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
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
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
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.
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."]
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!
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?
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.
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.
On a more serious note I have to agree with tempest.. It's unfortunate that someone decided to create this virus, and cause anyone in IT (who supports windows boxes) to have to deal with it. At the same time they make the linux community look bad to people who take what they read in the news at face value. Which I'm sad to sad is most likely a large percentage of people...
:(
You could almost argue that it was created by a Anti-Linux user as a way of discrediting the linux community...
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.
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
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
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.
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!
In the case of spammers (as the easiest example to use) it's when a spammer sets the From: address to be from an anti-spammer, or just someone they don't like, so they get all the bounces and complaints.
It can also be where the spammer sends out spam for another web site, which was unrequested - giving that site a bad image.
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.
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 -----------------------------------
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?
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.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".
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.
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.
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'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?
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"
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...
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
On their website it now has a retraction:
"We mistakenly said Linux was responsible..."
and
"we actually should have said Linus is responsible..."
Excellent....
s tm
There is also this 'Have Your Say Form' : -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2804227.
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
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!"
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
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.
Here's my feedback (now a 'complaint'):
Any repect I once had for this organisation is dripping away...
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.
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.
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
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
"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"?
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
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
How can they think that MyDoom was written by a linux user, was there a GPL header on the top? :D
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.
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.....
It is primarily advertising for Viagra.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
> ---------
>
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 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!