the editor. They will pick out your stray incorrect use of its/it's and the occasional spelling/dyslexic typo, because those will stand out like beacons to them - like a clumsy line of code would stand out to you. So use spellcheck and reread what you have written carefully before hitting submit. In the end, your submission will carry more weight.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It is now widely believed among the computer security community that this virus is the work of Russian "spammers" who use this virus to take over people's computers and use them as "spam relays".
The ploy to attack the SCO website was almost certainly an attempt to distract attention from the true purpose of this virus, a ploy your journalist enthusiastically fell for.
Even if this virus was the act of a Linux advocate, their misbehavior should not be used to tarnish an entire community, most of whom deplore the activities of virus writers and spammers. If I recall correctly, one of your presenters, Robert Kilroy, was recently suspended and later resigned from the BBC after making a similar generalization about the Muslim community based on the actions of a few Muslims.
Stephen Evans owes the Open Source community an apology.
And I find it pathetic that someone using words like "virii" and "postulates" insists on alternative spellings such as "apparantly" or "proproted" or "demonstratable". Your points are all very good, yet you're severely blunting them with your ignorant spelling. Remember, you're addressing the BBC, to whom BOTH content AND presentation matter equally, not some two-bit internet forum where members try to one-up each other in reforming English spelling. In fact, one could argue that to a stiff-upper-lip British institution like the BBC presentation matters almost more than content. You're merely confirming their stereotypes of and contempt for the geek community.
Stephen Evans's February 5 filing -- I can't tell if it's intended to be commentary, news, or an original submission to the Beeb's hitherto unknown short-story section -- makes wholly unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations against the free software and GNU/Linux communities.
Evans's smear is in the same light as tarring all African-Americans on account of the crimes of one, all Muslims on account of the terrorsism of a few, or all Brits on account of their cooking.
It's certainly true that a large element of schadenfreude comes into play when "The SCO Group", a/k/a Caldera Linux Systems, one of the first distributors of a commercial GNU/Linux system, on its last legs as a $10m and falling company, claims $50 thousand million dollars in damages on the basis of a $4 million purchase and an avalanche of contradictory statements and outright lies. Certainly Microsoft, whose software defects have severeley compromised global Internet operations four times in the past year, and remains an illegal, but unpunished, monopoly (with, I'll note, ongoing EC investigations of Microsoft's European activities), is unpopular to many.
Moreover: there's no indication that the MyDoom worm wasn't commissioned by parties with an interest in making either the Utah or Washington state dens of theives appear to be aggreived parties. This certainly wouldn't be the first time an alleged "attack" has appeared at a very opportune time for Caldera/SCO, nor that same has failed to take well-known, accessible steps to avert the potential adverse effects of a known-in-advance distributed denial of service attack, rather than cueing the violins for a heartbreak tearjerk moment.
The BBC owes the GNU/Linux and free software communities an apology, its readers, listeners, and viewers truthful rather than fabricated reporting, and Mr. Evans a severe dressing down.
Karsten M. Self
Maintainer, SCO vs IBM TWiki: http://sco.iwethey.org/
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Look, all flaming aside, it's at least plausible that a Linux user wrote MyDoom. They, perhaps more than anyone else, had motive.
If anything offends me in the article, it's not that. It's the premise contained in these lines:
If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).
So, Linux users are zealots, merely for believing that code which was the collaborative work of hundreds of thousands of individuals should not be repossessed by a private corporation which has little historical association with it?
Free software is an ideology, yes. But I don't think a free-software or open-source advocate becomes a 'zealot' until they begin making sweeping generalizations like "commerical software is evil" or "all software should be free". In the SCO case, Linux users are simply defending the status quo, and existing copyright law.
I would like to respond to your article entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
I think the best way to describe that article is "unethical journalism", in part since it has already been determined that the primary goal of the worm is to turn Windows PCs into email gateways for spammers. Analysis of the coding style of the worm suggests that it was written by a professional, not some hacker with a grudge.
But my greatest complaint is that "people who like interoperable standards" are being termed as "internet zealots". Linux users are people who want to get work done. This is an ethic that many of us have: working and being productive. Linux and open source software are major enablers because they are based on open standards which maximise interoperability. And we can do all of this without having our data (that we have worked hard to produce) locked up in proprietary formats that we can't decode.
Now, it is theoretically possible that there are some jerks who use Linux and who might also stoop to tactics as unethical as those used by SCO. But the vast majority of Linux users want to fight SCO in COURT using FACTS.
As I alluded to above, the author of the worm you refer to was clearly not written by a "linux zealot". No hard-core linux zealot would stoop to the level of actually writing software for Windows in order to attack SCO. The coding style of the worm suggests that the author knows a lot more about Windows programming than would be known by the sort of person the article characterizes as an "internet zealot" who uses Linux. Such a person would eschew Windows in all forms. This is a major flaw in the logic of the article and demonstrates ignorance of what this sort of zealotry implies. If one is that much of a zealot then certain things come with the territory. No such person would want to invest the incredible amount of time necessary to learn Windows programming that well just for the sole purpose of writing a VIRUS. That makes no sense.
It is likely that whoever wrote this virus designed it to attack sco.com with the express purpose of making the Linux community look bad in the light of recent events. The executives of SCO probably tracked down someone who was already writing viruses for spammers and paid him a lot of money to add the denial-of-service attack against sco.com. This kind of underhanded tactic has been typical of SCO since the beginning of their campaign against Linux. Lies and deception are their bread and butter.
I think the best attack against SCO is to go on with our lives and continue to be productive, adding value for software users and advancing science.
In response to:
"Linux cyber-battle turns nasty By Stephen Evans"
This article contains at its core a massive factual error. The origins, author, and intent of the MyDoom virus have yet to be discovered by any law enforcement agency or journalist. This article presents speculation on these points as fact. Blaming this worm on millions of Linux users is like blaming global warming on the BBC. It makes no sense at all. Anyone making this claim without proof should be fired.
Like so many others, I too replied to the BBC article that has riled us "internet zealots" up. I wont post that letter here... too many others have so far, and mine would simply be a rehash of things that we have all thought or written at this point...
c .co.uk
What I DO want to point out tho, is that that one point I made in my letter was the irony of Evans' story calling the OSS community a bunch of "run-of-the-mill geeks" and "internet zealouts" out for vengeance while that same story is hosted on servers running almost exclusively Linux and Apache.
Heres the netcraft report on news.bbc.co.uk:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=news.bb
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uh, if they say something that's wrong on an immutable medium like the internet, why shouldn't they change it?
Because then they don't have to take responsibility for poor reporting. The correct way to handle this is to 1) post a retraction, 2) correct the article, and 3) indicate, at the end of the article, a list of changes/corrections made since it's initial publication. Without these things in place, it's all too easy for a news organization to simply hide things when they screw up, which, I think we can agree, is a very bad thing (especially in a publically owned organization).
When I was in grade school I left a note on the teacher's desk that said "Randy is dumb, from Bill". The teacher was so stupid that Bill got paddled for it. (I'm not Bill).
This writer is as stupid as that teacher was. Believing the obvious is easy. Thinking is the hard part.
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
Since everyone keeps telling them the same things over & over, I went with a slightly different approach:
I am sure you have received too many emails to count regarding the glaring inaccuracies in the piece "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty," so I will refrain from restating what you already know. The difference is that I realized that Stephen Evans' article is, in fact, an editorial/opinion piece. In the future, it might be a good idea to label opinion pieces as such. I believe that this would reduce the knee-jerk criticisms you get, although it would be ignorant of me to suggest that this would remove them altogether.
Usually, I enjoy reading BBC news and find it to be extremely credible and interesting, but this oversight has left me slightly "peeved." Thank you for your time and all the hard work you do.
It "relies" on the fact that Outlook can be fooled into hiding the extensions on files. The arrived document is disguised to not be an .exe.
I agree that a lot of this is social engineering, and lots of people clicked on it in other email readers or in Outlook with the extensions showing. However the virus purposely included code specifically designed to use a misfeature in Outlook if it could, so saying no Microsoft vulnerability is involved is false. I guess it does not "rely" on the vulnerability, but Microsoft is not blameless here.
When I got home from work I sent the BBC the following complaint:
At a time when the is reeling from the aftermath of the Hutton report, and needs to demonstrate its journalistic and editorial integrity how does one of the most scurrilous and dishonest reports I have ever had the misfortune to read come to be published on the BBC's website. I refer to Stephen Evans's piece entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty". This one sided and nasty piece of polemic is a far cry from the type of objective comment that should be expected from a BBC correspondent.
Firstly I would object to the way that Mr. Stephens denigrates and stereotypes computer programmers. In his third paragraph he states:
"Deep in the darkness of the psyche, vandals and arsonists no doubt have their reasons - and so, presumably, do the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user."
The run of the mill geek is the person who writes the software and maintains the systems upon which computer user depends. It is the run of the mill geek who has to clear up the mess created by the individuals who write and propagate trojans such as MyDoom. If Mr. Evans had the gumption to research his piece he would have known this, all he would have had to do is talk to a few of the technical support staff at the BBC. He would have found that the average geek detests such behaviour, and is heartily sick of dealing with the mess created by it.
While it is true that the creators of such malicious code are geeks is does not follow that the run of the mill geek creates such destruction. Vandals and arsonists are members of the public but they are hardly representative of the average member of the public. Mr. Evans is a journalist but I would hope and expect that the run of the mill journalist shows more integrity than Mr. Evans.
The article goes on to claim that the motive for 'seems clear', I wish that I had Mr. Evans powers of divination. It is certainly possible that MyDoom was created by a misguided proponent of the Free Software movement, but there are two other equally plausible theories. MyDoom also carries a payload that allows it to be used by spammers to use infected machines as gateways for unsolicited bulk email, and has been linked to Russian spammers. It also neatly coincides with SCO's Darl McBride's agenda of demonising the creators and advocates of fee software as a criminal and 'unamerican' threat to the right to profit. An agenda which lazy and biased reports like that Mr. Evans parrot.
Until those responsible for MyDoom are caught their motives can only remain a matter for speculation, and any objective reporter should not favour any one plausible theory over another.
The article goes on to portray open source advocates as zealots and extremists, Mr. Evans is entitled to this viewpoint, but he should not allow it to colour his reporting. Nor should he allow it to stand in the way of his reporting of facts the contempt for SCO is not because of it being a 'big bad company' it is because SCO has demanded money from other companies, and individuals, for property it claims without providing any evidence to back up these claims. It appears to many that SCO's actions amount to little more than an attempt at extortion. There is already a court order in Germany prohibiting SCO from making such demands until such time that they can prove ownership of the code in question.
Mr. Evans finishes his article by raising the specter of individuals blackmailing companies through denial of service attacks. Such blackmail is already part of the internet experience for millions of ordinary computer users. They are subjected to a barrage of pop-ad's for software to block these self same pop-ups (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975298.html?tag=prn tfr). Unfortunately because these attacks are made by companies on individuals the legal authorities seem to be blind to the criminality of such behaviour. The problem of internet blackmail is a real one and it precede
While some of you had interesting things to say, most of the people who have posted on this thread are simply taking this too seriously. Perhaps Mr. Evens was a bit harsh in his remarks, but after I read the BBC's responce to your emails (of which there were like 70 million, all with the same responce - c'mon guys, do you think they really give a crap?) it seemed to me that they made a valid point. That article was intended for BBC News Business readers, not Slashdot readers, and perhaps this requires a bit of empathy on all our parts. As for those who found it to their liking to ramble on about "how bad journalism has gotten," yes, it has gotten bad, but I must say that the BBC is my most respected large-scale (vs. like CNN or NBC, you know) news source, and they always prove to have a relativly unbiased view on things, and do one hell of a better job at reporting "the news" than any American program/website/whatever has done for about the last 15 years. Be kind, rewind, and make yourself a sandwich. No big deal here if you ask me, which no one did.
I read that news yesterday.
And came to one conclusion.
I will never believe the media - because they tell us what they want us to see.
They change our perceptions.
Might be something so obvious to state, but I never actually felt it after reading such a unfair article as the MyDoom/Linux one.
I was then browsing the site to see if there was an email or something for me to complain.
EVERY time the media talk about Linux (BBC specially) - they talk in a negative tone. Funny though since BBC uses Linux servers throughout.
Come on, people. If you honestly believe that MyDoom was not written by a disgruntled Linux user, then you are stupid. There have been numerous DDOS attacks against SCO's web site over the last six months...is anyone out there *REALLY* questioning who would hate SCO enough to do such a thing?
Wake up and smell what you're shoveling people. Just because you yourself wouldn't do it does not mean there are not members of our clique who would.
~Knautilus