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.
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.
It was HTTP GET requests. Problem is most PHB listen to people like him but they can't even get the freaking details right on small shit like that. Yes they were probably hit bad with MyDoom email viruses but so my 6 user server. HTTP GET DDOS was targeted at them but that has been zero proof of a Linux Zealot targeting them. Let me know when you get evidence not just some speculation.
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
Don't they know what happens when you incur the wrath of linux users?
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
If the virus were written by Linux coders it woulndn't have failed so badly when it triggered. The poorly written code has to have been written by someone with intimite knowledge of poor coding skills and Microsoft vulnerabilities... Humm... Do I smell a disgruntled MS employee?
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
It represents a new degree of viciousness in internet warfare: a wickedly ingenious programme persuades thousands of computers to bombard a single website on a particular date."
They make it sound like the first... Methinks a little more research, on their parts, may be in order.
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
Here's what immediately follows that last quote...
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge. SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it.
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" ?
<grrr>
A new version of MyDoom has been found that is targetting bbc.co.uk
Why don't Steven Evans tell the whole story about SCO's claims being unsubstantiated? Maybe the guy didn't care or was serving his own agenda's? Either way, this is objective reporting at it's finest.
Sig not found.
Wow, Stephen, while you're at it, why don't you call Linux users terrorists or Nazis, too? What about all the other worms that have bowled over Windows machines for years. I suppose those were all written by those eeeeeevil Lunix h4x0rs, too, right?
The Free desktop that Just Works
How dare you claim the media would do such a thing as sway logic via news.
MoFscker
The BBC has always been a reference in public broadcasting. The only one that dared challenge its own government (Irak invasion), the one that produces the best series and documentaries, the envy of every other European country.
Let's hope this is not the beginning of a downwards slope towards the most atrocious yellow press... this is comparable to accusing all Muslim people of Bin Laden's crimes. Oh quality journalism, where are you when we need you most!
The BBC employ hacks to write dumbed down pseudo-news just the same as all the other news providers do. It's just a shame they sometimes elevate this speculation and filler material to the front page of their website along with the real news.
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
This is nothing new. Happens all the time. Usually when someone "updates" the slash code, which means we can now do the usual search for what's been broken (usually the lameness filter). Updates to slash almost never improve Slashdot.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Jeez, you might as well read the New York Times or Weekly World News for this kind of drek.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Let us all request Lord Hutton to conduct an enquiry and as usual blast BBC :)
Yes guys we can make Stephen Evans (BBC North America Business Correspondent) to resign !!!
I would argue that this violent reactionism is one sign that OSS is on the verge of mainstream acceptance. Throughout history, as new ideas have supplanted older, closely held ones, the group that holds fast to those practices and principles becomes more and more marginalized and reacts by lashing out viciously. Could this be the case here? I think it is. Hopefully these opposing voices will continue to get smaller and more violent, alienating even more people from their cause. Besides, who can argue with free publicity?
Also, I, being a 'run-of-the-mill geek', am quite flattered that I now have the ability to gleefully (and apparently psychotically) 'wreak damage' on people's computers. Guess I picked that up and didn't even realize...
[BBC: "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."]
Could someone explain to this genious what a Joe-Job is?
Great heading!
So, the BBC aren't actually saying that Linux users are behind it. They're saying that it is a theory that many people give weight to!
As it doesn't *ever* mention the backdoors that it leaves open for post-installment of key-sniffers, spam-relays, etc etc.
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
"For good measure, SCO is seeking at least a billion dollars from IBM....
SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it."
I don't think this article sees very much of the issue. Why didn't they do a more serious analysis of SCO and the fact that many top executives are dumping stock? Why didn't they look at it from a legal standpoint focusing on the etymology of the code supposedly in question? Why didn't they point out keenly that SCO has not produced any real evidence?
Regardless of what side you're on, you have to look at these things. These facts at least are concrete, vs. the complete lack of evidence specifically implicating a linux user as the author of MyDoom. For all we know, it could be SCO spreading FUD over linux and painting themselves as the victim when they in fact are responsible. We don't know now, do we?
Stories such as these are incredibly worrying to me as a journalist and as a citizen who partakes in news constantly. If people can't properly research something that is already incredibly well documented and reasonably simple, I'm wondering how utterly smegged (to use a BBC coined term) their coverage of the various complex political situations occuring worldwide.
It will just incriminate us further, it is [i]obvious[/i] that we created the virus just so the BBC could host a story about it, blaming us, [i]just[/i] so we could /. them.
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
Directly from the article:
The attack also raises the possibility of internet blackmail, with companies threatened by individuals or even an individual who might be anywhere.This attack, though, is not blackmail. It is about malice not money.
Perhaps the MyDoom virus was written to blackmail the Linux community? Without knowing the author how could you establish if it is indeed malice by an over zealous Linux user?
This article wreaks of sensationalism from a writer who sounds like he's on SCO's payroll. Shame on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm
The bbc accepts feedback on stories. It is worth letting them know that there is no evidence to suggest the involvement of members of the linux community, they may be involved or they may be a handy group to frame. If this wasn't 'scary computers viruses' the media would be be more sceptical of the obvious conclusion.
0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
So would it make the virus writer any less guilty if he wrote the virus using Windows?
Oh wait, this isn't about the virus or the virus writer. This is an excuse to say, "We don't like your operating system, therefore, everyone that uses it is probably a criminal."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I'm going to get flamed for this for sure, but if you think this had nothing to do with Linux users, you're an idiot.
Just my opinion, of course...
TheHustler
http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
I have linked MyDoom to SCO and Microsoft as well.
I have also linked Saddam Hussein to Iraq and the BBC to Great Britain.
I am very good at linking.
If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won.
He's gonna get flamed to the point of carbonization. Good lord, how could someone be so dense? Supporting evidence? Nope. Just reprehensibly lazy speculation. What some people will do for traffic. The man stains his entire publication with such drivel. I don't even use Linux much, and I am disgusted.
Is this really unexpected? Someone made a virus and threw out some bait and the BBC bit. They won't be the last, I'd expect to see something like this in the New York Times.
This reminds me of regular reporters to medical news. They might be the best reporters in the world, but it is still miss informed and sometimes just plain wrong. It isn't necessarily their fault, they just don't know what they are covering and are forced to regurgitate what info they hear first, and loudest.
PS... If an GNU/OSS lackey did this may they burn in SCO for the annoyance they've caused, you would have been better picking on Microsoft
Since there is no source code published under the GPL yet I don't believe that Mydoom was created by Linux programmers. It looks more like a closed source work.
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.
Yup. In addition, once I actually got back in, attempting to view replies resulted in being redirected to the slashdot home page.
I am starting to think that Lord Hutton was objective after all.
I'm a little confused. The BBC website has this in the news section. Now I've always understood news to be the (hopefully) unbiased reporting of facts. The "article" seems little more than the rambling musings of someone who clearly doesn't understand the situation at all - which ordinarily would put it under "editorials".
This sort of baseless conjecture should always be clearly marked as such. To pass this off as "news" smacks of the kind of wild sensationalism the BBC is world famous for.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
This guy obviously is a Lover of Bill Gates, or loves his computer being used for 'Malice'
Jimmy_h@t
'It's hard to see how any website could withstand that kind of clever evil.'
Well you could always ask MS how they managed to survive the myDoom.b virus. Of course the clown who wrote this was completely unaware that there were two variants, or that the DDOS's were not the main payload.
It can also be said that windows lends it's self to more frequent "attacks" do to it's general accessability, and lack of security.
Blaming the community of users who use a compeating product is a pretty weak claim.
Granted while this hacker who wrote this email virus, may choose to use linux over windows, would prove my point about windows security in it's self.
When I was a teen, and first learning to code, even I tinkered around with code thats only perpose was to distroy to computer it was run on. But now that I'm an adult, it doesn't make linux the official operating system of internet thugs.
IMO (ie right) People talk about operating systems too much.
-makoffee
Stephen Evans will be fired shortly for all the factual errors...
MyDoom is proprietary and binary only! This will taint the kernel!
What is this guy smoking?
Shame on you BBC, shame on you.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Well, there's really only one thing to do whenever you encounter erroneous or debatable facts in the news: Provide Feedback
they shouldn't be writing an article like that.
Isn't it amazing how totally unqualified people have a chance at a well-paying job writing this tripe, but that guy who maintains the 2.2 kernel is unemployed?
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.
Over at Userfriendly.org
0 5
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=200402
Frankly, I don't think any Linux user has enough time on his/her hands to be writing a virus. They're still trying to get their soundcard to work :)
Besides, this article completely ignores the 'Sorry Andy, I'm just doing my job' quote in the virus code. What 'job' is this person talking about?
To me, it sounds like an employee of an antivirus company apologizing to some friend of his that admins some giant mail server.
If you're writing a virus, in order to detect it and destroy it for money, what does the target matter? SCO has been in the news for so long, is easy to type (three letters!), and is universally hated, I wonder that it's taken so long for it to be a target, if for no other reason then it's new. (ie. not MS)
Again - why are all of today's virues such amazing pussies? What happened to formatting the boot sector? Changing random bytes? Creating replications so your harddrive filled up?
Now all we get are stupid, "I send you this file to have your advice" and "TEST".
Frankly, I think that anti-virus corporations should be investigated. Sure, there are the 'lone gunmen', like the guy in Minnesota (w00t) who spread some virus-lovin' not too long ago, but beyond the guys who actually put their phone number in, are any authors caught? Spammers, credit card number theives and Antivirus companies are the only ones that profit from these craptacular faux screen savers.
This author of this article probably had to take a leak, and scraped this together in 3 minutes. Oh, and if he reads this post?
Please Note: Scooby and Shaggy are always in no danger, Velma or Fred always unmask the least likely 'Old Man Caruthers' at the end, and Daphne is a sexless bitch who *still* won't give it up.
Please. Get a clue, staple it to your head, and comb it over. Thanks.
Write and tell them this Journalist has it wrong. Be nice, keep it polite and use language they will understand. Keep the geek hidden within ;) Also use your name and a contactable email address, they won't listen to idjisd from fjsdk@Fdsfsd.com
This is the Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm
This is the Feedback Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm
This is what I sent them:
This article is factually incorrect and misleading. It points out that in no uncertain terms that 'Linux zealots' have attacked the SCO website only to later say 'there's no proof, of course', but only after the author has already painted a clear picture.
While that clause makes the article legally clear it does nothing to repair the bruised reputation of BBC journalism. Perhaps IBM should be approached for there viewpoint on the matter? Or the original creator of the Linux Operating System, who always provides good copy, Linus Torvalds.
In fact the only group that stands to lose out from this attack is the Linux Community as a whole. Security analysts have come to the conclusion that mydoom has been written by SPAM distributors, the SCO attack is a diversion and a way to place blame on the Open Source Community, as they make the most effective anti-SPAM programs.
As for the attack itself, it used HTTP GET requests, not an email attack like the article states.
Please review this article as soon as possible and withdraw, correct or apologize as appropriate. It really isn't up to normal BBC standards.
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.
Change "Linux Users" for "Muslims" and "Internet Zealots" for "Terrorists" and you've practically got a story worth of The Sun. And here I'd come to expect better of the BBC.
Microsoft owns BBC too? That's news!!!! :P
In my mind, the prime candidate for releasing the virus is SCO themselves, in a bid to disgrace the Linux community.
That the story has been picked up by the BBC in such a way rather suggests that there is a hidden agenda - Politici(s|z)ing the Open Source movement.
Friends, it is time to organise. Never before has there been a time to be more together and united against such tales. Bodies that truly represents the Open Source philosophy already exists, and I suggest we all get behind them.
The FSF particularly here
The OSDL particularly here
The BBC must learn not to refer to a bunch of loosely knit hackers around the globe in terms more rightly applied to terrorist movements and political agitators. It's not good to rant as an individual with loosely knit backing around the globe. It must be done from a united front. So get with your LUGs and your websites and make sure we're all linking to the same places.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
MYDOOM found on MOON
A group of internet "Hackers" have discovered that the MyDoom Virus was, conceived, compiled and unleashed from a small crater, just five minutes walk from the Tyco Monolith!
Well, it's just as believable...
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
So basically, he got hit by the virus, looked up Symantec and saw Linux. Then got pissed and wrote something inflammatory and submitted an article.
/. ;)
I didn't know the BBC was so much like
Someone check that guy's bank account for wire transfers from SCO (or MS). It's so full of FUD and wrong facts, you may officially want to put BBC on your tabloid list. Some examples:
...
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.
And how does attacking SCO accomplish the "preservation" of Linux? Where is the logic here?
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.
SCO's website didn't go down because of "emails sent from countless computers," it went down because of a distributed DoS attack (reportedly). The guy has no idea what he is talking about and/or is lying on purpose.
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.
If anyone's actions have no measure, it is the greedy executives of a loser corporation that are trying to execute an illegal "pump and dump" scheme while trying to extort money from others.
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are corporate vandals with specific agenda to display themselves as victims of an "injustice" to portray their case more believable in the short term.
Despite the law-suits against users by SCO
Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah.
Which court case is he talking about? Which "Linux users" did SCO sue in Utah? All "Linux users?" Now I am convinced the guy is lying. I didn't think you could be this dumb and employed at BBC.
Visit the Have your Say page and fill the form in.
First witty post of the day.
Next call for an equiry to blame Darl for this.
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.
They put the linux article (quote):
next to an article on tolerance training that includes the quote: Sigh...Note the "Business" part. The guy has absolutley zero techno savvy and is just parroting the most juicy rumours.
Although, after the Hutton reporty, I am suprised that the BBC would let him get away with statements such as "There's no proof, of course". But I guess as Linux users aren't a particularly organised bunch the BBC feels it can get away with shoddy journalism and unsupported inuendo in this case.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Rarely have I seen such a tendentious ill informed article as that about MyDoom.
The article seeks to infer that Linux users and those who support open source are vandals. The words may not be there but the sloppy journalism certainly gives this impression.
My company uses Linux - we paid for installation but because of the generous idealism of the contributors to open source we did not pay for the software. The reason we chose Linux and would have willingly paid for it, is because it is extraordinarily reliable and it performs better than any of the proprietary alternatives.
I resent your implication that I or the vast majority of other users of Linux and Open Source endorse or would even contemplate the attack on SCO.
I for one do not believe that all code should be open source and I have argued this matter with many who disagree. I can tell you that not one was an "Internet Zealot" they were rational polite well informed individuals with a view point different from my own. Not one of them would contemplate acts of vandalism.
Next time you decide to write about this subject find a journalist who knows how to excercise measure and common sense. To imply that millions of individuals, tens of thousands of companies all of whom support the use of Linux and open source are even tenously associated with zealotry and vandalism is grossly irresponsible and absurd.
When you send feedback don't forget to remind him the BBC is a Linux user too http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=news.bbc .co.uk
RedFive jedi_knight111@hotmail.com
the BBC has been implicated in sexing up stories implicating Linux zealots in the MyDoom virus...just in the BBC web site has gone down due to...
-- Sig meltdown immine...
The authors of the mydoom virus could indeed be disaffected Linux supporters, but equally likely they could be some different group that is now laughing at how Linux supporters are carrying the can for their actions.
No matter what I think of SCO - what the virus does is vandalism that: hurts innocent users who have their PCs infected; hurts the Internet by hogging bandwidth; hurts SCO.
The only thing that I can say is that the authors are not my friends.
MyDoom is a virus, not a worm- I know that "worm" sounds more exciting, dangerous and computery, but a "worm", MyDoom definately is not. see www.wikipedia.org
Yes, but unfortunately, they never managed to provide a shred of credible evidence to back up this spurious claim. The evidence that has been provided so far (and there really has been very little) has swiftly been discounted by experts. Additionally, there are the small issues of SCO previously distributing Linux and System V (the system that has alledgedly been copied) themselves in the past under both the BSD, and GPL licences, which would in anycase nullify any reasonably claim.
No- it is sueing IBM for SELLING Linux
If anyones anger has no measure it is suicide bombers, serial murderers, violent dictators, psycopaths and so on. The vast majority of sensible human beings who meditate on the viability/ethics/practicalities/commercial aspects of software development, eventually conclude that open source is the most effective model for the largest amount of people
No- SCO is a wannabe big, bad company. It is actually a failed Linux vendor (Caldera) from Utah that has decided to litigate its way into profit, while simultaniously boosting share value for its stock holders.
Erm, the idea of using a virus/worm to create multiple launch pads for a massive attack on one target is hardly a new one
Putting aside for one moment the use of the words "clever" and "evil" in this context (because such an attack would be neither), all that would be required is some inventive firewall administration
This possibility has been alive and well for years- dont they give you any reading material in the BBC canteen?
I think the point of the attack, which I personally do not agree with, is to draw attention to a poorly understood yet vitally important legal argument. You do not have to be a particulary malicious person, to find SCOs actions objectionable
Regarding the people that are suggesteing that the BBC are making "unfounded claims" - this shows a complete ignorance of Hutton, and many of the aspects of the British (*note british*) case for war.
The BBC is a world wide independent organisation that reports on things like this. Under European Human Rights Law the BBC is quite entitled to make "unfounded claims" whether they are true or not; clearly they wont do it intentionaly but there is not case for liable here.
And come on guys. Lets be honest here. Do you honestly not believe that this has nothing to do with Linux or someone from the Linux community? Please. Wake up and smell the cheese.
The article, while sensationalised, IS a comment article and not a factual report. Furthermore it does not attack all or even most Linux users, it just says it is a _possibility_ that one (1) Linux user has attacked SCO. That is a definite possibility, this is far from the first Denial of Service attack on SCO since they launched their groundless legal bullying. I would have thought the author of the article himself saying it was just a possibility would have made it clear what he was saying.
Don't you think the best way to damage Linux and its user base would be to portray the community as a bunch of holistic extremists. Now think about this for a second ...
Who would gain from attacking SCO and therefore portray this image of the Linux community ?
I can tell you one thing, I don't think the Linux community is responsible for this attack.
Quite amusing that a story about the effects of the MyDoom virus - in "Related Internet Links" they're linking to www.sco.com - which everyone knows has been taken down by the MyDoom virus!
It also seems this author doesn't know his arse from his elbow - "bringing down it's website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers". I didn't know this was an Email DDOS on sco.com! LOL.
SCO's actions have threatened IBM, SGI, Novell, and a host of other companies. In addition, they've implicitly threated every *nix-running business data center in North America.
If they start claiming it was an "AIX fan" or a "disgruntled Novell admin", the media knows damn well they'd be sued into oblivion for the slander.
The "Linux community" isn't an organized group that could sue for slander, so it's "safe" for the media to associate the entire community with the supposed actions of a few.
I wouldn't put it past Darl & co. to have created and distributed it themselves just to keep grabbing media attention and paint themselves as victims again.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Your story on the Mydoom virus makes irresponsible assumptions about who is responsible. I'm really surprised that this is coming from the BBC whom I normally regard as having very high journalistic integrity.
"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."
Are you sure that the Linux zealots anger has no measure? What kind of loaded statement is that? You infer that the attackers are open source zealots. But do you have any evidence of this?
What would the logical motive of DDOSing the SCO website be for Linux zealots? SCO and spammers have more to gain by being seen as a poor victim. Read this: http://perens.com/SCO/DOS/
For some reason whenever major media outlets report on technology issues they often come accross as extreme and alarmist. I believe this is because of ignorance and poor research on the part of individual journalists. I also believe their editors fail to adequately temper them because their editors also fail to understand the issues. It's time this practice was stopped and I expect the BBC to lead the fray as I view the BBC as a major progressive journalistic force that can set industry trends. Hire some people that know what they're talking about!!! Not all geeks are bad communicators. I'm sick of reading technology articles written by people that aren't hip to the latest trends and that have no real technical experience.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
Don't they know what happens when you incur the wrath of linux users?
...and the wrath of the government, even though I'm not a fan of the British Government at the moment (Tony poodle Blair, ranking as the most arrogant 'leader' we've ever had, IMO).
I'm surprised that the BBC seem to be continuing with accusations just using conjecture and supposition... editorial control extends to any net articles as much as TV commentary at 6am in the morning (I'm relating to the Hutton/Kelly incident btw).
This is at a time when I have had a large amount sympathy for the BBC and what it has gone through the past few weeks, but this does not help them at all... who next are they going to piss off?
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Did anyone else notice that in the external links provided on the right that "Linux" points to Linux.com not kernel.org? Is this further bad reporting or an advertising buyoff?
I would liken this article and the reactions to other similar news items:
Muslims in middle east are not too fond of Israel. Muslim zealots blow up a coffee shop in Tel Aviv. Most of the world it seems to be done muslims who definitely seem to be zealots. Most people also agree that very few muslims actually do like to blow up coffee shops. Still, at least in the western world, terrorist bomb attacks are mostly associated with muslims, right?
Similarly, many christians have anti-abortion views. Christian zealots gun down abortion clinic workers in the U.S. Again most christians don't like this and most people agree this is not something "normal" christians do. And still these kinds of attacks are kind of automatically associated with right-wing christians, right?
So Linux users are anti MS and anti SCO. Someone creates a virus/worm that attacks MS and SCO. What do people who make the above associations think about this? Well it's obviously Linux zealot doing it, right?
The thing I don't know for sure is, do those people realize the difference between a Linux zealot and a Linux user? Probably those who don't think on lines muslim => terrorist also don't think on lines Linux user => Internet terrorist.
P.S. I'm not taking any sides to anything on this post. Events referred to here are fictional and any resemblance to real world events would be sad and hopefully a figment of your imagination.
How dare they calling me angry?
After this and the Hutton inquiry, they are done - for me at least.
I stopped watching CNN because of the Iraq war, now I will stop watching BBC. Hopefully Euronews will remain objective, otherwise I will get my news exclusively through slashdot (not specially objective, but at least there is no "master plan" behind it)
When a US postal worker goes into the office and guns down his co-workers, then its obviously a government conspiracy to lower head counts. After all, the postal worker was a federal employee. (And man, it is a pain in the ass to fire a unionized federal employee...)
Or we can presume that the BBC is a company comprised of idiots, because of this idiot. And further proof, his editor approved the story.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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)
Mac users who think that a dual G5 was turned into a PC have much more anger
The BBC has printed some false information in this article.
"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 was launched by one specific individual, not an entire community of people. This statement implies the open source community actively participates or otherwise condones Cyber Crime. This is false.
"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"
This statement implicates an entire community of people as criminals. The reality: a "run-of-the-mill geek" and a criminal hacker are two entirely different creatures.
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all"
The article's hateful stereotypes are further developed in this sentence. Because somebody has a belief they are labled an angry zealot. Despite thisarticles horrible portrayal of the open source community's restance to SCO, we are not malicious and violent people, but calm, intelligent, and calculating. We do not appreciate media disseminating patently stereotipical and hateful material. Shame on Stephen Evans and the BBC for writing and publishing this article.
To blog is sublime
Regarding the story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm ) which appears on your website today ( 05-02-2004 ):
It is entirely possible that the "MyDoom virus" was created to discredit the open source community by generating bad press such as this story.
That this didn't occur to Stephen Evans, the story's author, is inexcusably bad journalism. Furthermore, even if it should turn out that the author of the virus is an open source zealot, to tar and feather the entire open source community for the actions of a single individual is at best unfair, and again, very bad journalism.
Elsewhere in the article, Evans uses such language as, "It's hard to see how any website could withstand that kind of clever evil" and "It is about malice not money."
It is, of course, not the place of a journalist to draw conclusions or make value judgements; journalism is meant to be impartial, and report facts.
Evans' piece violates these time honored principles cavalierly; one must question his motives in doing so.
At any rate, this piece does not meet the high standards of journalism one associates with the BBC; I sincerely hope that Evans will be reprimanded for his irresponsibility and that the editors will be more critical of his work in future.
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
I am rather worried about the suggested link in this article between the linux community and the MyDoom worm.
Although part of the article acknowledges that there is no proven link, the headline and much of the content suggest such a link is already established.
Furthermore, it mis-represents the linux community with phrases such as "internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all"
In the SCO dispute, the anger among the linux community is caused by false claims of copyright ownership by SCO, and possibly copyight license infringement by SCO.
Whether code should be free or not is an important topic to the community but has nothing to do with the SCO case. It it about ownership and copyright. Not about violating "sacred principles"
Finally, some factual errors. Firstly, the article mentions patents in one of the headings which have nothing to do with the case. (and aren't even talked about in the article) Secondly, the article claims the SCO website was brought down by a "barrage of emails" which is not true. It was brought down by a barrage of web page requests.
Regards,
Martin. (who considers himself a member of the linux community and believes in copyright proper licensing and is certainly not a zealot)
PS. It has also been suggested that the MyDoom virus was SCO sponsored in order to try and frame the linux community. There's no proof for that either, why not run a story on it!
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Thank crap for the feedback form, just hope it doesn't go to /dev/null
..should possible read:
-------------
How dare you,
Coming off the back of the Hutton 'enquiry', I cannot believe that another one of your reporters are resorting to more false accusations and suppositions just to make a front page article, I thought that was for the likes of the 'Daily Sport'.
The article by 'Stephen Evans
BBC North America Business Correspondent' has not done the BBC good in the eyes of clued up IT people. I have read some good articles recently on BBCi (I cannot remember the reporters name, but he interviewed Bruce Perens) about IT and the SCO situation, but this kind of article does not help, and only serves to discredit your organisation (I should say 'our' since I have to pay the 'TV' tax called the license fee) in the eyes of those 'geeks' you seek to slander.
To quote the article:
"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."
"Deep in the darkness of the psyche, vandals and arsonists no doubt have their reasons - and so, presumably, do the run-of-the-mill reporters who wreak damage on the unsuspecting reader."
Not good BBC, not good at all.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3201399.stm
(dealing with "campus pirates")
In other words it seems his actions can be summed up with: "the internet is evil, very evil."
And all the blacks are criminals and media is owned by the Jews. ... Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't being too politically correct, but that is exactly what BBC was doing by putting the Open Source advocates in the criminal category. If they are all trying to be politically correct towards the races/religions/gender/etc./etc. in this day and age, shouldn't they have the same attitude towards the Linux users "minority".
I could see how affirmative action would be useful to getting a job or get scholarships. "We would hire you sir, but you see, you just happen to be using Windows and we want to make our company more diverse and all-inclusive"
I think his accusations are unfair and unfounded. The author ascribes the actions of a single person to the entire community. I for one as a Linux user would never consider writing and using a virus to protest the actions of SCO and I am pretty sure that the majority of linux users wouldn't. That only one MyDoom virus has been written so far attacking SCO should be proof enough that Linux users everywhere aren't a horde of evil hackers. There is of course the tendency for a journalist with more style than substance to mistake sensationalism for informative news. If he were responsible he would not pass his own opinions off as fact.
Revenge of the Geeks - The Cyber Geek Connection
... They've been mocked .. but now they have returned .. more vicious and stronger than ever, and they will hit you where you least expected ... YOUR WEBSITE"
..
"They've been kicked
ahh well, maybe not that funny
I fuse with Mercer every single day...
There is a NYTimes article which states that geeks blame non-so-computer-savvy users for opening e-mail attachments. quote:
The virus spreads when Internet users ignore a basic rule of Internet life: never click on an unknown e-mail attachment. Once someone does, MyDoom begins to send itself to the names in that person's e-mail address book. If no one opened the attachment, the virus's destructive power would never be unleashed. end of quote.
You can't change the world,
But you can change the facts,
When you change the facts,
You change point of view,
When you change point of view,
You can change the vote,
And when you change the vote,
You can change the world.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
I am writing concerning the article written by Stephen Evans entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty.'
While I agree with the author that the MyDoom virus is a sophisticated way of attacking companies, I find that his links to any 'preservation [of] the open-source Linux operating system' to be rather lacking (if not downright non-existant.
Let's get facts straight first:
Sco is not seeking at least 1 Billion dollars. Initially this was true, but it has increased its litigation to 3 Billion dollars.
There is no court case between linux users and SCO. The court case is between SCO and IBM. The actual litigation is to decide whether IBM breached their contract with SCO and allowed SCO code into the Linux Source Tree.
Now let's look at his theory that should be 'at the top of any investigator's list'.
A grudged Linux user writes a virus to attack a company that is attacking the very foundation of his/her own business...Linux.
I concur that this is a possible reasoning, especially in the mindset of SCO and any other corporate software (especially Operating Systems) makers. To enforce this idea, let's look at SCO claiming that the GPL (General Public License) is unconstituional:
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31975.html
Bear in mind that we know that SCO refuses to allow us access (albeit under a re-inforced Non-disclosure agreement that prevents us from working on linux afterwards) to the code that they are complaining about. Also remember that SCO wasn't always SCO. In fact it was Caldera (a linux distributor) and that original SCO is now Tarantula (spelling???).
Now, how about this for a theory:
SCO knows that they're attacking Linux users. They know that their site is currently redundant. They realise they can black the name of all Linux users quite easily by attacking themselves. After which, they can claim, possibly, that Linux users are terrorists against the proper functioning or corporate America and therefore should be prevented from distribution and/or continuation. Considering Miscrosoft is the biggest contributor to SCO currently this would not be too far from reality, especially considering that Microsoft have already been found guilty of law in California. If they can abuse their monopoly in one way it is only natural that they could do it in another. They also have the perfect access to their code that allows them to exploit their opertating systems.
Now, this is also a theory based on 'non-facts' but just as valid a one. Print it, if you so wish because it is just as valid as the above mentioned article.
So my complaint is that while it is all well and good to print articles based on non-facts, please look at the whole range of possibilities rather than just the one that, unsurprisingly, supports the corporations.
Yours sincerely,
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Everyone here should tell the BBC that they shall not publish unproven facts in this case.
Wow, what an article, it brings journalistic research and factual accuracy to new lows with some baseless assertions thrown in for good measure. I thought the BBC just got spanked over poor journalism.
Factual Errors:-
1. "bringing down its website with a barrage of emails"
The MyDoom virus used a barrage of HTTP requests to bring the www.sco.com website down. Websites and mail systems are different, they use different protocols, ports and servers. The virus spread by email, it *did not* use email to perform a DDOS on www.sco.com.
2. "Two years ago, SCO claimed that it owned more than 800,000 lines of the system which had always been available for free and to anyone since its invention in 1991."
This is actually a few errors in one, bravo!
"Two years ago" - This is incorrect, SCO first claimed that Linux contained improperly contributed Unix code in early 2003, this is not two years ago! At that time it did not claim "more than 800,000 lines" that came later.
"...claimed 800,000" - SCO expanded its PR claims in mid 2003 to include the "more than 800,000 lines" quote. This is only 6-7 months ago, not two years ago.
"since 1991" - SCO has claimed that contributions to the Linux kernel post v2.4 impinge on its rights - this is not the code from 1991. It has not yet claimed rights to any of the 1991 code!
3. "On top of that, SCO has sued IBM, accusing it of using SCO property because it too uses Linux."
SCO has sued IBM over a contract dispute, it has not sued IBM because it uses Linux! SCO has claimed that IBM has used Unix methods and trade secrets improperly in its contributions to Linux (SCO claims it is a succesor in interest to Unix copyrights, methods and trade secrets which Novell sold to Tarantella - this is also in dispute).
4. "Despite the law-suits against users by SCO,"
SCO has not sued any Linux users. It has sued IBM, it has been counter sued by IBM, Red Hat has sued SCO, SCO has sued Novell. At no time has SCO sued a Linux user.
5. "Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah."
There is no court dispute between SCO and Linux users (see above).
So most of the article is factually incorrect, and then he casts baseless assertions with a follow up disclaimer.
"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's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list."
What sort of journalism is this? This should be in a crappy tabloid not a government owned and respected news service.
This is what I've sent:
... a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system." - SUPPOSITION. This comment has no factual basis whatsoever.
..." - FALSE. The court action is between SCO and IBM, as in fact the article states elsewhere.
The article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3457823.stm, entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty' is full of supposition and has so many factual errors it's just not funny:
"It is
Use of 'geek'. This is usually used as a term for someone who has extremely good technical skills. The article refers to "run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user." - this is an unwarranted attack on many self-proclaimed law-abiding geeks. Someone who "wreaks damage on unsuspecting computer users" is a criminal, pure and simple.
"Patenting Linux" - MEANINGLESS. This heading half-way through the article has no meaning. No-one is suggesting that they wish to patent Linux, no-one is suggesting that Linux *should* be patented, the article does not discuss the patenting of Linux.
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails" - FALSE. The virus attacks SCO's webserver, it has nothing to do with email.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted [...] because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system." - NO PROOF. Given the nature of the virus - it creates backdoors to facilitate the spread of spam email - the denial of service attack on SCO's webserver could simply be a 'distraction' programmed by the author of the virus, since there's no denying
that SCO is Bad Guy Of The Moment in many Linux users' eyes. Given that this article has been written, it would seem to have been a *successful* distraction! The author effectively accuses Linux users of a criminal act without any proof.
"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)." FALSE - the author of the article has done no research. Linux users are generally proud to extol the merits of the GNU Public License. This software license does NOT mean that "all code should be free", rather that "all *free* code should *remain* free", a
rather important distinction. And what on earth is "internet zealot" supposed
to mean?
"Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users
"It is about malice not money." - SUPPOSITION. If the virus was written to help spammers and the spammers are out to make money, then that strongly suggests that it *is* about money, yes?
In summary, as even the article itself admits: "There's no proof, of course." - TRUE, for once in this article.
Fact-based news, then? Not a chance.
Be interesting to see if they reply - don't know whether they routinely do that or not.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
Not really. Bush _is_ a fool but OSS advocates _didn't_ write MyDoom. 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Shame I couldn't find Stephen Evans email address easily, or I'd have delivered an incendiary missive straight to his inbox.
Yes it mentions in depth the possible links back to the Linux and open source community, but does so in the context of saying this is a theory which is being touted as a possible reason.
Working for the (other) man
It is disturbing in the extreme that in the week that the BBC stands accused of shoddy journalistic practice that I come across an article on the BBC website that stands as a glaring example of further malpractice.
In the referenced article, the author accuses elements of the open source community of being behind the MyDoom virus.
Two-thirds of the way through the article however, the author declares "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list."
This kind of spin is known as "bait and switch" and is rather reminiscent of the tired old question "When did you stop beating your wife?"
The accusation sticks in the mind of the reader, tarnishing the community, even though the author undermines his entire line of reasoning by admitting he's only theorising and has no proof to back up his accusations.
The story below is so full of errors and intentional mistakes that I can only imagine it has been thought up with an agenda in mind.
I am a linux user and enthusiast, and in no way I feel myself associated to the creators of the myDoom virus. I can not assure that the creator has nothing to do with linux, but neither can you assure the contrary, as you repeatedly do in your article.
The fact that one of your reporters plainly lied about the government reports on the war to Iraq (mind you, I am in no way supporting that invasion), has not led to the conclussion that the BBC systematically makes up reports, has it?
Well, now I start to think that maybe that is the case. You can count me as one customer less.
This article is by the business correspondent about the MyDoom virus, claiming that it was written by a Linux user and then going off on a tangent about internet blackmail and malice.
The article appears to be a sensationalist tabloidesqe bit of nonsense that was written with no research in order to meet a looming deadline, or to increase the story count of the reporter in question (assuming he's paid per story).
It appears to pick up on the 9/11 vibe of "there are malicious people out there who are willing to make an attack out of hatred".
Also, internet blackmail tends to be centered more around cracker groups getting into a bank's database, and then emailing the bank asking for $10000 or something. Losing one's front page for a day or two is nothing in comparison, and if MyDoom is the scale required to launch an effective attack against a big site then it's not going to be a frequent problem.
I would hope that any reader who is reading BBC news instead of a tabloid is smart enough to see right through this article.
is trying to turn this into a "Linux" versus "SCO" war. The Economist recently had this to add to the "arguments":
"SCO [...] and Microsoft [...] have only one thing in common. Both are passionately hated by 'open-source' programmers..."
The article goes on to mention the "hatred" of the open source community a couple of more times.
It could be argued that without these emotional tag words there would be no story, but in the case of SCO, the truth would be stranger than any fictions.
-|-
.sig available on 'Need To Know' basis only!
I'm afraid the BBC is an organisation whose journalistic standards are currently in free-fall.
Several times I have pointed out factual errors in articles that they have published and never once have I recieved a response. As a resident of the UK I am dissapointed and embarrased by their recent conduct.
Articles like this just serve to deepen the BBC's current crisis.
(PS: I believe the Hutton Report was a whitewash but still think the BBC are at fault.)
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.
The MyDoom virus takes advantage of the users of Microsoft operating system so it is evident that, in fact, Microsoft users are an essential help in DDoS attack on SCO. The virus has also been written for the Windows operating system, therefore, it was written by a Windows programmer. This makes perfect sense because Microsoft is trying to gain marketshare from UNIX.
It's easy to speculate. Unless there aren't hard facts, it's easy to sling mud at anyone who is even remotely involved. Microsoft is somehow involved just like Linux is. So in the long-running Slashdot tradition, why not just blame Microsoft regardless of facts?
I wrote to them as follows:
;o)
"""
I find Stephen Evans' "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" story rather unfortunate. He accuses the Linux community over the recent 'MyDoom' virus but seems to ignore several pertinent points.
The malicious virus in question doesn't merely launch a denial of service attack on www.sco.com, it turns infected Windows machines into email relays to distribute spam. Just as it uses social engineering techniques to trick people into infecting their machines, it uses the attack on www.sco.com to distract us from MyDoom's real purpose -- which has got nothing to do with the SCO/IBM lawsuit.
Linux users dislike spam just as much as users of Microsoft Windows or other computer operating systems. Indeed, parts of the open source community have been very successful at defeating spammers; without open source tools like SpamAssassin (used by many Internet Service Providers) far more spam would be reaching our inboxes. I'm sure the spammers are delighted with the bad press Stephen Evans is giving the open source movement.
The author of MyDoom clearly knows more about the internals of Microsoft Windows than most open source programmers, who are far more interested in the internals of open source software.
Finally, I note the BBC are big users of Linux and open source -- indeed, at the time of writing your news.bbc.co.uk site is running Linux on the open source Apache web server. Perhaps Stephen Evans will be accussing the BBC's webmasters of being involved next?
"""
I certainly don't pay my licence fee for the beeb to label me as a criminal (hey, I use linux so I must be a criminal!)... I've sent a strongly worded complaint to them, I urge others to do the same:
----
This story is completely inaccurate, and I would go so far as to say that it
is libelous against almost the entire opensource community.
"It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the
open-source Linux operating system."
This is a completely unfounded accusation - practically the whole open-source
community has condemned the actions of the MyDoom author. This attack is
either:
1. A single extremist with a screw loose. Every group of people has these -
religious extremists often walk into busy shopping centres and blow themselves
up. If the media held their whole religion responsible for the actions of a
few extremists there would be hell to pay.
2. A publicity stunt by SCO - there is documented evidence that shows that SCO
have faked attacks on their own website in recent months for the publicity
value and to give the open source community a bad name.
3. A publicity stunt by spammers - there are proven links between spammers and
viruses - many of the recent viruses have been used by spammers to both
perform denial of service attacks on leading anti-spam services and to perform
spamming services for these people. The opensource antispam software is at
the forefront of antispam technology and it is in the spammers' interest to
discredit the opensource community.
By publishing this article that makes wild accusations, you are only helping
the people responsible. Almost noone wants security problems on the internet
- it's almost as much of a problem for linux users as it is for windows users.
Yes, these viruses won't infect a system that's not running Windows, but
that doesn't stop them flooding out email inboxes and using precious
bandwidth across the internet.
In future, please put some thought into your articles before publishing such
defamatory material.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I mailed them to point to them that they ar factual errors.
You can report these by hitting the button on the end of the site.
From the article.
"It is also a new front in a war waged by THOSE who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
I indeed want to preserve and encourage the open-source Linux operating system.
Therefore I am one of THOSE.
I, like the vast majority of Linux users/contributors do not engage in illegal activities as your story claims.
I'm not "at war" with anyone.
Is there any possibility that this article could be re-written to include some facts rather than ill-formed opinion disguised as fact.
I does the reputation of the bbc no good at all to pass off shoddy work of this nature as professional journalism.
Regards
This is what I wrote using their feedback form. I think it might be a good idea to make judicious use of their feedback system to let them know of our side of the story (politely, of course;)
Hi,
I was dismayed to read the article tiled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty". The author has distorted the truth to the extent that it is no longer recognizable as such; made direct accusations aimed at the Linux community without a shred of evidence (and in fact considerable evidence to the contrary, e.g. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/42125.htm ) and stated biased opinions as facts. A quote: "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."
Little doubt, indeed ! Internet security experts have repeatedly claimed that the MyDoom virus is most likely to have created by professional smammers, not Linux advocates (see link above). It is clear that MyDoom is a Windows virus and targets known security vulnerabilities in the Windows Operating System, and hence unlikely to be written by a Linux expert. If the author had done a little research before openly attacking the Linux community, he would easily have found that out. Unfortunately, it is apparant that he did nothing of that kind.
The most disturbing thing about this article that it appears as normal news item, not even an opinion piece, and still the author is audacious enough to make bold direct accusation which can only be termed as slander, and thinks of getting away with it.
A choice quote from the article: "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.". Well, if there is no proof, then why make such direct accusations which flies in the face of all evidence ?
All this is from a organization which allegedly deals in "news" ?
I must express my deep dissapointment that a respected organization such as the BBC would make such a blatantly ill-researched and biased article appear on its site, without a thought about the damage that such articles could inflict on the image of the Linux community. I am afraid articles like this can only be attributed to one thing: sensationalism, something one does not expect from an organisation of BBC's stature.
Yours,
Biswa.
because if you could I assume that a 'linux zealot' somewhere will give Mr. Evans (-1, TROLL ). Ahh, if only.
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402050 05057966#
Not just about the BBC article but it is mentioned.
Worst
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.
My complaint....
I didn't include my conspiracy theory that the BBC is taking orders from Redmond via (our glorious leader) Tony Blair due to the recent shaming of the BBC in the Hutton inquiry. Bill Gates was kinghted while his company is being taken to court in Europe for monopolistic practices after all. Can you say "Ministry of Information"?
My feedback:
The analysis does not go very deep and there are factual errors.
There are many reasons to attack SCO. SCO is in the news, SCO is not very big. It's a perfect success control. When the company Website goes down, the virus was successful. the media report the number of infected systems and they even give advise, what the author could do better the next time.
The DDOS attack is NOT the only function of Mydoom. But nobody talks about it. Why should a user bother about SCO? But in fact the virus is a severe danger for the users.
Another point: the author of the most successful malware for Windows is primarily a Linux user? No - he must use Windows to create this virus and he has to know a lot about the system. Conclusion: The author is surely a windows developer and has perhaps sympathies for Linux.
A factual error: there are yet no lawsuits SCO versus Linux users. As far as I know SCO has only announced to do.
Another factual error: "It represents a new degree of viciousness in internet warfare" - these attacks are well known since 2000 and unfortunately an ordinary thing.
Interesting point Mr. Coward. I agree that flooding the BBC with CAPITALIZED RANTS would only make the point that the world is full of Linuz Zealots who would like nothing more than to see SCO burn to the ground.
I would hope that anyone who did reply to them would have done it in a calm and reasoned manner as displayed by the people who have posted their replies here.
I think I speak for the majority who think that we simply want the facts to be presented rather than this journalists opinion.We want to make sure that tis article is not taken as fact by the VAST majaority of people who will read it. They will read it in it's current form and think "Wow, these linux people are a bunch of mainiacs". We dont want to see people put off using the OS just because of reading articles like this.
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
Even if a "Linux Zealot" wrote Mydoom so what? A virus is written by a Linux Zealot, so all Linux supporters are Virus writers. A Black man rapes a women, therefore all Black men are rapists.. Easy logic, huh?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
The majority of them that we could see were +5: Funny - a fact that people keep seeming to forget. Of course the diea of getting purposefully infected to help DDoS someone like SCO will be seen as a funny concept. Not smart, sure as hell not the right thing to do, but worthy of a damn good laugh. (Especially first this in the day, when you're reading Slashdot to help cope with a day of work)
Plus I woudln't be surprised if just as many were modded down as Troll or Flamebait.
Just for some strange reason, many of us don't browse with a Flamebait+5 modifier for general browsing. So we'd not see those.
That said, it can backfire when non Slashdotters browse Slashdot. Anything modded down won't show - meaning that you lose the impact of dumb comments being rated negatively. But anything modded funny will show, and with nothing except a single word to show that it's got a high score for humour not 'cos it's making a serious point.
TiggsTiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
The SCO website was taken down by SCO before the attack (see all the posts about DNS changes).
And later ...
Which is it, Mr. Evans?
The sum is three billion dollars Stephen.
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."
You might be interested in another UK news outlet's take on the story, here.
The BBC, although trusted and mostly accurate, is becoming more and more tabloidy. Just look at how many of their main stories are 'in quotes like this'; a sure sign they are reporting second hand news, press releases and suppositions.
The Guardian has always offered a fairly good view of issues, and I would happily recommend it to those in the US who are keen for an outsider's view of the US.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Trolling using another account since 2005.
MyDoom was secretly created in a Microsoft lab, with the idea of taking out two birds with one stone.
Sir,
I'm writing in regard to the recent article on your website:
Linux cyber-battle turns nasty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm)
The article seems remarkably poorly written, both with respect to the facts (and more importantly, the unknowns, which the author takes it upon himself to stab at regardless), and also in light of the inflammatory language he uses throughout the piece. It seems to be what is known as "trolling" on the internet: a deliberate attempt to raise the ire of an audience. Perhaps a commercial news organization might relish this approach, because for them, more readers equate to more revenue; but for the BBC, it's a thorough disappointment.
I won't detail the inaccuracies, as I'm sure you already have countless letters along those lines, but please don't let another such embarassingly low quality piece slip into your otherwise excellent reporting.
Yours faithfully,
Besides using their feedback button, you can also register a complaint if you feel that they have breached editorial standards. To do this, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/contactus/serious.shtml
I'm surprised that no-one has picked up the other gems
- the lawsuit from SCO against IBM for "using linux"... [not that it's even related to copyright...]
- the lawsuit from SCO against the linux community that occurs this year. [anyone got a date/place for that???]
- that 'open source' means that code must be 'free' [wasn't the term "open source" designed to remove this misinterpretation?]
- 'zealots', articles are always good when you have zealots, it's a sign of balanced journalism!
- these 'new attacks'... I'm glad this is the first DDoS...
- "The attack also raises the possibility of internet blackmail" really? I thought the BBC has reported on many occaisions that this has already happened.
----
This is basically crap editorial standards. The journalist [basically someone that covers general trends in the US], has no technical expertise at all. This article SHOULD have been sent to the technology editor to check prior to publication and this would never happened.
Scary to see that Hutton was so right about the editorial system being deficient/'not present'. The beeb is free-for-all, any story gets published and then backed to the hilt by a board of idiots.
Rather than farting around with the feedback form (>/dev/null), start the formal complaints process rolling. The Programme Complaints Unit (PCU) deals with serious editorial complaints about all publicly funded BBC services (including the websites). Start by filling in the form.
I would imagine the BBC are currently quite touchy about editorial standards, so you might get a quick response.
Taken directly from the CNN article detailing the MyDoom virus (1/29) "...SCO, a small Utah-based software maker suing International Business Machines Corp. over the use of code for the Linux operating system, has been the target of denial-of-service attacks in the past by apparent pro-Linux protesters..." Awfully boring compared to the BBC article, isn't it? It's too bad that something like this needs to be "sexed up" for people to actually pay attention.
~LD "My destiny was to be a karma whore. Then, I forgot my user name."
Of course we all take pleasure out of SCO's misery. Why should we hide it? They're a bunch of rotten cock-smokers (the litigious bastards campaign was a success, it's time to expand it), and we all hate the bastards. I think it's time the English-speaking world get a concept of what Germans call Schadenfreude, because you, like everyone else, are perfectly capable of having this emotion.
The lack of a word for it seems to make some of you incapable of recognizing this. Asking everyone to hide their "malicious satisfaction of SCO's misfortunes" is about the same as asking people to pretend they didn't do it, even if they didn't do it anyway.
I say this about the SCO website situation: It serves them right, but I'm not going to take the blame for it. Hell, I haven't even had the virus sent to me yet.
Linux cyber-battle turns nasty
By Stephen Evans
BBC North America Business Correspondent
The MyDoom virus has triggered a new wave of attacks from lazy business journalists. It is also looks like a new front [sic] in a war waged by those who want to argue from facts and those who just make up anything that comes into their heads.
It's usually no easier to fathom the motives of virus creators than it is of any other perpetrator of damage for damage's sake. But I'm going to be clever and subtly equate their motives with normal geeks in the first paragraph just to prepare the ground for you. There - done.
In the case of the MyDoom computer worm, the motivation seems clearer. This is a good point and I'll ignore the alarm bells it rings, since I've just said how most virus writers' work is baffling to explain. Then I'll introduce SCO as the victim and assert that the perpetrator was someone devoted to the Linux operating system.
The a quick paragraph on the history of the case which gets almost all major facts wrong followed by an entire section drawn on the very shaky premise that it must have been a geek Linux internet zealot who believes that code should be free to all. A few pointed jabs at Linux users later and I'll quickly admit that there is no proof of any of this, but that my (and of course your) conclusions should be clear.
My conclusion is just as lazy. A nice section of speculation and poor research to finish off - with all the usual trigger phrases like "experts are pondering", "possibility", "might", and "internet blackmail."
By now you can guess that I am an utter moron, with no more qualifications to be a business correspondent than a piece of cheese.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone else here read Atlanta-Journal-Constipation when they see AJC? I know someone else who does.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I had the page loaded in the browser and blindly reloaded the page (not sure why), something changed!
I'm not sure how much changed but the line you quoted is now
The MyDoom virus has triggered a new wave of attacks on company websites.
Apparently, it was last updated 10 hours ago, which is wrong by about 9 hours.
The attack also raises the possibility of internet blackmail, with companies threatened by individuals or even an individual who might be anywhere.
Say what now?
BB
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.
The artical litterally says the people who oppose SCO want ALL software to be free.
The artical compleatly ignores the fact that SCO is basicly stealing Linux.
Then the artical having already pinning the blame for MyDoom firmly on Linux users says
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
I might note that in any given murder case the significant other is at the top of the list of people to investigate. However it is increadably unprofessional for a reporter to make the same speculation.
In fact it's just tacky to report any sort of speculation like that.
And it's certenly tacky to do with out researching the details.
The Linux community has much as accused SCO of manufacturing the DDoS attacks up to now. I'll wager dollars to donuts nobody from the Linux community would want to DDoS SCO considering it seams SCO WANTS to be DDoSed.
I don't actually exist.
please note that the box 'related internet links' includes www.sco.com.
Seems like the bbc doesn't even understand their own article..
I sent some feedback on the original article, and pointed out the serious errors in the story, as well as the fact that they mentioned a "computer programme[sic]"; even here in England we say "program".
I also mentioned that their description of SCO receiving millions of emails bringing down their website was incorrect.
I just checked their site again, and both of those errors have been corrected. Sadly, the factual errors remain.
the BBC feedback form is Here!
this is my feedback to them:
Stephen Evans' story (URL below) is a disgrace, and significantly changes my impression that I can trust the BBC to provide factual reporting.
As I think you may get a few complaints, let me focus on the more blatant bits of journalistic unprofessionalism:
(1)(quote)the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user(end quote) Does Mr Evans have any statistical evidence of what these "run-of-the-mill geeks" are. My analysis of the source of damage on computer user is much more that professional criminals: spammers, hackers with specific purposes, PR stunt agents, are to blame.
(2)(quote)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).
(end quote)
This is a great misrepresentation of what open source is: open source software is not necessariliy free from associated payments, many companies are now basing a sound business model on the distribution, support, and services, around open source software: these are for-profit organisation. Mr Evans seems to have only a very vague idea on what open source actually is, and misrepresents it in a damaging way I think.
(3) lack of reference: the Internet is full of detailed accounts on the ins-and-out of the SCO matter. Mr Evans provides links to none.
- SCO website down - does it hurt their business? I guess not much, however, it does give them good publicity - that of a victim; Link #1 for Linux (Linuxoid SCO haters).
- Microsoft website targeted but not down -- good publicity for Microsoft; Link #2 for Linux (Linuxoid MS haters).
- Millions of losses and aggravated users - extremely bad publicity for the virus and people associated with it, of course;
So, the net effect of the virus has certainly hurt the reputation of Linux/OpSrc world, because its targets can try to link the virus to L/OS by its choice of targets.Based on the current knowledge of the virus and the above, I would say there are 3 basic motivations for the virus creator(s):
- Spammers testing their tools, as indicated in the above
/. comments. In that case SCO/MS attack would simply be a way to have publicity for checking to see how their virus is doing.
- A zealot trying to hurt SCO/MS. In that case he was very dumb -- of course it is not impossible though, so we can't rule this possibility out.
- It was a publicity stunt by Microsoft. Could be linked to first motivation too. Note that the net effect of the virus for Microsoft has been beneficial PR wise. After all, their systems withstood the attack -- never mind it was said that the attack on MS was much weaker.
Noting also that the virus creator has had considerable Windows programming skills (which is not the experience generally associated with OpenSource programmers), I believe that the 3d motivation is not entirely impossible either. Especially if it was linked with first.Although he at least had a respectd source from the subject area in question, whereas Mr Evans doesn't even seem to have read the Symantec analysis of MyDoom.
...if it is of any interest. I am not a native english speaker so I hope I did not miss the point... ------ Dear Sir or Maddam, I just read your article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" by Stephen Evans and I am very appalled by this article. Mr. Evans should really have done a better job when researching facts for this article. To me there is no evidence - not even a hint - that the attacks are originated by Linux users. And in fact Mr. Evans also does not present such an evidence but he punishes Linux users to be criminals. Oviously there are many Gilligans working at the BBC - reporters not taking their job seriously! From what I see, BBC is merely a source of rumours and coursing than serios news. Regards, Arne Caspari
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".
The BBC is getting pretty good at this game. :) (don't get me wrong, I also think Blair twisted the story to sooth his needs), and now that that's sorted out, they take on the OS community.
:D
First they accuse the prime minister of "Killing" Kelly (Oh my god, they killed Kelly
I wonder who, or what's next? Claiming that SCO doesn't DDOS itself
Which self-respecting Linux open source zealot would be using Microsoft to write a virus/worm anyway... no, this MUST be a FUD publicity stunt by Microsoft! ;)
Seriously, I think the Linux community should start a relief fund to help SCO through these attacks...
Auntie Beeb must be being deluged with irate Linux-using Slashdotters.
Could this be the first manually Distributed Denial of Service attack on the Beebs email servers? :-)
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
First it was Robert Kilroy for his ill-informed remarks about the Arab nations, then the head honcho Dyke himself.. wonder if this will lead to another string of resignations beginning from this Evans chap himself?.. Why blame outsourcing for losing jobs, when you simply be an ill-informed moron and dig your own grave?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Hello,
I felt compelled to write to you regarding this mornings rather bizarre column from your North American business correspondent Stephen Evans titled "Linux cyber battle turns nasty". The article contains so many factual errors and biased reporting that it's difficult to know just where to begin.
Suffice to say, the picture your correspondent paints of a community in which individuals are willing to break the law due to their "zealotry" does not tally at all with my own experience. I have followed the SCO case from the beginning due to my interest in technology news. I do not use Linux at either home or work, but I was interested in learning more about it. So I would say I can approach questions about Linux and the SCO case with an open mind, sadly unlike your correspondent seems able to do.
A few pertinent facts: the MyDoom virus has a number of effects. Firstly, as your reporter indicates, it bombards the SCO company website in a DDOS attack. It also sets up infected computers to act as relays for spam, and thirdly contains a key-logging software for the capture of passwords and other sensitive data.
Can this really be summed up as "damage for damage's sake."? Rather, it would seem two thirds of MyDoom was especially written to aid criminals in their illegal and lucrative quest for passwords, credit card information, and relay machines for spam operations. Is it balanced reporting to give any naive readers the idea that the sole purpose of MyDoom was to bombard one companies website? And to point the finger, in absence of any evidence, that it is an act "waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system."
Do you not agree this may leave the unaware reader with misplaced anger at the open source community, especially if they have suffered as a result of being infected with the virus, and had to give up their own leisure time to clean their computer?
May I suggest the SCO attack is acting as a wonderful smokescreen, in that it seems to provoke exactly this sort of mindless finger pointing your reporter is engaging in. Could this not be a more likely purpose for the inclusion of the DDoS attack, one your reporter seems unable to comprehend?
A cursory skim of the article also reveals numerous factual errors. It is untrue to say that DDoS via virus is "A new level of sophistication". It is untrue to say Linux is available "for free": there are set terms for its use that carry the weight of law behind them. It is in effect a swap deal: we'll give you our code if you give us any improvements you make to it in turn. I trust your correspondent understands that items in this world have tradable value beyond monetary value? But this is a mere nitpick (though a common misconception and one you would hope someone writing on technology would not repeat) compared to the analysis of the SCO case and the lawsuits involved. As far as I know, SCO is suing IBM ( and by now probably Novell) not "users". A SCO victory would not result in "the death of Linux" and to say so reveals a depth of ignorance of Linux, of SCO, of copyright law and of technology in general that is breath taking. Finally, a DDoS attack is easily circumvented by a competent network administrator via DNS switching. It is not "wickedly ingenious", "a new degree of viciousness" or, my personal favourite "clever evil".
Let's look at this wonderful example of BBC journalism: "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)." To correct it for bias: "If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of [computer programmers] who believe that [the code they created and own] should be [theirs to do with as they please].
Please, in future, would it be too much to ask for articles such as this to be written by someone with a competent grasp of what they are actually writing about?
Yours hopefully
etc.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
...http://www.thescogroup.com/.
I am NaN
Too many people like you fire off a knee-jerk response telling us why a Linux zealot couldn't possibly behind a particular virus.
BBC has far more informational sources from which to assemble their assertions than the average Slashdotter, yet in typical Slashdot arrogance, people dicount ANY press that implicates one of their own.
If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you would at least consider the possibility that maybe it WAS in fact a Linux zealot behind this. Automatically dismissing that possibility makes you sound like you have something to hide.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I written this complaint:
I wonder how that feels when you have that power that you can make anyone dirty with "theories". I have some questions (and answers, too):
1. Are you aware that lately, after some world wars and things like that, we usually refrain from creating contexts where minorities as a whole are depicted in a dishonouring manner? For example I think you wouldn't write an article about dirty practices of businessmen and at the same time about jews in general, even if you learn somehow that the relative number of jews in the NYSE is quite high compared to the national rate.
2. Would you be more careful if you wrote about particular people, not just about "members of a community?"
A: No, you wouldn't. Last time I remember somebody died as a result, and BBC got blamed...
Well, never mind. Journalists, be happy, and continue to rule the world!
Best regards...
Do bear in mind this was written by the North American business correspondant - clearly he's been influenced by the american culture and is doing his bit for sensationalist reporting :)
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.
What ever happend to "Thesis", "Antithesis", "Synthesis". This seems to be rather poor "dot joining", it's a bit like blaming the weather on "Linux Hackers"
Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
Is that like "jumbo shrimp"?
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
There are many reasons why someone would choose to attack Microsoft, but SCO? Most people haven't even heard of SCO, let alone have a reason for attacking them.
The "reason" is quite simple (even my girlfriend thought of it, and she has as little to do with computers as she can manages, doesn't use Linux, and isn't very informed on this subject at all).
It is a diversion, plain and simple.
And it worked. Even the BBC, which until its evisceration by the ever-more-right-wing British government had pretty high journalistic standards, has taken the bait.
Rather than reporting that every infected computer is divulging personal credit card and banking information to the Russian mob, potentially storing illegal child pornography and acting as a SPAM relay for said mob, and thereby warning their readers of the true intent of the virus, they are instead reporting hysterical nonsense about the "evil open source community."
Microsoft would pay a lot of money for such a story, and while I doubt they bought off a reporter (though one can never be sure), they, or their shills, are likely considered to be relatively "trusted" sources of IT information by journalists whose heads aren't in the field 24/7.
That, or one of the BBC's "trusted" sources isn't so well informed as they lead their associates to believe, and naively took the bait themselves before passing it erroneously on to the BBC.
Either way, the virus writer(s) clearly achieved their objective: diversion from the true issue at hand.
Your asinine innuendo notwithstanding, there is a veritable mountain of evidence that this virus author's only relationship to the free software community is to use it as a patsy and as cover for their misdeeds.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That fact seems to have escaped a lot of the posters so far.
Sure, it was riddled with inconsistancies and I'm by no means excusing the author but don't criticise the beeb, criticise the author of this piece of editorial.
There's a more balanced article in the Guardian :
1 40 962,00.html
:
1 36 924,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1
Though Monday's story was almost as bad as the BBC's
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1
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 would like to make a rather strong complaint regarding Stephen Evans's article "Linux cyber battle turns nasty", as featured as a front-page article on the 5th of Feburary.
/ 28worm.html
This article is presented as a factual piece, not an opinion column, and draws patently incorrect conclusions. Whilst the MyDoom virus does indeed target SCO and (in it's -B varient) Microsoft, the main payload of this virus is a spam gateway.
As someone whos main source of income deeply involves computer security, I find it insulting that Mr. Evans has apparantly made no attempt to research the history of these forms of virii, nor has he apparantly contacted any reputable anti-virus company regarding it. Meanwhile he postulates claims such as "it [revenge] must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list", and "in the case of the MyDoom computer worm, the motivation seems clearer". I find it very bad reporting that these claims are made WITHOUT actually asking any of the investigators opinion of the virus. It is a widely expressed opinion (see 'references' at the end of this message) by these security professionals that the Denial of Service attack is the SECONDARY function of the virus, and not at all related to it's true purpose. A simple search on Google, let alone contacting even local London-based security firms such as mi2g, would easily prove how factually incorrect this article is. In fact, to be harsh, it is a downright lie against common knowledge and opinion.
It is current common understanding in the anti-virus community that this virus is indeed designed specifically to facilitate commercial spammers, and that the inbuilt Denial of Service attack against SCO and Microsoft are a secondary effect and not intended as part of the original design.
Current monitoring of activity through infected machines indicate that the spamming functionality appears to be used by a very organised group of individuals, indicating the virus was possibly contract-coded. Current belief holds that the Denial of Service payload was added by said contracted coder.
As such, I do not belief it fair, nor good reporting, to use a proproted factual article to attribute the secondary (and in my opinion far easily avoidable!) of the virus as it's "purpose". The secondary effects may indeed by the result of a Linux user seeking revenge, but is currently understood to be more of a diversion from the viruses demonstratable true intent. There is a long tradition of this type of 'smoke screen' in many viruses intended for commercial benefit, as Mr. Evans would no doubt have discovered if he had researched the article more instead of using it as a pure propeganda platform and drawing unconfirmed conclusions.
I request that the article either be re-labeled as an OPINION piece, removed, or an more factually correct article be posted.
References:
These other news sites, containing articles by researchers willing to do actual research, contain quotes from reputable security and virus research firms confirming the opinion above:
http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/myd012704.cfm
- Contains opinion by London-based firm mi2g
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4113278/
- Contains quotes from researchers at well-known antivirus developer F-Secure and Symantec
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0104
- Contains quotes from various other computer security researchers
I have a feeling the beeb is going to find out about the benefits of "lots of eyeballs". It is my hope that they are capable of the mental leap to help them see that suspect software gets the same treatment.
Gah! Who am I kidding, they will probably blame the OSS community for crushing their mail server!
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
But I guess as Linux users aren't a particularly organised bunch the BBC feels it can get away with shoddy journalism and unsupported inuendo in this case.
I wouldn't assume the free software/Linux community is going to stay politically unorganized forever. In fact, the more our way of life is attacked (and let's face it, sharing software amongst ourselves and writing for the betterment of our world, rather than for banal motives such as simple greed, is a way of life), the more likely we are to organize.
But that is neither here nor there with respect to this kind of slander. IBM is very organized. RedHat, Novel, Oracle, HP, etc. are quite organized. The EFF and the FSF are quite organized.
The BBC is setting itself up for earning a reputation of shoddy reporting akin to that of Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch organizations. This sort of hysterical, misinformed story is the last sort of story the BBC should be running at a time when their credibility (rightly or wrongly) is already in the toilet, when they are facing govermental reorganization and funding cuts.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm not surprised to read that this piece was written by Stephen Evans, the BBC's North America correspondent. Evans has been for some time a shill on behalf of big business - anyone in Britain who has had to endure his relentlessly pro-MPAA and RIAA pieces will be aware of this.
Take for example this piece where Mr Evans comments: "Many students seem to think, apparently, that the internet is a law free zone." Oh yeah?
...you have got to stop "sexing up" your "news" and go back to reporting the facts.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
They are always clueless and get it wrong expect for the most basic general stuff like 'Beagle2 can't be contacted'... *sigh* Sent to the BBC: Next time you need a speculative technology piece which admits it doesnt know the actual facts please consider asking me to write it. I'm sure I'm cheaper than that Stephen Evans bloke and probably have more insight into the technology arena that he does to boot, plus I could do with the money. Now of course to Stephen it's OBVIOUS that someone who's a windows programmer is a zealous Open Source Software 'freak', something akin to an Animal Rights activist having a penchant for fur coats. The zealots would not even have a windows machine in their house. Yes, yes we all know you can get windows virus toolkits to 'roll your own virus' (taking note stephen? this is probably news to you...) so you could fairly easily base your own virus on slammer, blaster, etc with a timebomb date set in it with a preselected target (ie SCO.COM, MICROSOFT.COM). Oh but THAT means almost anyone could have written it.. even Stephen if he knew enough about technology... Indeed given the nature of the (minority) Open Source zealotry, stooping to write a 'doze virus' would be anathema - may as well ask that Activist to catch the fox, run a few experiments on it and then skin it for a nice fashion accessory. The other thing that Stephen 'overlooked' (benefit of the doubt with that word) is that anyone following the current dolly-out-of-the-pram shenannigans by SCO vs IBM, Linux et al is that no-one in the Open Source Community even believes SCO has a case. Linus Torvalds (the creator of the Linux kernel) has said himself on numerous occasions that he can prove that code SCO claims is theirs he wrote himself. In the eyes of the Open Source Community all that needs to be done is keep paying out the rope to SCO so the final jerk will be all the more spectacular when they run out of the stuff. Finally on a slightly different note, why do the BBC (and ITV for that matter) NEVER say 'Apple Mac and Linux users have nothing to fear from this virus as it only affects Microsoft Windows' whenever they report about something like this? Wouldnt it be part of 'responsible journalism' to allay fears of other types of operating system users? How many Mac users were given unnecesary concern over the safety of their machines as a result of this...
I wonder if those who believe Might Is Right ever wonder if they Might Be Wrong...
I would have thought that now, more than ever given recent events, the BBC would be making an effort to maintain their objectivity and concentrate on fact.
Not so, Stephen Evans, author of 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', who writes an article labelling a very productive group of society as vandals and virus writers. He even admits, "there's no proof, of course".
I don't pay my license fee to read (or listen) to uneducated opinion, particularly one as dangerous as this.
Your article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" is not even slightly accurate in many regards, certainly not the standard of reporting I am used to seeing from the BBC.
Starting from the top...
"It's usually no easier to fathom the motives of virus creators than it is of any other perpetrator of damage for damage's sake."
Generally (certainly in the last 12 months) most of the viruses (Blaster being a notable exception) have a specific purpose. The Sobig series of viruses (prior to MyDoom they were the top of the infection lists) are used to set up open mail relays to allow spammers to keep sending spam despite tighter regulation and wider use of DNS blacklists. Several viruses have set up DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) networks that can be targetted at any IP address at short notice. Typically these have been used in extortion scams (mafia links have been expounded but never confirmed) as the recent fiasco with online gambling sites and the Super Bowl demonstrated.
In short, viruses can be used to make a lot of money and I don't believe that's such a difficult motive to fathom at all.
" It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of data sent from countless computers into which the worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users.
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."
SCO has indeed annoyed many Linux advocates and users but by no means is it clear that this virus came from the Linux community or that attacking SCO is the real purpose of this virus. The virus also installs a backdoor into the infected system allowing access to it's network resources, it can also download and execute arbitrary code at the instigation of the author. Only 25% of infected machines will attack SCO until 12th Feb but all infected machines have this backdoor and it will remain active after the SCO DDoS has ended. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the attack on SCO may in fact be a diversionary tactic to avert suspicion away from the real authors (i.e. electronic criminals/spammers) and onto a community that is generally highly technical and known to hate SCO. I am by no means saying this is fact but it is at least as reasonable a hypothesis as that put forward by your article.
"So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."
Not at all, see above for my rebuttal. It's possible but by no means this clear cut.
"SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it."
No, SCO is a company trying to take advantage of other peoples work because their own product failed. If there is any SCO code found in the Linux kernel (yet to be determined but so far all their examples have been debunked in hours) it will likely be removed the same day and be considered no great loss. The anger is caused by SCO making a lot of noise but producing no actual evidence, their claim of "trade secrets" is surely not valid because if their claim is valid then the code is already publicly available for download from www.kernel.org!
Most of us (and the financial community is slowly coming around to this view it appears) believe that IBM will squash SCO like a bug (for want of a more appropriate phrase) in court and things will move on as before.
"It is probably the most successful virus in this form of internet warfare, where a wickedly ingenious program persuades thousands of computers to bombard a single website on a particular date."
This paragraph starts out fine but there is nothing ingenious about the program at all. It does not exploit any clever holes in the operating system it just relies on the user being fooled into running it. Despite years of telling people not to click on unknown attachments they still do which is ho
btw, for those of you who don't know already, Bruce Perens has written an article on the whole SCO/MyDoom thing, available here.
So we all believe the MyDoom virus attacking SCO was a coincidence?
Although it is entirely correct to not take any pleasure with SCO being the subject of a DDOS attack, it is really hard to have sympathy for a company that had every opportunity to avoid the worst effects of the DDOS attack, but were unable to do so. (Or should it be "unwilling to do so"? It's kind of hard to issue press releases comdemning those "Linux terrorists", repeating your blatant lies about linux and the IBM case, and reaping all of the free press when there's no problems, after all...)
Jay (=
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"
Don't give that idiot, Steve Baller, any more bright ideas.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hi, I find the story(url given below) linking the recent MyDoom virus to unhappy linux users very infuriating and utterly baseless. Infact the opinion of security experts is that this is yet another virus created by spammers to help them in relaying spam through compromised "zombie" maachines. The evidence comes from the fact that 1)The virus installs a back door turning the computer into a zombie machine 2)It's very similar to the previous viruses and all of them have been suspected to be created by spammers Infact since the article claims that the virus is successful and very ingenious it must have ben written by an expert windows programmer. Note that not many people are that proficient in windows and also linux advocates at the same time The statement that the virus is ingenious is hilarious.Some months ago spammers used exactly the same technique to force the anti-spam web sites to close down A DDOS(Distributed Denial of Service) against some prominent anti spam sites forced most of them to close down permanently. I respect BBC and consider it as a reliable source of news.But ill researched articles like this forces me think otherwise. --Manu --http://www.ee.iitm.ac.in/~ee01b044
TechSutra
Sure, take the MS proceeds and cancel ads for a week. But even better is to take the SCO reward money and use it to fund an expose. :-D (And no you slashbots, that doesn't mean photoshopping Darl's head onto a naked body...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You must admit that it does raise some suspicions. Not only does the MyDoom virus DDoS microsoft, but also SCO. The article basically voiced my personal suspicions concerning the origin of this virus, but I'm also willing to believe that SCO was added as an afterthought to "pin the blame" on linux users.
The BBC web site has a feedback form where you can report factual errors on articles. Well, this article has a lot of factual errors and we should report them. Please do not use this form to be a dick! If we all write calm, well-composed, and well-cited responses that make sense, the BBC may pull the article, issue a correction, or even shut Mr. Stephen Evans up for us. Don't vindicate this fool (or mouth piece) by spamming or trolling.
Join Tor today!
I think this guy is talking through a hole in his head - he doesn't follow the Linux or Spam industries at all. He is not competent to make a statement.
Here are some links to his other stories....
Here
They are mainly about Globalisation, and misconceptions about it... sort of funny really given his own mistaken view of who might have carried out the MyDoom attacks and why.
However the same guy won an award for writing about 911...
Reporting on 911
But Evans is not an expert on the motivation of Linux programmers. I'm no conspiracy freak - and don't quite buy the idea that SCO brought it on themselves. However - it is more likely the work of spammers wishing to deflect attention from themselves. The fact that Mr Evans doesn't quite understand the link between spam, worms and virii means that his comments should be ignorred.
The only trouble is that similarly ignorant people will not. I think the focus of our concern should be the wider misunderstanding in the media.
We so often make it difficult for the media to understand the issues. The media needs to be educated enough to be able to avoid such misinformation in the future.
Not an easy task...
Why doesnt Tony Blair Put on a BP (British Petroleum) hat while mouthing off about justification for war.
They had the same reason Bush ((Well Cheney, Rumsfeld) Bush just did what he was told, not very smart). Control of Iraq's OIL. DUH!!!
I used to enjoy BBC News, but now I see it changing into a tool of propaganda akin to FOX.
All of the evidense points to spammers using the Linux / SCO thing to keep people of the track.
Bad day all around
* Carthago Delenda Est *
is the grade i would have received for turning in such irresponsible, unfounded material in daycare. emotions and feelings are just that.
You need people like me so you can point your fuckin fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So what that make you? Good?
"There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
Not that Linux devotees probably have that much to worry about. "
Is he being sarcastic?
[alk]
There. I filled out the BBC News feedback form to let them know their columnist needs some adjusting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm
[my feedback to BBC news]
I have just finished reading the article on your website which is entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty", written by Stephen Evans. I am perplexed at the biased content of this article.
The writer of the article has applied the actions of a (possibly) single individual to an entire group of people. I don't see how that is fair, or responsible reporting. As a Linux user, this article has now portrayed me as fraudulent, unprincipled, and deceitful.
I should note also that the content of this article paints the BBC News with the same fraudulent, unprincipled and deceitful brush that Stephan has attempted to paint the Linux community with. It is cheap and irresponsible reporting.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Remember, when you use Open Source Software, the Terrorists win!
-=sig=-
Mr. Evans has made some assertions about the SCO case that are exaggerated or outright false. (Notably why SCO is suing IBM.) Those need to be addressed in any letter sent to the BBC. It needs to be emphasized that SCO has failed to demonstrate proof of its claims to the public and especially to the court.
Basically, we need to make it clear that Mr. Evans did no research, whatsoever, and that his article is written entirely based on hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion. Your letter is strong and empassioned, but it doesn't prove anything (and even contains factual errors--for instance, the matter of DRM in Linux). Debunk the original article, fact-for-fact. Any editor at the BBC who reads your letter isn't going to be convinced unless she's already "in the know" and may not even associate what you're saying with the FUD in the article.
Join Tor today!
BBC isn't the only one:
:w
Globe and Mail in Canada also speculates about "penguinistas" authoring MyDoom.
...then how bad are they about everything else?
It's scary to think - I tend to trust and respect the BBC's coverage of world events. A lot of people do, worldwide. But every time they cover a tech issue they make hideous oversimplifications and mis-report horribly. I only know this becuase I have a background in those kinds of areas. They could be just as specious in their coverage of just about anything else and I would never know.
On their website it now has a retraction:
"We mistakenly said Linux was responsible..."
and
"we actually should have said Linus is responsible..."
Dear Sir or Madam
8 22 9&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid= 88
This is my second and final email commenting about Stephen Evans' poorly researched article entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
It appears that many of the contributors on Slashdot, an open forum to discuss technology news and issues, have sent similar comments to the BBC with regard to the article.
While I have no wish to repeat what I or others have said previously, can I invite Mr Evans to submit some input into the Slashdot forum article at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/081
Mr Evans will have an opportunity there to explain why he composed the article in such a way or indeed to make an apology to the Linux / Open Source community, many of whom subscribe to Slashdot.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Excellent....
s tm
There is also this 'Have Your Say Form' : -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2804227.
Stephen Evans has made some significant factual errors in his story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" and may be exposing the BBC by his consequent assertions.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted" as a distraction to the virus, apparently written by and for commercial spammers. Its primary intent is to act as a relay for spreading more of those intrusive offers of larger penises and mortgage solutions.
The virus is indeed about malice, and it was not written by the creative, constructive Open Source community. It has been traced back to Russian spammers.
It does not appear that www.sco.com was attacked in anger. The name had been taken out of circulation before the due date, and the site http://sco.com/ was reachable throughout, as were the sco.com email servers, hosted nearby. It seems that The SCO Group (TSG) are crying "wolf" yet again.
TSG have been accusing the authors of Linux of stealing their ideas, and their code. IBM is being accused of giving TSG's code away (despite IBM's licence agreement plainly stating that they can sell or give away derivatives), and being asked for over $3 billion in "damages", yet TSG won't tell anyone exactly what was "stolen".
Their story keeps changing, and whenever more exact information has been leaked, the code has consistently turned out to be either written by somebody else, or public domain.
Darl MacBride wants to sell Linux as others sell bottled water, which is fine because Red Hat, Mandrake and other companies do just that. He wants to do it not by bottling better water, but by making the harvesting of rain and spring water heavily taxable.
Undertandably, the people who've built the software equivalent of dams and rainwater tanks are outraged at his barratry, false claims and blackmail. TSG is not "raising the possibility of internet blackmail", TSG is carrying it out!
The Open Source community's response has been to provide evidence of TSG's insanity, not to write viruses. None of the computers bearing the virus run Linux. Zero. Nada. Not one.
It is impossible to read Stephen's story without interpreting it as "Linux community members attacked a helpless corporation", which as a member of the Linux community I find insulting and hurtful.
I require a retraction from the BBC and a public apology from Stephen. I also want his word that he'll not carelessly abuse a news service to pillory the champions of freedom and fair play ever again.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Lets be fair here - the BBC actually went out on a limb over the Iraq invasion. Day after day the Today news program on radio 4 tried to get some sense out of a parade of British politicians who frankly made themselves look like morons. This goes totally against the grain of every BBC instinct which historically has been - and happy to be - the mouthpiece for the UK establishment. Now that they have been decapitated by Blairs "revenge virus" (Hutton) we are all the poorer.
sig under development
everyone has their own theory. Since the BBC has no proof either, here's mine.
It's a former Admin(or reseller) for SCO unixware. they are angry over TSG distroying their skill base.
You've got to wonder what kind of exposure this will give Linux. Granted people who have a passion for the project/community take this somewhat offensivly ;) But to everyone else this may attrack positive attention. Perception...
I think by tomorrow, Mr. Steven Evans' research project on geek anger will be complete. I can't wait for the follow up article. I just love hearing about avalanches of angry e-mail. My two cents: I read the thoughtless, unsubstantiated, sensationalist rant by Steven Evans wherein he not only blames the Linux community for the MyDoom virus, but proceeds, blisfully ignorant of a logical foundation for his points, to pound a drumbeat of paranoia with regard to motives and activities of the Linux community that have no bearing on the MyDoom virus: "Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah." Had Mr. Evans bothered to do the most basic fact checking before writing this drivel, he would have become aware that the PRIMARY purpose of the MyDoom virus is to construct a massive spam distribution network. This is noteable because among the groups most ardently opposed to the profligation of spam is the Linux community. Our work on content-based spam filtering is the current state of the art in keeping your mailbox clean, forcing spammers to invent complex means of obscuring their messages and setting off an escalating technological arms race with groups such as the Russian spam mafia. When evaluating the motive behind a given action, which carries more weight- the stated intent of the act, or evidence as who exactly is putting their money where their mouth is? Would it be too obvious to follow the money and determine who might have a grudge against the linux community, or does it just make better copy to paint the picture of the rouge punk hacker attacking a corporate website?
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
is still free for anyone to use however they like, provided they comply with the BSD Licence. Your (BSD's) Code is still there.
Unfortunately, while not coming from the main stream OSS community, acts like the MyDoom virus or publishing Darl McBride's phone number on slashdot slander the OSS movement. It just looks bad. It's also not right.
Whatever you think of Darl McBride and SCO, they are proceeding down a *legal* path of action. Sure, it's irritating, and the claims are as unsettling as much as they appear patently false, but it is the standard form of dispute resolution that we have set up in this country.
Stepping outside of the standard approach to engage in personal, vicious, and sometimes illegal attacks is simply not right. It also leads to the whole OSS movement being tarred with a brush of hot-headedness.
The OSS movement should loudly disavow activities such as MyDoom and publishing McBride's home address. Slashdot moderators should mod down laughing comments about how inconvenienced Mr. McBride is. OSS notables should emphasize the positive nature of the community.
This is all happening to some extent, but needs to continue in a stepped up fashion without cease.
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.
...the same BBC that helped drive a man to suicide with their ill sourced, inaccurate, ill founded, politically motivated claims?
The same BBC that has in recent years showed a steady decline of journalistic integrity?
The same BBC that has had a string of resignations at high levels because of the fallout for such things?
I never would have guessed....
They're right, and there's nothing they or anyone can do about it.
Steven Evans story entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" makes blatant assumptions with a clear lack of research or intelligence regarding the topic of a recent Windows virus. There is a reasonable chance that a Linux antagonist such as a Microsoft developer (it takes high level Windows development skill to write a virus of this nature) wrote the code for the very purpose of discrediting the Linux community. While it's quite possible a Linux user/coder is the source of this attack, this is still one person or a small group of people, not Linux vs. SCO. There is a much more pertinent Linux vs. SCO battle being waged in our civil court system while our government sits idly by and allows SCO to blatantly model it's business after litigation gambling.
In other words, Mr. Stephen Evans is a poor excuse for a writer, at least about technical subjects, and should be sacked.
As he writes:
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
You ignorant Limey! If there is no proof, it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It's a game we can all play...
Extra points for identifying the fallacy.
That's the same thing I was going to say about Stephan Evans' propensity to rape sheep and little boys at Michael Jackson's Neverland. I could be wrong, but since I said there's no proof, that's OK.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
2) On the WEB, the top of the page, does not clearly state, "OPIONION" or "EDITORIAL" - but the author, Stephen Evans, is an editorial columnist.
Thus our complains will go to the bit-bucket, and those whom are mis-led to believe that Linux Zealots are responsible, will have no way of knowing the difference between a news story, and an editorial column.
In other news, all British people are assholes because one reporter for the BBC is an asshole.
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
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
Innocent until proven guilty.... _riiiiiight_....
So whos got the burden of proof now?
Your story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty", by Stephen Evans, has to be the most misinformed and misguided piece on the topic I have yet read, and I have unfortunately read a substantial volume.
Despite initial suspicions that the MyDoom worm might have been created to target SCO as revenge for their attacks on Linux, it is widely accepted among security analysts who have monitored the worm that (1) it originated in Russia, (2) its real motive is to plant a trojan key-capture program to steal user's personal information, and (3) the attacks on SCO and MS are a smokescreen.
I expect this kind of credulous gulping of SCO's press releases from CNN, but thought better of the BBC.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=news.bbc. co.uk
I hope the bbc netadmins read BOFH.
With most security analysts, who are much better trained than Enderele or Didio, pointing the finger at spammers because of the back door that MyDoom leaves behind, and saying that targeting SCO is only a diversion, along comes a BBC reporter, following in the BBC tradition, who has to "SEX UP" the story.
Why did Stephen Evans do it? I usually suspect money or some other perk is behind these shinanigans.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Wouldn't it have come packaged with source code?
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.
Where did he get "many" from? From my point of view, one malicious user writing a virus does not equal the majority of the Linux community.
After going on to say the average geek wreaks havok on the computing world and that the issue is of patents and not copyrights (which is wrong IIRC) they then remind readers that "there's no proof, of course" Of course...
Greetings,
I am writing in about Steven Evan's piece on the MyDoom virus reported on 2/5/2004. I find in reading this piece an uncharacteristically charlatanistic approach to journalism, as well as a genuine disregard for the facts. While Mr. Evan's piece reveals his opinions on the matter, he overlooks several key facts that I am sure you have already heard from other commentors such as myself, but including:
This virus runs on the Windows platforms. While this does not exclude Linux hardcore programmers, it goes a long way to debunking the idea that someone with such viral expertise on Windows is also a Linux guru.
This virus' DOS attack against SCO is, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, a smokescreen to hide the fact that this virus is primarily a SPAM gateway. This fact is completely ignored in Mr. Evans article, which begs the question of whether or not you require reporters to do any research whatsoever.
This article is presented as fact. Since there is precisely zero pieces of factual evidence mentioned in the article, I find it on par with the level of assertion put forth by holocaust deniers and area 51 pundits.
I get a very large portion of my news from the BBC, and I respect your institution immensely. This article reflects very poorly on your integrity as a news agency.
Just so it is known, I am not a Linux programmer, but a Windows programmer, so there is no unbridled rage at hearing Linux get beaten up. I really could care less. I do, however, take umbrage to the idea that the public should be subjected to baseless opinion pieces represented as the truth without any eveidence to back up the position.
Regards,
~A!
It's all about the game. There is nothing else. http://watchingthewatchers.org
~MadScie
First, Evan's portrayal of the MyDoom virus as a "new front" created by the "open-source Linux operating system" user is totally stereotyped. This portrays the typical Linux user as a hacking mastermind who only seeks revenge against a company that seeks to undermine their credibility. I have seen my share of diverse Linux users, from gothic-looking individuals who want to express their individuality without harming others, to fathers of mothers of respectable well-to-do families who are trying to save costs by going open-source with their home software tools. By portraying the virus writer as a "run-of-the-mill geek" intends to place a dark moniker on any Linux user, debasing them and inadvertently calling them hackers.
Second, the author portrays the background of the virus writers as "internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all." This automatically places Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond, and the rest of the GNU, Linux, and other free software communities as automatic targets for the MyDoom virus. These individuals have begun a software movement that is known as one of the largest collaborated projects in the history of humankind, and their tangibles have lead to unparalleled credibility. Governments, corporations, and many different organizations have saved billions of dollars and have achieved stability and security of their systems using this free software. I venture to say that each of these individuals probably do not even know enough about Windows to parlay an attack, let alone have the Windows people and resources to do it for them.
Finally, Evans' characterization of the MyDoom attack as part of a front of an ongoing "cyber-battle" is totally counterfactual. This purported "war" was waged by one or a few individuals, who may or may not even be advocates of Linux. The virus software was almost certainly written in the Windows environment, because Windows executables cannot be created in the Linux environment and vice versa. It remains to be seen whether the "vandals and arsonists" are a tiny minority of "malice" that reside as a tiny, yet dark stain within the Linux community, but the MyDoom virus certainly did not prove that this was the case.
I do hope that at some point, the average Linux user may be recognized by your articles as a normal, law-abiding citizen who would not intend to break laws even though a matter of their lawfulness (the Linux kernel and SCO) is currently being questioned. I believe it debases thoughtful, ingenious consumers who seek a challenge with computing by using the Linux operating system rather than choosing the easy route and coughing up mounds of money for the latest and greatest bells and whistles in a Microsoft product.
Thanks for your time.
Please consider that this same reporter, Stephen Evan, sided with Disney etc. in a story stating that allowing copyright to lapse and the properties go into the public domain was not only wrong but tantamount to theft.
/. The only documentation for which I can find here.
Unfortunately, I can't find the article when I search the BBC News web site. I know it was from the middle of last year and was noted on
It seems that this reporter's particular view of IP which puts it in the same class as a chair or a pot of gold. He also seems to go with whatever big business says rather than the opinions of others.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
Mr. Evans' characterization of Open Source movement sympathizers (i.e. "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).") is considered an offense by myself and many other members of our community [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/08182 29&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88] . The term "zealot" implies uncritical devotion, this is certainly a generalization which does not adapt to the reality of available literature regarding this subject.
Does the fact that one journalist working at the BBC has written a story based on groundless information necessarily turn the organization into a mob of sensationalist anti-Blair fanatics? I think not.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Evans does not posess the minimal required amount of knowledge on this particular subject to write an article with any substance - or avoid offending a community, for that matter. I kindly suggest the publication of a retraction by the BBC regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Rafael Perez
Suggested readings:
HAD
I think that much of it's audience has figured out by now that BBC News and objectivity were divorced some time ago. The Royal Navy, at the insistence of the enlisted, switched from BBC to SkyNews aboard ship because of the BBC's blatant bias. Their ability to ignore pertinetnn facts about stories and effectively cover only a single angle at a time has been well documented elsewhere.
Time to realize that no, they aren't as pure as the driven snow.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
And I don't play one on TV. But, I'm as pissed at SCO as any "Linux zealot". MyDoom is written for Windows, so my guess is it was written by a programmer with a good deal of Windows programming experience. If I were writing a virus whose purpose was to DDoS someone, SCO would be my target at the moment. I think it's fair to say they're the most hated company in our industry right now. They've stolen the crown from M$.
But to assume it's a "Linux zealot" is a guess at best, and a bad one at that. I mean, all evidence says it's a Windows programmer. I don't know about Linux programmers, but I do Windows programming (sorry), and I'd have a hell of a time writing a virus for Linux. I could write one for Windows pretty easily, though. I'm sure there are people who are equally familiar with both platforms, but they are probably a small minority.
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.
That journalists are pedophiles.
One bad turn deserves another.
-Peter
Good to see the quality of Userfriendly has remained at its fairly low point since I stopped reading it years ago.
Perhaps if Mr. Evans had a better understanding of the reasons professional viruses are written, he would not be so easily deceived.
(
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
If you get slapped with a libel suit I think it will be too good for you. The BBC, an organizaiton with a history of fair and honest news coverage, has with this story stooped to the slimey bottom of the lowest gutter of bad journalizm.
I am refering of course to the libelous story written by Stephen Evans Titled: Linux cyber-battle turns nasty.
With this story your organization stoops to lows I personally never would have thought possible. I have lost the respect I once had. If your people cannot do even the most basic research before running off and spewing such filth, then how can I trust that in other areas somehow a much higher standard applies and what the BBC reports actually has merit?
In the OpenSource development movement, there has been a considerable amount of work directed at detrmining the origin and motivation behind this (and other) viruses. It appears that this particular virus originated in Russia and has ties with spammers.
So rather than report news, your Mr.Stephen Evans instead finds himself a big wide libelous paintbrush which he then uses to smear millions of Linux users. But this is not good enough! He also accuses: "the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user".
I am a run-of-the-mill-geek. I make my living honerably as a programmer and have for over 25 years. I use Linux. My doughter now uses Linux and my son will be switching to Linux after giving up on his 21st install of Windows 2000. So is my son (who is a student in 3rd year business managment) to be condemed as a "zealot" because Windows 2000 self distructs and needs to be re-installed over and over and over.
Why am I being smeared as a "zealot"? I have developed software on over 13 other operating systems including most of the windows products. I can say without a doubt that IMHO linux is a breath of fresh air. Kudos to the OpenSource movement and the millions of "run-of-the-mill-geeks" who donate their time and skills to the betterment of this world.
Our Mr. Stephen Evans has shown himself to be an intellectual light weight player, a cyber ludite if you will. What is unacceptable is that his editor and the BBC actually published this spew.
I shall now post THIS letter on www.slashdot.org.
This isn't a technology journalist you're talking about, it's a business journalist. Just like you get poor managers who don't always handle their programming teams properly, you get poor business journalists who don't always handle the technology side of their stories properly.
To dismiss an entire company because of one bad experience with one individual or a news-gathering organisation because of one bad article by a business journalist who isn't 100 percent au fait with his subject matter is ridiculous.
The BBC is the world's largest news-gatherer. Their website runs to millions of pages. Just because one guy got it partially wrong that shouldn't reflect on the fantastic work the BBC does.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Well, it's clear they're on to us now. Obviously, virus writers are terrorists and thus the prudent course of action is to "capture" all Linux users and hold them as enemy combatants without a trial.
In the article 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', Stephen Evans seems to be presenting a very biased opinion as fact. Where's this so-called BBC objectivity? He only presents the evidence that suggests MyDoom.A was made by annoyed Linux users. He completely forgets that MyDoom opens a backdoor to allow the host machine to be used as a spamming tool or that if the creator was such a zelous Linux/open source user they probably wouldn't be caught dead near a Windows machine (let alone know how to create a very efficient virus for one). Also the writer of MyDoom may have been trying (and successfully) to cover their tracks by using the SCO controvacy to set the blame on a Linux zealot.
Also, (this is just me being picky) the writer of the article could have mentioned that SCO has so far refused to show what code in the Linux kernel was stolen from them. I believe Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux and the maintainer of the latest version of it would be happy to remove any code belonging to SCO and replace it with new code.
And the comparison of "run-of-the-mill geeks" to vandals and arsonists is just insulting. I believe the actual definition of a 'geek' is more like somebody with a passion for a particular field, i.e. computers. This is no better than saying that the average Muslim is a terrorist or that the average doctor takes the organs of dead babies. I have no doubt that SOME geeks write viri and SOME Muslims are terrorists, but this sort of over-generalisation is discriminatory and unneccesary.
Thank you for reading my little complaint and I hope in future the BBC will regain its objectivity.
The BBC's ignorance in its story isn't surprising. Just because a Windows virus targets SCO doesn't mean that it was written by pro-Linux advocates or that the pro-Linux and open source community supports, condones, or endorses the actions of MyDoom.
That's like the media's tendency to portray that all Muslims support and endorse acts of terrorism against the United States. While some terrorists may be Muslims, the worldwide Muslim community and even the religion itself does not condone or endorse the acts of terrorism.
The MyDoom virus is best described as "Misdirected Flamebait".
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO crafted MyDoom themselves, just adjust the public's opinions of SCO and the Linux/Open Source community in favor of SCO.
And the media played right into SCO's hands.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
To be fair, the logic isnt completely flawed. The MyDoom virus(es) attack two companies renowenedly hated by the majority of Linux/Open Source Users. Leading on from this, it is logical to assume that a Linux/Open Source User is the most likely suspect in creating the MyDoom virus, or variants of.
Of course, what maybe the writer of this post fails to realise is that the BBC doesnt say that since the author of MyDoom is probably a Linux user, all Linux users must be evil. That would be stupid. Just as a virus writer that is also a Windows user doesnt, by any means, imply that all Windows users are evil.
Chances are that yes, the MyDoom creator is a linux-user who hates SCO and Microsoft. Ok, maybe the writer of the article could have eased up on the generalisation of Linux being/becoming evil, but I dont think hes gone far wrong otherwise in his article...
"after being slashdotted with a record number of complaints."
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.
The growing amount of evidence that this virus was written by a hacker and funded by spammers is where the real story may lie. Does it really surprise anyone that the sociopathic spammer industry would be above this tactic?
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
Bastards.
Stephen Evans's article presents a serious and sloppy accusation against Linux programmers as fact while citing zero evidence. He accuses a class of people of a serious crime based only on the fact that one of the victims of that crime has been publicly attacking that class of people. That is pretty sloppy reporting.
Interestingly enough, the MyDoom virus's author would have had to use Windows development tools to produce the virus. It is more accurate to say that the author is a Windows developer.
Once the author is caught, we will all have an opportunity to evaluate that person's motives.
In the meantime, the most likely scenario is that the virus was either created by a single idiot or for a commercial purpose such as relaying spam and using the SCO attack only for cover. To declare otherwise is irresponsible journalism at best and libel at worst.
Most of us geeks have been dealing with the impact of this virus on our networks and mail transport systems that are caused by the combination of this virus with windows machines that amplify the immense stupidity of some of their users. I will admit to a brief smirk when I heard of the target of MyDoom's DDoS attack.
Jeeze.
The media and journalists also ALWAYS miss the fact that Free Software and Open Source are completely different.
Sheesh.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
The article presented by Stephen Evans is baseless. As a linux user I find that the article points at finger at the Linux users, who to hate SCO, but don't release viruses or DDoS their servers. This is simply an issue of some malicious cracker who happens to think that the next target should be SCO, so another possibility would be that SCO initiated it on themselves. Looking at their press releases and how they release information, it is entireley possible on both scenarios. My only issue is that you are defacing the name of Open Source and putting people like myself in a bad light, and giving us a bad name. Please make note, amend, or at least acknowledge that this issue isnt as black and white as you are putting it.
The same page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3457823.stm) currently (5 feb 2004) has a link :"Brazil falls in love with Linux".
So, Lula da Silva is a Linux Geek!
In another article, Stephen Evans uses this to assert that
Or something like that.
.
The implication that the current virus du jour was created by Linux zealots to hurt SCO and Microsoft is outrageous for a "normal" news outfit.
For the BBC - still one of the worlds most respected news organizations - this article, which obviously was very badly or not at all researched borders on a scandal.
It implies that the Free Software / Open Source community (whatever that is) is a bunch of vindictive criminals out to destroy anybody with whom the disagree with.
Being a free software user, since I opened my rather successful database consultancy business five years ago, I feel personally insulted by Mr. Evans diatribe.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
"Wrath of the geeks
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.
SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it.
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
Not that Linux devotees probably have that much to worry about.
Despite the law-suits against users by SCO, sales of computer servers using Linux have soared - up on one estimate by 50% in the past year, litigation or no litigation."
This was a terribly-written article, as well. It reads like a 6th-grade essay.
+++ATH0
Yeah, stick with Murdock. FWIW the situation here in the US isn't much different from yours, it seems.
C|N>K
Here's my feedback (now a 'complaint'):
Any repect I once had for this organisation is dripping away...
Isnt it funny , or wonderful, or whatever, that this community , whatever you like to call it "Open Source Community" or "Linux Community" that when something happens, rather than write viruses or DDOS sites. We write emails and create on-line petitions etc, in a perfectly civil and democratic way? Look at what was achieved with the Verisign search thing. We can and do change things. Sometimes I wonder just how instrumental we are, in directly or indirectly affecting the IT industry in general. I dread to think what it would be like if we geeks just sat on our asses and let companies like Verisign, SCO and Microsoft abusing the system, letting them continue twisting the media with their campaigns of FUD.
Just look at the amount of people (myself included) who have written to the BBC informing them of our views on the subject. This alone should indicate to them that we are not, as the article suggests full of malice. But infact an intelligent community of reasonably law abiding people. It is people like us who drive change and without our views and hard work and efforts ordinary people would have no choices at all when it comes to software and related technologies.
Sometimes people dont realise just how lucky they are that others are out there fighting for a cause which benefits everyone to such an extent that they take it for granted.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
titled it as factual errors. Quoted this Evans character and gave my own rebuttals. Too bad I closed Mozilla Firebird browser prior to realizing I should have copied the text. Trying to find the text in Mozilla Cache directory, does anyone know if it will end up there, or what?
BTW. This Evans cat should be fired.
You can't handle the truth.
How about the most obvious theory that the SCO "attack" was nothing more than a cover-up for the real intent of the worm, which was simply to create a vast grid of zombie computers for some other purpose, such as SPAM-bots, or even to launch a broader attack? By this point, it is a well known tactic of SPAM houses to create distributed SPAM mailing grids, since it makes it possible to flood the Internet with messages, while making it impossible to filter on the source.
The SCO site was an easy target -- low hanging fruit. The second attack - on Microsoft - was against a much more hardened site (Microsoft at least knows something about setting up secure, high bandwidth servers). Someone is out there testing the waters.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Now we just need to get them to fix the other 541 words of the article.
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.
Even if I AM more than a unrepentant about my spelling and grammar, I am pleased with feedback like paiute posted earlier in this thread.
However when people make comments like this, and throw insults like 'pathetic' and 'reenforcing stereotypes' around that I believe they are a little too anal-retentive for my liking. What if I AM a stereotypical geek? Hmm?
Anyway, had to throw this in to avoid insulting people who post polite feedback like paiute. But let us not turn it into a flamewar.
If the creators of the MyDoom virus were truly Linux zealots, then it would have been released under the GPL !
If you follow the major news, you'd know that they are very fast loosing their reputation as a source of information and are becoming regarded as a source of opinion.
British media, in general, seems to have the worst intgerity of all "free" press.
Feel free to mod me as a Troll before reading my sources.Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
BBC News has a response form at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm. For anyone who's interested, here's what I wrote:
Stephen Evans seems to have collected about twenty minutes worth of skimmed reading on the subject of SCO and the MyDoom trojan horse. Specifically, it seems to be beyond his comprehension that a single virus can be, and presumably was, written by a single individual. He says:
To me there seems little doubt that SCO has enraged a single rogue vandal, one person who is solely responsible for the damage wreaked by MyDoom. Any other ill will in the Open Source and Free Software movements towards SCO is simply justified anger at frivolous claims. It is unjust to tar every Open Source supporter with the 'hacker' (in the sense used in the article) brush.
Mr Evans goes on to suggest that SCO's case against IBM is because IBM uses Linux. SCO's actual claim is that IBM contributed SCO-owned code to Linux, thereby infringing SCO's copyright.
I feel I should also point out, in response to Mr Evans' "..zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source)", that the belief that all software should be free is one held by Free Software advocates (such as the Free Software Foundation), but not by the Open Source movement.
I hope that in future Mr Evans will be able to distinguish a rogue from the generally well-meaning pack.
Why is anything anything?
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
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.
Apart from politely pointing out they were misguided and at the very least should have offered the opinions of real virus experts, I wrote something in the line of
"not being a linux user myself but like any computer/science/engineering fan having a vested interest in this SCO thing where one contributing company suddenly turns around and decides to ride on the back of other people's voluntary work and charge for it."
I Thought this simplistic (but fundamentally true) non-techie angle would maybe make them see that they as one of the most daringly modernizing broadcasters in the world are very much involved.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
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
Here's what I wrote...
Stephen Evans' article below is unadulterated innuendo. There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was a Linux hacker who wrote MyDoom. Personally, I suspect it came from a shill who was ordered to provide a new reason for SCO to say that the Open Source movement was a threat to civilization. For this I ask you to refer to the so-called "signing" of the viral code: something along the lines of "this is andy, i'm just doing my job."
It has been my experience that the BBC doesn't publish innuendo as commentary but this appears to suggest that things have changed a tad.
Also, apparently Mr. Evans doesn't really understand the GPL. It's not about all code being free. It's about the author of the code being able to attach a rather unique condition to the use of his intellectual property: use it, modify it, but whatever you do, share it. Sort of a hi-tech "Pay It Forward" scheme.
Please, for the sake of truth and honour and for the reputations of some very bright people who have given me some very reliable software, order Mr. Evans to retract his story and get his facts straight before he goes to press like this again. Otherwise it'll be the BBC's turn to be suspected of being a shill for Microsoft -- something I consider dubious at best but circumstantial evidence can point both ways.
Sincerely,
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
It seem far more plausible, in my *opinion*, that the function of the attack on SCO is to gain the sympathy of linux users. Many systems administrators are Linux users who administer anti-virus software, and therefore are in a position or eradicate the virus. Gaining the sympathy of these people by attacking SCO would therefore likely *help* the virus survive, and promote its sucess as a SPAM relay.
oh those brits. what if some 'open source zealot' decides to do the same to the BBC with mydoom? Man, those linux users, they are a rowdy bunch. Staying up late drinking whiskey and preaching open source, writin' up those nasty viruses, uh huh. Well, with all the recent media exposure linux is recieving, this is to be expected. -Andy in Chi
Presented as facts in the referenced article is the incendiary opinion that Linux users are behind the MyDoom Windows virus. The author, Stephen Evans, presents no information that would lead anybody to conclude that such is the case. He offers an entirely opinion-based article as though it were fact.
Yet he makes strong conclusive assertions, such as, "It is about malice not money," and "There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt" -yet there is nothing but doubt, as the virus author's motives are unknown, and Evans presents no such information.
I believe a retraction is order, and at least a reprimand for Evans. If, however, you won't avail yourselves of that remedy for such a big lapse in journalistic integrity, perhaps you should relegate Evan's "article" to BBC's opinion page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm
Sincerely,
blah blah...
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
If the writer truly believed in opensource, wouldn't the virus come with the source code?
(\(\
(=_=) Bani!
(")")
I used to trust BBC for their objectivity in news reporting. I even kept listening when they stopped shortwave broadcasts to North America. I even kept listening after the Hutton decision placed the blame on BBC for the David Kelly incident.
But now, it is obvious that the BBC is not objective at all. They're just as corrupt as the domestic US news services. I'm not going to waste my time trying to hear the BBC on shortwave anymore.
My loyalty to open source demands it.
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
"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).
:)
If it really were a bunch of Linux/Open Source zealots, they'd have shared the MyDoom source code.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is my perception that many people who use and advocate Linux are also in favor of eliminating spam. It's perhaps one of the major reasons they prefer Linux. We know that virus/trojan horse/worm writers prefer to attack Windows-based systems because of the multitude of security holes it has.
What's happening with the MyDoom trojan sounds like spammers are trying to use the attacks against SCO and Microsoft (and maybe more targets) as a diversion for what they really want to do: send spam and discredit the groups that seek to eliminate spam. In their perception, Linux and the anti-spam movement are closely related. Discrediting one side of the pairing will eventually weaken the other.
Ask yourself this: If SCO wins and starts charging $699.00 per copy for Linux, what's the average user of Linux going to do? Probably switch to a Microsoft product and give spammers another system to use for a DDOE (Distributed Denial of E-mail) zombie.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Every paragraph in that story is exactly one sentence. It's almost as if he doesn't have anything to say. He's just trying to create one liners that can be quoted. Do you realize how annoying that is? Does this man actually get paid for writing? (OK, the first one had two sentences. He must have run out of steam after that)
Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from all that is known.
I hit the link to send a comment. What people seem to misunderstand about the F/OSS is how they propose to have free software. F/OSS says the way to have free software is to create it and give it away, but we keep getting portrayed in the press as advocating confiscation or theft of existing software.
Anyway, here's my blurb, which they will promptly ignore.
-paulPistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
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.
This will probably get missed in the noise, but...
EE Times had a similar article come out yesterday talking about the death threats that SCO execs, and also industry analysts have been receiving from Linux extremists.
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040202S0032
I would like to say that I take great offense at the statements made by Mr. Stephen Evans in his recent article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty." In that article he seems to be connecting the recent MyDoom virus to Linux users who are angry at SCO. This claim is baseless and it is sad to see it being made in the reputable news publications of the BBC.
There are certain parts of the article that I find to be outright slams against a group of people who use and develop a powerful, fully customizable, and free operating system. The first one is "the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user." Most of your "run-of-the-mill geeks" as Mr. Evans calls them, have never damaged an unsuspecting computer user. This fear seems to be heaviest in the business world, where anyone who isn't looking to make money must have some other "evil" ulterior motive. This stereotype needs to be debunked, as it is not true at all. Several projects are released free of charge for nothing more than someone trying to prevent others from "reinventing the wheel."
Later in the article Mr. Evans says that "Two years ago, SCO claimed that it owned more than 800,000 lines of the [Linux operating] system which had always been available for free and to anyone since its invention in 1991." Yes, SCO claimed this, but they also released their own version of the Linux operating system, Caldera Linux, for free. Caldera was released under the GPL or GNU Public License, thus making it legal for the product to be modified, redistributed, even sold, provided that the source code was sent along with it. This should make SCO's argument null and void, but this piece of information seems to be looked over by almost all mainstream news sources.
"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)." I can't disagree with that, but this so-called "wrath" is mostly shown by the writing and posting of intelligent arguments that poke large holes in the claims of people who spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (or FUD) about the open source operating systems.
"So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge...There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list." It has been theorized that this virus is actually a program that was written to hijack computers to be used as spam relays. The only reason for attacking the SCO website might be to hide something that deserves more attention. This virus may also have been written by someone sympathetic to SCO as a way to draw attention away from the baseless claims and to foster support against the Linux and Open Source communities.
I hope I have given another view to what looked like a black and white case of vengeance. It might seem easy to comment on lesser known groups, but please keep in mind that they are just as human as yourself, and prefer not to be accused for outrageous offenses.
"It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
It's all in the language. I love the bit where he says "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". Anyone who doesn't know the real story will come out of it believing
It's like war reporting: perfectly accurate in the facts, but with the language polished up to give a very specific interpretation of the facts. Lovely job, Mr. Evans.
How come as soon as a Linux user is *suspected* to make a virus, everyone gets mad at Linux users, but when the thousands of Windows virus writers make computer killing viruses, no one gets mad at Windows users?
SCO and Microsoft wouldn't get DoS'd if it weren't for poor administration and stupid users of their email clients.They have been told repeatedly NOT to open attachments from unknown sources.Admins are instructed to turn off the preview function.Quit using Outlook/Xpress,give them a text-only client and teach them how to use it and these attacks won't happen.Oh, is this even possible under MS?, probably not.
On 2nd February just before 8am RTE Radio 1 in Ireland (the semi-state national broadcasters primary radio station) had an interview with a director of a computer training company here in Ireland. The piece was brought to the attention of the Irish Linux Users Group which subsequently picked apart the "computer experts" opinions. You can see a full transcript of the interview here, listen to the piece from rte themselves here or you can look through the threads on the mailing list to find an ogg transcoding of the interview.
The most controversial quote from the interview was:
but numerous inadequacies in the piece (from calling OpenOffice.org, StarOffice and Linux companies to blurring the two variants into one and not mentioning anti-virus software or care in opening attachments as part of the protection) were pointed out. Subsequently, the ilug put out a press release which addressed the main issues and the "computer expert" replied quite unfavourably! The fallout led to the ilug chairman calling for some silence (controversial itself but explained here and here). The response (it seems) of the ilug to the "expert" was sent and RTE acknowledged the ILUG position on their site. The "expert" has returned once more and it seems the ilug will issue a final response saying that: You can pick up all the ins and outs of the threads on the threaded archive, including the rumours that someone was going to start ringing employers to see if they concurred with their employees postings!Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Now Aschcroft's going to be coming affter us all for being affiliated with the "terrorist" organization called "Linux".
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
I think we need to point out the action that _can_ be attributed to the Linux community. Other than flame wars and mod whores that "support" the virus, we have groklaw and google bombs. By far the most maliscious thing we have done to SCO is call them litigious bastards. While it is theoretically one of us wrote the virus, it is certian that most of us participated in the google bomb.
Sig intentionaly left blank
How can they think that MyDoom was written by a linux user, was there a GPL header on the top? :D
Hello Stephen,
:-) I found the insinuation that 'we' would be behind the irresponsible attacks on SCO and Microsoft quite insulting.
:-), SCO's legal threats have no grounding in fact, Linux users and developers just get on with doing what they *want* to do.
/-\ \ /
I read your BBC news story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm with some interest (it is an intriguing story) and some dismay (it has some wild theorising). As a Linux user and 'zealot'
Linux users and developers are focused on creating a computer system which performs well, is reasonably priced and- importantly- hides nothing from it's user. Open Source and Free Software is about giving the user the option to modify their computer system however they wish. It's about individual choice, quality and freedom.
They are not interested in attacking other groups, certainly not in such an irresonsible manner as the recent Denial Of Service worm attacks. They're only interested in being better than their 'competitors'. Without a profit motive there's no reason to compete on any other criteria than quality. There is no war; Microsoft can do whatever it wants (though they annoy us mightily sometimes
I believe that if a true Linux supporter could have done anything to stop these Denial Of Service attacks then they would have done so. They are of no benefit to Linux or anyone else, and could only cause bad press like your article... is it possible that the media is being manipulated into attacking Linux?
You might consider the fact that someone who codes an e-mail worm which works on Microsoft Windows and manipulates Microsoft programs is more likely to be an experienced Microsoft Windows developer. As a Linux user I don't even have the tools or the knowledge to write a Windows program (they tend to cost far too much!), let alone whether the program I've written will spread itself from PC to PC and attack web sites on schedule.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Duncan
PS. I found this e-mail address on the web at http://[deleted] . I hope I've got the correct person; if not, please accept my humble apologies.
--
_| _ _ _ ___ _ ___
(_| \_/ / \ \_
Sent with Mozilla 1.6
I encourage others to do the same
If I were an open-source zealot, who wrote Windows worms. I would have made the source available for the public and included a copy of the GPL along with the MyDoom worm. After all we can't have Windows virii floating around laden with software bugs, can we?
Therefore it could not have been an open-source zealot who wrote the worm as the article on BBC implies.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
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.
I must say that I was shocked to be lumped in with virus writers simply because I believe in Linux and open source. I am even more shocked that the BBC, an organization I've respected for years, would stoop to such inaccuracies. I, for one, would very much like to see these virus writers jailed for their destructive actions. Linking someone like myself, who has spent a large amount of time fighting and removing viruses to these criminals if equivalent to linking all reporters to Jayson Blair. I'm sure you would not be happy with the comparison.
If I may note, in order to write and distribute the MyDoom virus, the virus author would have to use Windows. Neither the programming language, nor the method of delivery the virus uses, will work on a linux system.
I would like an apology for this factual error. It defames me, and a large number of good and innocent people in the linux community.
Greg Webster
Of course, what it really shows is the abysmal ignorance of the author of this disgraceful article, of what his employer is actually doing, and probably ignorance also of what Linux, and open source in general, actually is. He will probably be confusing Tony B. Liar with a Socialist, or Dubya with an elected president, next.....
Given how the victims of this virus are closely aligned with the sworn enemies of the Linux community, and given that the Linux community is generally ripe with coders skilled enough to do such a thing, it doesn't seem like too far of a stretch of the imagination to suspect that some misguided Linux user is a likely culprit.
Why does the Linux community take such offense to the notion that one of their own might be a less than decent fellow? There are millions of Linux users, do you really live in such a fantasy world that you believe all of them are benevolent, simply by virtue of having chosen Linux?
It is indeed unfortunate that the acts of one zealot might tarnish the image of the Linux community as a whole -- an image that is every bit as important to Linux as some corporations image is to themselves. How about a little less hypocricy here, the Linux community routines blames Microsoft for anything that goes wrong...if the shoe fits....
do we have grounds for a class action defamation suit?
No matter what Microsoft does with it to use it as the basis for The Microsoft Win32 ftp.exe, BSD's code is still there for anyone to use, in any way they see fit.
You can never lose the code you released under a BSD Licence.
It is primarily advertising for Viagra.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
I think that a good analogy can be drawn here to religious fundamentalism. Islam, for instance, is a peaceful religion practiced primarily by decent people. That hasn't stopped others from twisting it into an instrument of terror. Same idea with the virus. Undoubtedly, the attack on SCOs servers shows that the virus writer had a particular political motive, and that the virus writer was most likely a Linux user -- or somebody sympathizing with the open source movement. That doesn't make Linux users evil, just as 9/11 didn't make Muslims evil. I think the rest of the analogy is self-explanatory.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Dear Sir:
... the internet runs 90% in OUR software, this email will be delivered to you by one or more components based on Free/Open source software).
In the article: Linux cyber-battle turns nasty, by Stephen Evans, there are a number of factual errors and editorial concessions the author gives to himself, far under the standard for serious journalism that BBC has allways upheld.
He claims that it is clear that the linux community " Wrath of the Geeks " has attacked the SCO.COM site with the MyDoom Virus. By god sir, get your facts straight.
I am a Linux "Geek" (as you fondly call me), and the only wrath ive felt in the past two months is about you and your article!
Let me set your fact straight:
1.- The Representatives of the linux community is only consistant of 1 person in the world. Linus Torvalds, the author of the kernel. You have never seen, or will ever see him endorsing the coward attack of a cracker against a live website.
2.- Representatives of the Open Source Community are basically two:
a) Eric S. Raymond who has allways stated that this kind of attack is well bellow the members of our community. In his site, Eric points journalists to "do their homework" and read "the paper that started the avalanche" at this page:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/press.html
If Mr. Evans has never read this paper, he has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to talk, write or critizize ANYTHING about the linux community. Read the paper to make shure you understand just who are this "geeks", the self appointed Open Source Community is all about.
b) Bruce Perens
Bruce is one of the most important people in this "Geek" Community your article talks about. He helped create Software in The Public Interest, and the guidelines by which our community decides if a software licence can be labeled as free or not (thats the Open Source Definition....go google for it).
He has probably more moral pull than Eric for this kind of thing and he clearly stated in his response to the MyDoom news that no one in the Open Source community shouldve or woudlve done this because its against our values of technicall excelence and professional ethic.
He has a much better idea than Mr. Evans in that he points out the obvious authors of the virus:
Either SCO did this themselves for publicity or the Spamming industry found a way to hit us (the free/open source community) and make spam-spreading virii (i dont know if Mr. Evans noticed, but MyDoom was released at the same time as two other Spam-Spread virii. This strongly support the second opinion about the authors of mydoom).
c) Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation.
Richard (often called RMS) is the undisputed leader of the Free Software Movement. This movement is different from the Open Source Community in that it is founded upon the beleif that software should be, like speech, free. The Open Source Community does not necesarily endorse that point of view.
If Richard got his hands on the dirty cracker that made MyDoom he would probably strangle him himself.
A cracker is to the linux/open source/ free software communities the worst kind of thief. He thrives on our technicall improvements (uses linux, and GNU tools -made by the FSF and stallman-), to commit himself to antisocial behaviour in the environment WE created, called the Internet (YES WE!
Worst of all, we create this software so that people can enjoy it and make their lives better with it. Our software is a work of art and usability. It is built with the idea of human advancement in mind. We write it with a star on the edge of our eye that wants to see the BEST come out of our hands.
We do not endorse lousy 15 year old white kids with nothing to do playing with it to hurt a company.
Nor do we endorse (as the enourmous wealth and quality of anti spam open source software proves), gutless spamming predators that cost companies and individuals billions of dollars a year.
Finally, we D
NO SIG
Printing crap like that is likely to irritate someone like the MyDoom writers into coding another one that attacks the BBC instead of SCO.....
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
He goes on about the linux users "wrath of geeks". Does this guy even know that thanks to this "wrath of geeks" his article is online? What some people do for a few seconds of fame and cheap cash.
[alk]
a Bunch of Linux Zealots Full Of Wrath?
you got them....
This is as far as we go. We leave virii writing to thieves and their contractors like SCO
NO SIG
This article didn't really go to any extremes in terms of linking Linux and the virus, such as saying it might be a linux developer who is doing it (like SCO was implying). It is, however, funny how Linux is portrayed in the media, as if the only users of it were "die-hard" hackers.
To make the point, what if the attacks were centered around Microsoft? Wouldn't these tie-ins and insinuations of SCO sound silly if we just changed the operating system? Proportionally, there are just as many "normal" users of Linux as there are of Windows (hackers vs. users). It could have been some Windows programmer that just happens to like Linux that wrote this virus. Maybe the peron who wrote it doesn't really give a crap about Linux, but figured this would be funny. I would argue this, actually, since anyone who actually cares about Linux probably wouldn't do this - it's only given the enemy SCO another tool for spreading propoganda.Stephen Evans' computer may or may not be mailing copies of the MyDoom worm to everyone in his address book, but the misinformation he provides in his article today does nothing but further the aims of the worm's author.
Only one quarter of infected PCs will participate in the attempted DDoS. The other three quarters remain silent, yet the worm opens a back door on these computers, accessible to anyone who can extract the password from the code of the virus. The DDoS attack is an attempt to divert attention from the true purpose of the worm - to create "zombie" PCs that can be used for sending massive amounts of unsolicited email.
Most journalists would be excited to penetrate such a cover story, and reveal the truth behind it. Stephen Evans it appears, would rather repeat the lie.
--
E_NOSIG
First they drive a poor old man to his death in the UK for doing his job. Second they try to kill the truth. Now they're only left with trying to kill of support for operating systems.
I think the BBC has only killed their credibility.
Stossel will basically say anything to back up the story he wants to tell. He's not just fact-light, like this Evans article/opinion piece; he's willing to just plain make 'em up. He'll tell you Parkinson's Disease kills more people than AIDS, 'cause he wants less AIDS funding. He'll make up graduation rates for school systems out of thin air. And so on.
I'll say this, at least the BBC editors, or maybe even Evans, see fit to throw in an occasional qualification. ABC has known Stossel was abusing the truth for years and years, and they keep shuffling his producers and fact checkers off the job without disciplining their on-air "personality." The guy just goes on writing his facts to support the conclusion he's already reached.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
What the FUCK is this world comming to, come on!
You think we should play out to be a news SOURCE so that the BBC can confirm what some of us think is the truth?"
Fuck it. Evans is getting paid, he should do his job and not base his article in slashdot rants. I mean, that just proves he is incredebly humongously stupid.
NO SIG
how much time for a MyDoom.C to target BBC now?
And if you REALLY don't like their reporting, just write an email virus to DDoS the BBC... ;)
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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
Ok fellow Linux Zealots -- set your secret internet decoder rings to destination BBC.com. We'll show them who they are messing with!
Clearly... I am kidding! By no means am I suggesting that we unleash a mydoom-style DDOS attack against the BBC (wink wink). Now cut that out! That's the sort of crap that gives us a bad name. I mean it! (wink wink) I give up. (wink wink) Must be a tic.
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
Ok, this is whinging, I know, but:
What the fsck?
Someone has just spent 1 mod point, to take me down from 1 to 0, offtopic. I really don't think it was sooooo offtopic to deserve that. Surely it would have been far better to leave the post in the dregs (do many people read below about +3 anyway), and mod some other post UP.
This just gives an impression of pettiness - as if someone is more interested in putting people down than lifting them up!
</rant>
/* This sig is disabled. Press CTRL-W to enable. Thankyou */
Stephan Evans: Hey, lets post up an article bashing linux, saying SCO has envoked the wraith of the linux zealots!
Manager: Great idea, we'll throw it up tonight.
*1 day later and a post on slashdot later*
Netadmin: Steve, I think I can explain why the e-mails down. See Betsy? The one that's melted out of the rack and is cuttently bubbling on the floor? Yes, I didn't know that was possible either, but evidently it is. You might be careful with what you say in the future you insensitive clod! Besty ver 2.0 is coming in next week, and I don't want to lose her to the wraith of the linux community.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I'm not sure that addressing the writer as monkey-boy qualifies as a particularly nice response!
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
so give us what we want, or else we'll be force to write more free code!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...targets the BBC's website.
Well, I'm off to do some coding!
As someone who did a minor in English...no, just no. Maybe journalism or editing, but not English. English is not like Computer Science where your essay does not compile if you miss a comma or don't dot your i. Most first drafts look far worse than your average modded up post on Slashdot (which people do tend to edit a bit). Sure, you proofread for a few days if it's a major paper, but don't delude yourself that the average English major is a grammar whore; in fact I've known more non-English major grammar whores.
Its funny how you can spin this as Linux attacking SCO when in reality it is the other way around. There is a direct analogy to a playground fight here being that its not right for either side to throw the blows they have... but the way they are different is the virii authors don't represent 'Linux Users/Authors' while the lawyers for SCO certainly do.
I find articles of this kind without critique of SCO tactics to be sensationalism and one sided.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Don't use the `feedback form'. Don't email. Send them a proper slice-of-dead-tree letter.
Letters have to be opened; they have to be read; they can't just be deleted, they have to be at least sent out with the rubbish. Plus, sending a letter costs more in time and money than a simple email flame, so shows you to be that much more serious.
It's simple enough: paste the email you just sent into a LaTeX document or into Lyx, sign it and send it off. The address to send it to is:
Business section
BBC News
Broadcasting House
London W1A 1AA
England
Those living outside Europe are exempt, but if postage to the UK costs you less than 1 euro, you owe it to yourself to send them a letter now.
Trust the Beeb to totally and completely get all their wires crossed simultaneously. I'm surprised anyone in the organisation even knows what Linux is, let alone how to spell it!
"Business" section
.stm] written by Stephen Evans, your North America Business Correspondent, of the 5th February:
BBC News
Broadcasting House
London W1A 1AA
Dear Sir or Madam,
With reference to the website article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823
As a license payer, I have always been of the opinion that the BBC, to the best of its ability, maintains a high quality, unbiased news service.
I was however appalled at the allegations made by Stephen Evans against the community of Linux users and developers.
Mr. Evans alleges that "there seems little doubt that" the motivation behind the attack against the website of the company SCO was that "it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system". He baldly states that the attack "is about malice not money" and that to blame are "the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage". The implication that it is standard practice among Internet users to attain one's objectives by means of illegal methods is deeply insulting and hurtful. The insult is compounded by Mr. Evans' own admission that there is "no proof" followed immediately by his assertion that - despite the total lack of any evidence pointing in that direction - the primary targets of an investigation should be the Linux community.
The absurdity of your correspondent's position is compounded by the following points of fact:
the writing of a virus is a work of skill (regrettably misapplied), requiring an in-depth knowledge of the workings of the target system. "Linux zealots" do not know or care how to write code for the altogether different Windows operating system, the habitat of the MyDoom virus;
security professionals have stated[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4113278/] that the targeting of the SCO website by the virus is likely to be a smokescreen designed to draw attention away from the true purpose of the virus - hijacking users' machines for the purposes of sending junk email and of obtaining bank and credit card details by monitoring keystrokes;
SCO is not in any significant sense damaged by the attack on their website; their decision to remove it from the Internet rather than contract a content distribution company to bear the load demonstrates the irrelevance of the website to SCO's commercial model. Indeed, SCO no longer uses its website for any commercial purpose, having ceased to sell software in order to devote its energies to pursuing its lawsuits against IBM and other software companies.
As a member of the community of Linux users, I want no part of any "cyberspace war" dreamed up by sensationalist reporters; similarly I am confident that the contract dispute between SCO and IBM will be resolved in IBM's favour in short order once the court case commences. The implication in your correspondent's article that Linux users are so worried about the implications of SCO's litigation that they are willing to resort to illegal forms of retaliation is not only libellous; it is absurd.
I would argue that at the current time the BBC would do well to refrain from casting aspersions on individuals or categories of people and confine itself to what it does best: the unbiased reporting of fact. The Business section of your organisation would do well to model its behaviour in this regard after the Technology section, whose coverage of the contract dispute between SCO and IBM has throughout been exemplary in sticking to the facts and refraining from base speculation about the actions and motives of participants in and spectators to the case.
I have always, and through the last week in particular, been an avid defender of the BBC's right to editorial independence and its right to report without fear of adverse consequences for mistakes made in good faith; Stephen Evans' article has sadly led me to reconsider this position. I however console myself by noting that this failure of editorial oversight appears to be confined to the Business
I did...
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on
Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but
an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United
States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written
just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of
spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the
main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's
audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the
Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial
application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger
that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal
actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's
actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including
virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
[Lightly edited for posting]
Tim, thanks for your email, To which I respond:
on Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 07:32:39PM -0000, NewsOnline (newsonline@bbc.co.uk) wrote:
This isn't clear from the presentation of the article on your website. Clearly denoting "news", "editorial", and "analysis" content is strongly recommended.
Moreover, there has been more than one "analyst" with a clear axe to grind, and/or affiliations with parties having significant financial interests in the outcome of the dispute between Caldera/SCO and IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and the other parties Caldera/SCO have threatened directly or otherwise.
As maintainer of a website providing background on the case, I even had one such individual (David Politis) who runs a regular "analysis" column in a Utah newspaper, complain that he was outed as having a prior relationship with Caldera/SCO. The fact of the matter is that he does have a prior relationship, the relationship was in the period immediately preceding the announcement of the lawsuit against IBM, and Politis has written about the case both before and after his engagement, with only one mention (September 15, 2003) that he has any interest in the companies involved. I might add that his coverage of the case is anything but balanced (unless you hail from Fox News, perhaps...).
If you'll see things from the perspective of those who have an admitted bias toward GNU/Linux, in addition to a rather copious collection of documented facts largely disputing any material claim made on the part of Caldera/SCO, there's a decided distrust of those whose allies wield $6 thousand million marketing and PR budgets. Or is it $8 thousand million. It's _so_ hard to keep track.
It's certainly debatable.
If you wish to publish a piece of discussion or commentary debating whether or not there is a motive on the part of those who favor GNU/Linux, those who would see GNU/Linux tarnished, those who favor Caldera/SCO, or those who would see Caldera/SCO tarnished, be my guest.
However, I have rather old-fashioned appreciation to have a little news with my news, and to have that news, sir, consist of facts. Specific, documented, substantial facts.
Evan's article, sir, contained no such facts.
The BBC owes a retraction.
If this is the BBC's position, then I would advise you to make the aforementioned fiction section an official rather than a covert section post haste.
Boozy speculation of what might have been or what might be, sir, is not news.
[Original message snipped]What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
If The MyDoom author had the same skill as the Mr. Evans does as a journalist. There would be no discussion about this, and www.sco.com would not be down. The real unfortunate point is that Mr. Evans does not have the equivalent journalistic skill, so the Linux community must suffer stupid commentary as well. Ahhh, to be a journalist for the BBC these days.
Retribution:
I'm going to DDoS you because you sued my brother.
Anticipation:
I'm going to DDoS you because I DDoS'd your brother.
Diplomacy:
I'm going to DDoS my brother and then sue you on the pretext that your brother did it.
As the comments in MyDoom.B suggested a hired hit, which do you think is most likely?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
When an American soldier in Iraq gets shot down and one of several dozen "terrorist" groups are happily taking the "credit" it's much different from inferring that since the MyDoom viruses attack MS/SCO, they must have been written by a linux user. Furthermore, since MyDoom was written to propogate on a windows platform, in a language for windows, one can also infer that the programmer was at least familiar enough with windows to write said virus.
Maybe the writer uses linux, maybe he doesn't. He's not standing up asking for congrats on taking on SCO, nor is there anything to really link him to Linux... so hence the bias.
Oh look at me! I'm Stephen Evans! Look Microsoft and Sco - I am beating up on Linux! Look at me! (maybe I'll get a free laptop out of this)...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The graphic link is now off the main page.
The article itself seems to have been heavily gutted as well. I don't remember seeing so many one-liner paragraphs than before.
------
Amadaeus
The last bastion of Mathie-ism
My call is SCO made MyDoom as a publicity stunt - see SCO isn't the bad guy, they're getting beat up by the geeks - Bad Geeks, bad!
Evidence? We don't need no steenking evidence!
Yeah, it's those damned commie pinko hippie linux users.
I think the BBC has "sexed-up" this story to gain some readership.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Yup, same thing here. While I'd love to have believed that my email to them was just so damn moving that it warranted a personal response from the business editor of the BBC, I can't say it is surprising. I'm sure they got many, many responses, and not just from those of the Slashdot crowd. I suppose it is a bit misleading, but it does say "Dear Sir" and so isn't very convincing as a personal reponse.
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on
Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but
an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United
States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written
just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of
spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the
main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's
audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the
Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial
application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger
that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal
actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's
actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including
virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
-- MY RESPONSE TO THEIR RESPONSE --
Just because other people have done it doesn't make it right. Mr. Evan works (in some capacity) for BBC News. Regardless of the focus of his article, it should bear the weight of the BBC along with the implicit honor of BBC as a publisher. I, and many others like me, expected that the BBC had more journalistic integrity than to just post some half-baked idea that some Linux zealots decided to take down SCO's site. There would be no point in doing so, since this would just hurt the cause of the Open Source communities.
In addition, blaming a group for something negative (like MyDoom) is not a good way to bring to light that group's plight. I seriously doubt that this was Mr. Evan's point, since any decent writer would be able to make that point much more clearly. For instance, if you wanted to bring attention to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, would you start by claiming that there are Palestinians bombing troops in Iraq? (an equally unfounded position without facts)
Regardless of your canned response, this article/opinion is irresponsible and belongs more in a tabloid than with a real news agency.
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
The code BSD originally released is still there, available for anyone to use however they wish.
Microsoft incorporating that code into their own FTP.EXE didn't magically make the original BSD released code disappear.
You can still take that the original code, and do whatever you want with it, just as Microsoft was allowed to take the original code and do whatever they wanted with it.
You can't take whatever Microsoft added to the BSD released code, unless they released it under an OpenSource licence. But that's their right, they are free to licence their own code however they like.
I wanted to say that normally I am a big supporter of the BBC worldview, but this article is simply irresponsible. Stephen Evans is either a shill for the vested interests (Microsoft or SCO) or is simply a sensationalist without any significant journalistic integrity - or completely uninformed about this situation.
Even though the evidence points to the probability that this 'virus' (it's actually a trojan that takes advantage of a poor security decision in Outlook/Windows) was, and is, a tool of spammers, with the SCO/Microsoft connection being nothing more than window dressing and misdirection.
Even the Windows supporters on slashdot.org don't believe the 'Linux Community' created this malware. Why should the BBC be more gullible? Even if this malware were created by an outraged Linux zealot, it would not mean that the "Linux Community" was behind it.
Sadly yours,
Steve
Thinking outside my Head
Hell they blew up 5 buildings in NY last month alone!
Not. Not everything fits a moral equivalence, PC-ified worldview so snugly, sorry.
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on
Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but
an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United
States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written
just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of
spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the
main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's
audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the
Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial
application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger
that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal
actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's
actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including
virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
I, and the "totality" of the free software community am very disappointed with
e ws.bbc .co.uk).
...
. fsf.org/press/2004-01-14-record-straigh t.html- fizzle.h tml
the standard of journalism displayed by Stephen Evans with his article "Linux
cyber-battle turns nasty" posted on 05/02/04.
Forgetting the obvious failure to show a proper understanding of the difference
between a computer virus and in the case of MyDoom, a worm, the opinions and
conclusions drawn in regards to the free and open source software communities
are unforgivably errorenous. The mere assertion that a movement which for the
last 20 years has strived-to and has successfully improved the socio-political and
philosophical implications of computer software within our society would resort
to the immature mentality shown with the recent attacks on SCO and Microsoft is
deceptive and highly ambiguous to say the least. It is the standard of
journalism which displays little or no knowledge of the topic in question.
I wonder if Stephen Evans has even researched the eccentric claims put forth by
SCO, and if so, why he overlooked the rational and indisputable responses from
those who lead our movement.
However implausible and at times humorous the claims from SCO may be, I have
never met a single credible user or developer that is prepared to defend the
actions taken by the author of the MyDoom worm. It's preposterous and
embarrassing to publish that association -- especially on a site dependant on
the software created by the so-called "Internet zealots" (see
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=n
In conclusion, I would appreciate it if my comments were passed onto Stephan,
along with the following collection of URLs written by and in defense of
the free software community, and the Linux kernel. I would hope that in the
future, those who write articles commenting on legal battles within the free
and open source communities will consider the use of objective, rather than
unfounded subjective arguments.
Regards,
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/DOS/
http://www
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/smoking
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1879
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
>Holy cow, you're being obtuse on purpose, right?
Aren't you ashamed of yourself when attacking other's self-esteem using intentionally loaded questions? Do you do this often? When will you stop doing this?
>Microsoft incorporating that code into their own FTP.EXE didn't magically make the original BSD released code disappear.
No, but even though FTP.exe is virtually 100% BSD code, I still can't give it away, can I? And I can't get the source for FTP.exe either, can I?
>You can't take whatever Microsoft added to the BSD released code, unless they released it under an OpenSource licence.
BINGO!
>But that's their right, they are free to licence their own code however they like.
??? Explain this "right" to me. Is this like saying I would own the Mona Lisa if I scribbled over it?
You've confused me.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
About Steven Evans's article, :
which I won't describe first as an idiotic (if not anything more premeditated and targeted) flaming about linux users.
No fact, and no relationship has at the moment ever been found between any opensource "zealot", and this virus. Don't forget that, as this article contribute to do, this kind of irresponsible behavior would hurt more the opensource community than anything else. To the point where the exact opposite deduction can be made as well about this virus, leading to suspect any open source opponent (such as Microsoft, for an example, but who knows ?) who could leak this wrecking piece of bad-code on purpose to draw suspicion upon the open source defenders.
Let me recall two (or, go, three) points to the man who pretends to be a columnist here
- to the date, not any one of the claims of sco remains proven, and even sco's CEO was quoted as saying SCO forged these complaints in a last temptative to escape bankruptcy. So any deontologic respecting professionnal could not give in any of the two thesis without mentioning this fact
- your journalist says open source people want the code for free. He forgets to say that they want the code THEY made to be free for OTHERS. In no part of the GNU/open source manifest is written that all software must be free. They don't ask microsoft to stope selling windows. They give for free an alternative system that they made. Period. (And multiplicity has always been proved to gain evolution, to date. But the point here is not in advocating pros and cons of open source software, it's correcting what has been misinterpretated.)
- thirdly, when nothing is proven, it's in the basics of journalistic deontology to mention it first. In this 3+ kbyte article of pure free flamins, the only mention comes in the last half in the form of six words, "There's no proof, of course", as quickly discarder as they were told, and before the point arrives. This was however the only sure fact of this article, safe the fact there's a virus called "MyDoom", targeting SCO's website...
And you call this guy journalist.
Might as well give me the seat, I'd make a better use of it, I think.
Sincerely, Vincent.
glop
There is a very fine line between "troll" and "valid opinion" my friend.
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.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=news.bbc .co.uk
.... are the realm of informal conversations, like the ones taking place on this site.
They don't have place in a journalistic institution like the BBC, if they calim something they have to support if with facts or limit themsleves to report any facts currently known.
It is not up to a derided "journalist" to hide behind the BBC's good name in order to air is wild, unsubstantiated musings.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Err...yes, but why does it read / in URLs in the first place? Because DOS was the first OS to serve pages or what? Heh, heh? ;-)
Dear Sir Thanks for your e-mail. I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article. Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States. It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive. That was not the point of Stephen's article. In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions. Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts. Regards, Tim Weber Business Editor BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Maybee you should check your facts: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/w32.mydoom.a@mm.html
Heres some quotes:
Checks the system date, and if the date is between February 1, 2004 and February 12, 2004, there is a 25% chance the worm will perform a DoS attack against www.sco.com. The DoS is performed by creating 63 new threads that send GET requests and use a direct connection to port 80. The worm will not mass mail itself if the DoS attack is triggered.
Of course, all those Linux users are potential danger to the society.
Like all muslim people are potential terrorists.
Anybody with the capability to think by himself will avoid the trap. And well, that's exactly the problem...
I am quite disappointed about that article, which contains nothing substantial but keeps on making a direct connection between the MyDoom attack and the GNU/Linux users. That is, excuse me, not what I am used from BCC. I do not even want to go into the sensational language and expressions used throughout.
Rather I would like to point out that you have not mentioned:
- anything about SCOs current shape and motives to go for that legal battle;
- anything about the calls of Open Source leading figures like Bruce Perens not to join in these kind of attacks;
- anything to separate the discussion about a virus and the discussion around software being free or not (which has not a lot in common);
This is attracting readers to your website, nothing more. In the long-term they keep away, if the articles continue on that level.
People are free to choose their media as well, you know.
Best regards, M Dapp
PS. Believe it or not, I am not even a GNU/Linux user, let alone geek.
I wonder if we will slashdot their mail server...
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
He approached a journalist, divulged his opinion contrary to what his bosses were doing, and he expected they will not identify him (the BBC did not leak his name you know), and knowing how they act, he expected to keep his anonimity?
Then, when he couldn't take the heat, he commited suicide.
How is that the fault of the BBC????
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
By the time TSG is done, the stigma associated with having been "a SCO dealer" is going to be a significant business liability. D'ohl still thinks he's got a chance of bottling and selling Linux, the madman, and as another SCO reseller commented, there's nothing in D'ohl's plans which builds his business.
I want to see a cartoon of D'ohl holding up an exploded plastic water bottle, with an angry Tux emerging from it with wide-open fang-encrusted beak, poised to exact a terrible revenge for his incarceration. Any takers?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Why would somebody wanting to hut SCO woule leave open all kind of backdors traditionally associated to spammers' tactics?
This is clearly and spammer attempt at being funny.
And in any case, you don't know who did this, neither does the individual writing for the BBC, thus any theory is nothing but wild, unfounded speculation and it should be clearly marked as such.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The one thing a typical Slashdot reading Linux weenie hates to hear is how much of a Zealot they appear to be to the rest of the world, and for that matter the rest of the non-GPL open source community. As a FreeBSD person, I have no doubt in my mind that you Finux Weenies would go so far as to dispatch death threats to SCO executives (this has happened), or to write software to target SCO's website (This has also happened). It simply isn't enough to lay back and allow SCO to make a fool out of their own self, as they have done.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
I did too and while my wording is not as articulated as some of the other posts (kudos to them), I found some more errors (basicly about the lawsuit).
So, here's mine :
The article written by Stephen Evans about MyDoom is factual incorrect.
Error 1) "run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user"
If, Mr. Evans had any knowledge of the domain, he would know that today most viruses are NOT written by computer geeks, but by professional spammers that use the infected computers to send spam. Their motivation is money.
Error 2) "It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of data"
This is completly wrong. http://sco.com is alive and serving data. www.sco.com is not resolvable. That means, that SCO *themself* decided to take www.sco.com out of the DNS-System. SCO made their website invisible, granted, to avoid handling the bandwidth possibly generated by virus, but it was SCO who took their website off the net, NOT the virus.
By the way, nobody knows for sure if the virus really does make an attack against www.sco.com, some people suggested that the A-Variant only looks up www.sco.com to make sure that the infected computer is connected to the net, but now that SCO made their site invisible, we will never now.
The B-Variant, however, appears to really make an attack against www.sco.com and www.microsoft.com.
Error 3) "There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted [...] because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system."
WRONG again.
First, several antivirus researchers are convinced that this virus is also written by spammers and that the SCO part is just there to hide the true nature of the virus.
After all, if the virus was from a Linux enthusiast, why would it leave an open backdoor on the infected computers?
Second, this is a succesful virus and therefor the author needs to have inside knowledge of Windows system programming to make it small and efficient.
Linux zealots generally wont even touch anything Windows, so where does this knowledge should come from and on who's computer was the virus tested?
Error 4) "Two years ago, SCO claimed ..."
Actually, this was one year ago.
Error 5) "On top of that, SCO has sued IBM, accusing it of infringing on SCO intellectual property in the way it uses Linux."
Wrong. SCO has sued IBM for *contract violations*, not IP infringing.
Actually, SCO's argument is something like this : IBM developped JFS for AIX, therefor - even though JFS is IBM's intellectual property - SCO argues that IBM has no right to put JFS into Linux due to some obscure contract obligation.
This has nothing to do with SCO's intellectual property and everything with a complicated contract between AT&T and IBM, where the AT&T side is now represented by SCO.
Error 6) "For good measure, SCO is seeking at least a billion dollars from IBM."
Actually, the one billion dollar was in the first filing, since then SCO had changed it to three billions dollars.
Error 7) "Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users"
Wrong. While SCO claims that it will sue "one prominent Linux user" "anytime soon now," the current court dispute is between SCO and IBM only. NOT between SCO and "linux users."
Inaccuracy 8) " It's hard to see how any website could withstand that kind of clever evil."
This is not the first time it happens.
Half a year ago, there was the Blaster virus that made a similar attack against windowsupdate.com.
Microsoft bougth help from a specialized hosting company and resisted the attack.
SCO however, doesnt even care about his website. They dont use their website to make business, this is done by their resellers (This is their own claim). Basicly, they only use their website to post their press releases that they own Linux. Therefor they choose to abandon their site in
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
It's a comment piece buried way down in the BBC business section, saying something 99.9999% of the world's population neither understand nor care about, and which the other 0.0001% are already thinking anyway.
To anyone bothered enough to have complained to the BBC and self-important enough to have posted your letter here. FIND SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT TO DO. If you all hate SCO so much, lobby them. (You have? Great!) Contribute to a piece of software that might help get linux noticed for the right reasons. Go out and get some fresh air. It might help you calm down.
So far as I can see this article reports a rumour as rumour, doesn't criticise linux and doesn't criticise linux users. God, you're all so precious about your little computer system. Get off the hobby horse.
The vocal minority make linux users look like a bunch of ignorant, righteous, blinkered partisans. Just the kind of people every CEO wants to move into his enterprise eh?
Correspondance with BBC regarding one of their artciles. I actually succeded in having the editor modifying the text :-)
;-)
: :
From - Tue Feb 03 22:36:38 2004
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:36:38 +0100
From: Bjarne D Mathiesen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 MultiZilla/1.6.0.0d
X-Accept-Language: da, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: NewsOnline
Subject: Re: Factual Errors
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alfred Hermida - NewsOnline wrote:
> Hello
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I read it with interest as I am always
> interested in feedback from readers.
>
> In 1994 Novell transferred the rights to the Unix trademark and the
> specification to The Open Group. Simultaneously, it sold the source code
> and the product implementation to SCO.
>
> To the lay reader, there may not be much in it between saying "owns the
> Unix operating system" and "owns the source code of the Unix operating
> system." But I appreciate there is a difference and have amended the
> story accordingly.
That's still not entirely correct
1) SCO might be owning the source code but in that case *ONLY* for the
original AT&T implementation of Unix - no other Unix like eg the Sun
Solaris or any of the BSD implementation (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD)
2) as a consequense of the court case between Berkeley and USL (noted in the opensource article/url) it was established that the BSD version and the AT&T version are separate legal entities
3) *anybody* can make a Unix implementaion from the ground up based upon the specifications from The Open Group (like Sun Solaris), but in order
to use the name Unix, you'll have to certify with The Open Group. Thus, *nobody* can own the source code to Unix except for their own implementation of the specification
At present, the ownership of the AT&T version is in a legal flux, with SCO saying one thing, Novell saying another thing, both of them having registered copyrights with the the American authorities, court-cases between SCO & Novell , SCO and IBM , SCO and RedHat etc etc. http://groklaw.net/ has a lot of information about all aspects of these court cases.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to send us an e-mail.
>
> Regards
>
> Alfred Hermida | Technology editor
> www.bbcnews.com/technology
> BBC News Online
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bjarne-NOSPAM-@mathiesen.info [mailto:bjarne-NOSPAM-@mathiesen.info]
> Sent: 01 February 2004 20:09
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Factual Errors
> ---------
> From: Bjarne Mathiesen
> Email address: bjarne-NOSPAM-@mathiesen.info
> Url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3449931.stm
> ---------
> COMMENTS:
> you state that SCO owns UNIX. that's wrong.take a look here
> http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html and here
> http://perens.com/SCO/BigLie.html
> ---------
>
I'd like to know where Mr Evans got his "facts" from.
It's widely acknowledged that the virus is a good bit of programming in its own right - this tends to imply that a Windows programmer wrote it. The MyDoom virus places backdoors on infected machines to allow hackers to misappropriate them for their own desires, and allows spammers to relay their junk without leaving any trace to the real source.
The DoS attack code aimed at Microsoft and SCO are most likely distractors (which seem to have worked extremely well) deflecting the blame to an innocent third party - namely the Linux Community.
May I suggest that Mr Evans (and other reporters wishing to cover the SCO/Linux issues) takes some time to read the articles at http://groklaw.net/ - these are very well researched and written. It's a shame the BBC couldn't do this before writing an article very likely to offend virtually every open source programmer on the planet.
-- Soruk (rl name used to the BBC)
-- Soruk
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.
That is what the article says, that is what is has always said. Whoever controls the present controls the past.
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).
Yes. (glazed look) That's exactly how we all feel. We are of one mind. We all think MyDoom is great. Join us.
*feh* Morons...
What has happened to BBC are they forgetting about the Jews to write this MD=Linux Fluff
Mr. Evans article is about as useful as a Spam Ad. Just another annoyance and a total waste of time reading.
This article reflects poorly on the BBC.
MYdoom was probably written on a MS_OS for who knows what purpose. Were does linux come into this?????? Other than just a direction to point.
Why blame the Linux community for security problems with Commercial OS's.
I plan to stick with open source, this is my 5th year using linux as a OS and I'm and not dissappointed.
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
I guess we all got the same reply. I tried to post this and it came back as somebody posted the exact comment and that I should be more original... :)
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on
Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but
an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United
States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written
just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of
spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the
main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's
audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the
Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial
application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger
that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal
actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's
actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including
virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
Ok. This is exactly what I was saying. Except that I said in a more sarcastic way. Nevermind. ;-)
Lol! OK, agreed with your BlissX quote. It was just because I had to take down that Xmas-pic and I was really in a hurry. I will try to improve this (along with the content ;-) but right now I focus on the bands music and maybe I will bring the homepage in shape if we rock. That one fine day...
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
We see news every day that IBM is constantly making inroads to victory, both in and out of the courtroom.
Attacking SCO now is a lot like attempting to escape from prison two weeks from being paroled.
Kris Kerwin kkerwin@insi__REMOVE_ME__ghtbb.com
Tech news site IT Vibe has got a response from the BBC about the article in question. It makes interesting reading, especially the bit where it claims it was meerly trying to draw attention to the battle between SCO and OSS/linux users. You can read the article at http://itvibe.com/default.aspx?NewsID=1246
it is rather easy to blame open source advocates isnt it?
nameless faceless and seeminly ethicless people who sit in the dark all the time tapping away at console screens.
wake up and smell the coffee mate.
we dont have great big open source meetings where we all sit and decide how we are going to play with windows this month.
we dont spend every waking minute thinking up new ways to waste bandwidth of certain companies.
infact we tend to spend time doing useful things.
also consider that if open source zealots did have such intentions and windows' track record with virii/exploits, would windows even exsist today?
if you must find somebody to blame and make it public, i suggest you follow the 3 obvious paths.
1: the actual perpetrators, no not the entire open source community(remember hackers create useful things. crackers attack soft targets. hackers are never crackers.).
how this is done nobody cares, just find the actual 15 year old rejects that wrote the virus instead of sitting back taking potshots.
2: microsoft, because a; the only code they can produce is swiss cheese. b; because they fail to fix these problems before they are exploited on a mass scale.
3: yourselves. NOBODY has to use windows. NOBODY. if you choose the os that is swiss goddamn cheese, you also choose to get slapped in the face when some kid works out how to break it.
i will conclude by conceeding that you are however, partially correct.
obviously somebody wants to directly attack sco, however that doesnt mean they represent the entire open source community nor even a portion of it.
infact the perpetrator could never have used unix in his entire life, he could just be after whoever is making headlines.
also consider that a worm that is designed to spread and then packet a server wouldnt nessecarily be designed to attack 1 server and 1 server only, sco could just be one target of many.
this isnt the first worm of this sort we have seen and untill microsoft take it seriously(and that doesn't mean claim to doso) it will not be the last.
ps. although identified as so, my browser is not internet explorer(you have no idea how many sites shaft you for honesty thesedays).
Can anyone recommend a good therapist for me.. er.. my schizophrenic network card?
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.
Trolling is a art!