Slashdot Mirror


JBoss Caught in Anonymous Posting Scheme

Reader scubabear writes "For years rumors have run rampant about employees of JBoss Inc. being actively encouraged to post anonymously, drumming up business by flooding the net with fake posts and simultaneously attacking competitors, all from behind a safe veil of anonymity. With the advent of a new feature for tracking users by IP on TheServerSide.com, the floodgates have been opened and those rumors have apparently been confirmed. The Java blog space now erupted with posts from a variety of bloggers (here, here, and here for a start) exposing a variety of anonymous/pseudonymous accounts used by JBoss employees to put forth their Professional Open Source message and simultaneously slam anyone who gets in their way in online technical communities such as TheServerSide, JavaLobby, and various personal blogs. The evidence shows how a corporation can manipulate popular opinion via anonymous personalities, that open source companies can be just as ruthless as closed source when it comes to marketing their wares, and that you should never forget that your cookies and IP address can and will be tracked online. No official response has been heard yet from the JBoss crew. Disclosure: I'm one of those bloggers erupting on this issue (see my story here)."

380 comments

  1. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This anonymous stuff is just a bunch of crap. Why anyone would listen to someone posting anonymously is beyond me.

    Just take my advice, don't listen to anonymous posters...ever! Even if their argument is completely flawless and/or logically impermeable, ignore them.

    (By the way, I don't work for JBoss, so you can listen to me.)

    1. Re:Anonymous by sik0fewl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, I think somebody from Jboss is on the same subnet as me. This is what happens when I try to post an anonymous reply:

      Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "x.x.x.x" and your username "sik0fewl".

      Neato. I wonder if I know them.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    2. Re:Anonymous by BohKnower · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is not fair, they get payed to post anonymously and all I got posting with my sign is bad karma.

      That's why I use JONAS and soon Geronimo.

    3. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whew! good thing you "x"-ed out your MD5'd IP and Subnet.

    4. Re:Anonymous by sik0fewl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh shit! I forgot to do my username!

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    5. Re:Anonymous by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whew! good thing you "x"-ed out your MD5'd IP and Subnet.

      Given the MD5 hashes, you could find the IP within a few hours with a brute-force search. IPv4 space isn't *that* big.

      Subnet would be within milliseconds, as there are only 32 normally-sane values, and only about 10 are actually used.

      One-way hashes don't help much if the space of possible keys is small (that's why we have /etc/shadow).

    6. Re:Anonymous by Milo+of+Kroton · · Score: 1

      Nope, your brother is a registered member of the GNAA. That's why I get that message.

    7. Re:Anonymous by scragz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just for fun, I wrote a little PHP script to do it.

      <?php
      header('Content-type: text/plain');
      $ipmd = 'fcdc9cbc1f36501550576ab62144ef80'; // replcace this

      echo "MD5 is {$ipmd}\n\n";

      for ($i = 0; $i <= 255; $i++) {
      for ($j = 0; $j <= 255; $j++) {
      for ($k = 0; $k <= 255; $k++) {
      for ($l = 0; $l <= 255; $l++) {
      $ipt = "{$i}.{$j}.{$k}.{$l}";
      $iptmd = md5($ipt);
      echo "Test IP: {$ipt}\n";
      echo "Test MD5: {$iptmd}\n\n";
      if ($iptmd == $ipmd) {
      echo "Success!\n";
      echo "IP address is {$ipt}\n";
      exit;
      }
      }
      }
      }
      }
      ?>

    8. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so, that's why you have a secret that gets added to the hash. You don't just do MD5(IP) since then anyone can do a brute force attack. MD5(secret + IP) would be much better.

      Even that isn't perfect, but it makes things harder to hit with brute force.

    9. Re:Anonymous by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so, that's why you have a secret that gets added to the hash. You don't just do MD5(IP) since then anyone can do a brute force attack. MD5(secret + IP) would be much better.

      The problem is that this secret must be transferred from one party to the other before it can be used. That makes it much less secretive. A discussion of the key exchange problem (of which this is a subset) is beyond the scope of this thread.

      In the email quoted by the original poster, no secret value was cited. So if he hadn't blanked out the md5 (as the original AC suggested), anyone who wanted to would have his IP address right now.

      Not that that's earth-shatteringly catastrophic, but my point still holds in the original context.

    10. Re:Anonymous by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well then that's a flawed implementation.

      I am not a cryptographer but it'll be a bit better if it's done this way:

      string=concat(salt,'.',base64(md5(concat(longsec re t,IP address,salt))))

      Pick a long enough secret and salt. Sure they may still find it in the end, but it'll be fun coz they know it just hides an IP address which is likely to turn out to be useless given the error - leads to a public proxy or something.

      And this way you know that it is likely that something with one of your secrets generated the hash. If you know it wasn't your site then you realize something else more important.

      --
    11. Re:Anonymous by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that this secret must be transferred from one party to the other before it can be used. That makes it much less secretive. A discussion of the key exchange problem (of which this is a subset) is beyond the scope of this thread.

      Not in this case. They just have to track what secret they use, possibly changing it regularly, as all they use it for is generating and then verifying a hash.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH! I agree with the parent.

      What you hear is the sound of logic slowly eating away this thread.

    13. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your PHP script contains a glaring error:

      "replcace this" should be "replace this".

      I wonder how you ever got it to compile.

    14. Re:Anonymous by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Marketing... That is the Evil... Open-Source or not its marketing that does the evil.. Marketing makes money and aparently at any cost money must be made in large sums no matter the methods... Open-Source/Closed-Source if someone dumps money into marketing its all the same to those marketing so tactics will be by large part the same marketing has little to do with the actual product.. Thats why we have this cool term called VapourWare... thats what happends when marketing jumps too far ahead of production you wind up with a demand for a product that doesn't exsist... Does it matter if its Open Source or not... No...

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    15. Re:Anonymous by Dash-o-Salt · · Score: 1

      Um, because it's a comment, perhaps?

      It doesn't matter how much you misspell words in your comments.

    16. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I'm the joke. Perhaps you didn't see me the first time. It's okay, that happens. But try to be more alert next time!

    17. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard Microsoft posts here too. His name is Bonch.

    18. Re:Anonymous by YorkshireONE · · Score: 1

      Um, because it's a joke, perhaps?

      I think they know about comments and such.

    19. Re:Anonymous by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Not in this case. They just have to track what secret they use, possibly changing it regularly, as all they use it for is generating and then verifying a hash.

      Not quite. It's used for generating and verifying an arbitrary identification string. In this case, you're right, the recipient doesn't need to know the secret (the hash is just a glorified request tracking number, because Slashdot can't reverse it easily either without lots of brute force). If it was intended to let the recipient confirm that they were indeed the IP being blocked, the recipient would need to know the secret to duplicate the hashing (not needed in this case, because they gave the IP later in the email).

    20. Re:Anonymous by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Well then that's a flawed implementation.

      Which doesn't change the validity of my point :). In this case, it was a straight md5, so blocking out the hash was a justified action.

      I'm not here to argue about how a _better_ system would be constructed, just about this specific action in response to this specific message.

    21. Re:Anonymous by Dash-o-Salt · · Score: 1

      Ok. That's alright then. I was worried a for a little bit there.

  2. JBOSS RULES! by strictnein · · Score: 3, Funny

    JBOSS IS AWESOMEEMO!

    - Not a JBOSS employee
    - Really I'm not

    1. Re:JBOSS RULES! by cshark · · Score: 1

      This is another example of dropping productivity because of putting corporate resources in places where no one except the truest of the true will ever go. Hey I wonder if something like this would account for all the anti linux stuff in comp.os.linux.advocacy. See, I did find a way to make this about microsoft! Hah hah!

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    2. Re:JBOSS RULES! by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mod parent down, he must be a JBOSS employee!

      (anybody who mods this down is also a JBOSS employee )

      (Wonder aloud about whether it's all of Santa's elves who keep moding pro-Linux posts up on slashdot ...)

    3. Re:JBOSS RULES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always heard JBOSS was a crooked company, especially their sales staff.

    4. Re:JBOSS RULES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JBOSS is a joke; No one should ever use them.

    5. Re:JBOSS RULES! by Fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know it's a joke, but JBoss is not the best choice in all cases. It has no license fees which is awesome, and there are things that make it easy to develop with over other J2EE containers. But if you are expecting a lot of users, it's not the way to go. When doing the performance improvements on a J2EE application, I couldn't get 200 simultaneous users to be able to use the JBoss system. Websphere 5 was handling 1300 (that was it's limit, though that ended the improvement work I did, since that was the target goal).

      --
      -no broken link
    6. Re:JBOSS RULES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JBoss is great for intranet work, though.

    7. Re:JBOSS RULES! by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Actually, that application was for intranet work, the 1300 users were call center people. But, yeah, departmental stuff, it is great for. I also prefer developing with it and then just porting to WebSphere. It helps keep things J2EE.

      --
      -no broken link
  3. Like John Coffey says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just tryin' to hep, JBoss.

  4. News flash by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bloggers do something useful? I don't believe it for a second.

    1. Re:News flash by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      That's funny, as your website seems to be awfully blog-ish, especially with the sappy "my wife is the best wife ever" bits. ;)

      "I changed my site so that I can update the homepage with Blogger instead of doing it by hand... it's not I am getting into this whole "blogging" thing."

      Yeah, yeah, yeah, how is your site not a blog?

    2. Re:News flash by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1

      Did I say it wasn't? Did I say that it was useful?

    3. Re:News flash by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

      I found many uses for it!

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    4. Re:News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to say, amongst all the trolling, that your wedding pictures look great. You must've had a very good photographer... there's some amazing shots there. And you and your wife look great together. Yes, I'd say you are certainly a lucky man. Congrats.

  5. Be careful by moxiez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In today's world of lawsuits you could be sued for slander... and no I don't work for JBoss. :)

    1. Re:Be careful by ircShot_guN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, in today's world of lawsuits, posting slanderous material on the internet is termed libel, not slander.

    2. Re:Be careful by moxiez · · Score: 1

      Whatever... my point is plan on spending time in court. It's too bad because it keeps valuable tools like this away from the people that need them.

    3. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in today's world of lawsuits, posting slanderous material on the internet is termed libel, not slander.

      Actually that was the terminology even before "today's world of lawsuits."

      (Posting anonymously to save my employer's karma.)

    4. Re:Be careful by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Really, is there any difference between libel and slander, besides one is print and one is spoken?

      I ask this as a serious question...

    5. Re:Be careful by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Call all material defammatory then, and you won't have to worry whether the defamation was spoken or printed :]

      I do this if I ever forget which is which.

      (And no, I don't think there's any real difference, save that the words mean two different things and are oft confused.)

    6. Re:Be careful by Dever · · Score: 1
      yes, and that would be libelous material you'd be posting too.

      ;)

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
  6. These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You get what you pay for in free online forums. Here on Slashdot, you're welcome to publish what you want, but if you don't want to be tied to an e-mail-confirmed user account then you have to accept that your username will display as "Anonymous Coward", be penalized in the point-based mod system (assuming the user hasn't overriden the setting from the default), and you'll still be IP and cookie tracked for whatever purposes OSDN wants.

    Mainstream media outlets at least do their best to make their commentators and reporters declare any conflicts of interests they have so that viewers can know about it when considering information from that source. But, non-mainstream outlets are more direct... you get "closer" information, but you also take the risk of what happens when a source with conflicts is allowed to speak unchallenged. Which seems to be exactly what happened here.

    1. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, there's no real distinction between Anon Coward and "ElitePenguin231 (771235)" who will forget his slashdot password in a couple months. I'd say than 10% of slashdotters post with personally-idenfiable information.

      Sure OSDN can track you, but that's not going to stop you from astroturfing.

    2. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Erasmus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but just because a person has a Hotmail address and a username doesn't mean they actually are who they say they are. For that matter, even if someone IS who they say they are, that doesn't mean they are trustworthy.

      I'll agree totally with what you have to say about non-mainstream sources. When they work, if they work at all, it's because for every shill out there, there are a dozen real users who can provide an honest opinion.

    3. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Sure OSDN can track you, but that's not going to stop you from astroturfing.

      I wonder, should Slashdot have an anti-astroturfing exception in its privacy policy, under which it could potentially flag all posts that have ever come from known JBoss IP space?

    4. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they do that, when they have a whole section set up for astroturfing? (apple.slashdot.org)

    5. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      You can tell when management has "approved" a posting, its all buzzword compliant, and squeeky clean - NO product is perfect, and I tend to stay away from people who say otherwise.

      I am usually guided towards the comments made by people who actually inform us of their involvement. Most are down to earth techies like us, and don't pump their product to the highest high.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd say than 10% of slashdotters post with personally-idenfiable information.

      [Here's my chance to get modded down as a troll by bringing up an old story that I submitted and got rejected.]

      Basically, compression algorithms can be used as a means for identifying the characteristics of a given author.

      With enough of a sample size in an anonymous posting, you might well be able to correlate the author's style with openly-attributed works and thereby identify them.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell when management has "approved" a posting, its all buzzword compliant, and squeeky clean - NO product is perfect, and I tend to stay away from people who say otherwise.

      Which is different from the Linux fanatics on Slashdot how, exactly? Surely they can't all be plants.

    8. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for instance, am not who I say that I am.

    9. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      With enough of a sample size in an anonymous posting, you might well be able to correlate the author's style with openly-attributed works and thereby identify them.

      Hmm. I can cut-and-paste, too.

      Maybe I'll get a job offer from the NY Times....

    10. Re:These people give all AnonCows a bad name. by non · · Score: 1

      Latent Semantic Analysis is another such tool. Look here and herefor more info.

      --
      ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
  7. Jboss's slogan by detritus` · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously, who is going to take a company that prides itself on being a Proffesional Open Sourse Company.... have to wonder what marketing genious came up with that one...

    1. Re:Jboss's slogan by d4v3v1l · · Score: 1
      ...Proffesional Open Sourse Company...
      Yeah, /me wonders what this "Open Sourse" - thing is all about...
      --
      - 1337poll.tk - check it out!
    2. Re:Jboss's slogan by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any company that has to make a marketing effort to declare themselves "professional" most likely is not. Afterall, real professional companies just act that way and everybody else applies that term to them.

    3. Re:Jboss's slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we were getting our new health plans, the HR guy gave me a form to fill out, from which I had to elect which plan I wanted, but we were, in fact, only offering one:

      Me: So, I'm supposed to check the Aetna Piece of Shit?
      Him: (Bristling) It's not a piece of shit! It's a really nice plan!
      Me: Then why's it say POS here?

    4. Re:Jboss's slogan by shemnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought that original slogal was Source Completely Open. Wait... that's not their logo just the reputation they want.

      --
      --Shemnon
    5. Re:Jboss's slogan by the_rev_matt · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never seen any ads for software, hardware, accounting companies, consulting companies, audio equipment, or tools.

      Pick up any magazine targeted at a particular audience and there will be dozens of ads touting their "professional quality [product or service]".

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    6. Re:Jboss's slogan by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I missed your point somewhere.

      With all the BS and marketing out there, LostCluster has a point. I don't see yours yet.

      Heck look at Enron, they were audited by a "professional company" right?

      --
    7. Re:Jboss's slogan by kupci · · Score: 1
      If this is true, it's a mark against JBoss for sure. Funny, I've installed the product, was impressed that it ran with little configuration, but that's about all I've used it for.

      There is a very nice open-source webserver called Enhydra that really is impressive, however it sort of fell by the way side in the stampede to EJB-compliancy, too bad, although there are a bunch of commercial sites using the software.

      As for JBoss, it seems the news is always a bit muddled, i.e. what's with the "fork" and all that? If it's so great, why do they have to have their employees write in at TSS? I'd be much more impressed, if they just wrote in as employees - show yourself, fools!

      For that matter, I've always wondered about Slashdot - seems whenever there's an MSFT post, there are hordes of folks writing in vehemently defensive of MSFT - very suspicious in a tell-tale heart sort of way.

      Or take the reviews on Amazon that come of so polished. As soon as I read something like "In chapter 12 the book really shines at ...", I skip to the next review. Or like the recent voting on one of those music reality tv shows, star search or what not, where the whole state of Hawaii was busily dialing in to vote for the home-town girl.

      Whatever. I think we'll see a movement towards blogs, where I only want to see what James Duncan Davidson has to say (those pictures are great!), the heck with everyone else.

    8. Re:Jboss's slogan by droppedd · · Score: 1

      Plenty of companies pride themselves on their Point Of Sale products (cash registers, barcode scanners, etc.)... which makes for some funny stuff. Epson's retail device sales page, for example... page title.. "Epson's POS Products." now that's good marketing. "Buy our POS Products!"

    9. Re:Jboss's slogan by pohl · · Score: 1
      Any company that has to make a marketing effort to declare themselves "professional" most likely is not.

      Is likely not engaged in a means of livelihood? It is sad that the world "professional" has grown to mean more than "I do stuff for money or trade". Now there's a tacit assumption that only people who do stuff for money are virtuous, and that some nebulous set of positive qualities are necessarily absent in people (and/or their product) who do something because they love it, or because they want to help someone, or want to learn something,...

      I, too, am bothered by companies that tout their "professionalism", but only because it's redundant...and orthogonal to whether they'll do good work.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    10. Re:Jboss's slogan by FreeForm+Response · · Score: 1

      Afterall, real professional companies just act that way and everybody else applies that term to them.

      Much like real hackers. =)

  8. I troll myself on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I post under 10 different accounts on Slashdot on my work time!

    1. Re:I troll myself on Slashdot! by gryphokk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In soviet Russia, Yourself trolls You!

      wait, don't hit send y...

      --
      And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
  9. I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by LPrime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My heart is forever broken. To think that this kind of crap would go on within the open source "Community". Newsflash : This happens everywhere. On every review site, on every opinion forum - EVERYWHERE. I have competitors anonymously bashing me on Yahoo Shopping, E-Pinions, Shopping.com etc. It is done for one reason - profit. J-Boss is trying to make money, and they are willing to use all the tools at their disposal to discredit everyone who does not share their opinions. This is nothing new and nothing that will not happen again.

    1. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And do *you* do it?

    2. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by grazzy · · Score: 1, Funny

      So there you are.

      I have been waiting for those wedding rings now for over two months! My fiancee has broken up with me because the rings I told her would "soon" arrive has been lost! She thinks I'm cheating on her because of you.

      On my way to the postoffice I walked in a pile of dogpoo.

      See you in court.

    3. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by BK425 · · Score: 1

      They may think they're doing it for profit but long term this kind of behvaviour ends badly. Sounds like JBoss is getting is a fine example; if they were really as profitable as their online spin claims, then they would be spending their time coding instead of spinning. They're doing it because they're unethical.

    4. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by ryen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i remember a while back when Amazon had some glitch in their book review system that posted reviewer's names and email addresses accidentally for a short period of time. Turned out that alot of authors of the books were "reviewing" their own books, and giving themselves great reviews.

    5. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Yea I mean like why do you think all those people are always raving about Gentoo? They are obviously paid by Gentoo's greedy corporate le... oh wait ... hmmm oh well I tried. On a more serious note, use Red Hat, its bette .. wait ... I'm doing it again, I meant to say that this kind of stuff happens all the time and I agree with you. Remember last year when Amazon had a glitch and all anonymous posts showed their real posters for a few hours? Didn't somthing like 70% or more of the book comments/reviews have at least one comment from the author raving about how great and enjoyable the book was.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I can't quite tell... are you condemning this practice or praising JBoss?

    7. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by LPrime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would be lying if I said "no".

    8. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by LPrime · · Score: 1

      I am saying that this practice is accepted. Nothing so far has been invented to stop this. I might also point to a very recent insident with Amazon with respected critics and writers faking reviews of theirs and their competitors books. History will always repeat itself, despite all the good efforts made. The worst the practice, the more often it will be repeated.

    9. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      People kill others all the time, that doesn't make it accepted nor does it make it right.

    10. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by ryen · · Score: 4, Informative

      here is an archived link to the nytimes article (which requires payment for view on their site now since it is past a month old or so).

      Amazon Glitch Unmasks War of Reviewers

      This quote says it all: "John Rechy, author of the best-selling 1963 novel "City of Night" and winner of the PEN-USA West lifetime achievement award, is one of several prominent authors who have apparently pseudonymously written themselves five-star reviews, Amazon's highest rating. Mr. Rechy, who laughed about it when approached, sees it as a means to survival when online stars mean sales."

    11. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Accepted by the people that do it? Um, yeh, that's real ethical. How well accepted do you think it would be by customers if they knew? C'mon, how about at least trying to be professional? Sure, it's harder, but you can't soar with eagles when you're pecking other chickens.

      Having said that, I'm not overly surprised that JBoss does this, I've always found the product to be good but the company to be, um, not focused on the users. Newbies have a *very* hard time getting started (check the forums for examples, or try asking a question on IRC) and there's a lot of gaps in the doco that I presume are there to drum up support business.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    12. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I know where I'm not going for jewelry now. Ah, who am I kidding, I have the attention span of an average American consumer. What were we talking about again?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      And he's honest about it, which I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be.

      Sigh. What a world we live in.

    14. Re:I am crying big fat crocodile tears of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the authors can't promote it then who will? No one. Why, cos lifes too short. In fact we can now use this, and post positive anon messages, which will make everyone think we are really just hyping our own stuff.

      JBoss rules, and so does Log4J, and James, and Velocity, and .Net, hurah!

  10. Zealotry (not a Troll) by darth_MALL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...that open source companies can be just as ruthless as closed source when it comes to marketing their wares"...What is the point of this sentence? Why should an Open Source company be above such diabolical behaviour? Because OSS folks are pure of heart? This is really pushing the Zealot button now. Ergh.

    1. Re:Zealotry (not a Troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why should an Open Source co. be above such behavior?"

      Hmm. How about "enlightened self interest" coupled with the increased dependence on a looseknit community?

      This is just the beginning - it might be interesting to see the community respond to this.

    2. Re:Zealotry (not a Troll) by raistphrk · · Score: 1

      ...or maybe it's agreeing with you completely? It sounds to me like the submission was suggesting that businesses, regardless of their model, will act ruthlessly in order to secure profit.

      If anything, that sentence calls into question the kind of zealotry to which you are referring. The point is not that open source is inherently more good, or less evil, than closed source. Rather, it's that profit comes before good intentions in the business world.

  11. JBoss by LoneWlf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't doing anything new. This particular technique was around long before the internet, or blogs...

    --
    -LoneWolf-

    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

    1. Re:JBoss by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Or the First Amendment... or the Constitution for that matter.

      Even though most of us learned the authors of The Federalist Papers in history class, when they distributed them at the time names were not attached.

      Anonymous writing with a self-serving agenda has been around for a long time...

    2. Re:JBoss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. Okay then, nothing to see here, let them carry on.

    3. Re:JBoss by driftingwalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worth remember is Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar. Cassius does something similar, placing anonymous letters to Brutus on Brutus' windowsill. Of course, the anonymous letters lead Brutus to believe that caesar's death is something wanted by many.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    4. Re:JBoss by tyldis · · Score: 1

      Come *ON*.
      It's been a few thousand years since the first murder, but we still hear about them in the news.

      Who cares what has happened in the past and where? The point is it happened now and they got caught red-handed.

      To me this is a serious sign of bad mmorality and I will not do any business with such a company, not even the individals involved.

  12. Customers by mindstormpt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will Accenture want to keep that big logo on their home page?

    I wouldn't, but then again, it's accenture.

    1. Re:Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accenture was hired by JBoss to do the blogging. JBoss got charged $200 an hour for kids out of college to try to figure out what a blog is.

  13. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this story is true...

  14. Its true, check my ip by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    Im actually working for 7 governments and 14 large corporations to spy on the slashdot community and try to sway their opinion. also i sometimes spell things wrong to make it look like im just an average person.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Its true, check my ip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eric, You're not supposed to say that... They're watching.

    2. Re:Its true, check my ip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't help out the trainees, Ted.

  15. So do this mean... by WwWonka · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that all of /.'s "Anonymous Coward" postings bashing SCO can be backtracked to Linus now?

    1. Re:So do this mean... by Dav3K · · Score: 1

      no, but the AC linux bashing CAN be traced back to Darl...

    2. Re:So do this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No! I told you, Santa Claus! Santa Claus!

    3. Re:So do this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that all of /.'s "Anonymous Coward" postings bashing SCO can be backtracked to Linus now?

      The conspiracy goes much deeper than that - I think Cowboy & Taco are Linus's pseudonyms.

    4. Re:So do this mean... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      no... Linus is far too busy playing music to his newts...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  16. JBoss by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

    that's weak, it's as bad as posting on /. for Karma or just to advertise your!

    CB (view my website, view my website)

  17. Annoymous is a myth... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't really publish anything truely anonymously. You never really could anyway. The closest thing is to find somebody who is willing to know who you are who is willing to accept your writing and publish it without crediting you while disclaiming that somebody else wrote it. Of course, that person has to accept the legal liability that comes with publishing that work as if they wrote it themselves.

    Yep, some speech does come with a legal liablity attached. "Free speech" is a great ideal, but it is also subject to the greater ideal of "Your rights end where somebody else's rights begin." That is, you can't use free speech to give instructions that put somebody else into danger or spreads lies about somebody else. That's just not your right to do because it ends up damaging somebody else's rights.

    People who oversimplfy the Bill of Rights... such as those who claim that the 1st Amendment protects all expressions of speech from all authorites everywhere, or that the 5th Amendment means you'll never have to tell of your own crimes in court if you don't want to are making sophomoric mistakes. They sound right, but they're not.

    The same goes for this suposed "right" to be annonymous. You can try... but there's always somebody who can squeal on you if they want to.

    1. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by gricholson75 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about something like Freenet?
      Someone in this group of thousands of nodes published this, but none of us can tell you who.

    2. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about something like Freenet?
      Someone in this group of thousands of nodes published this, but none of us can tell you who.


      oh, IANAL, but...

      The thousands of people behind those nodes end up just sharing the liability. I can't wait for the first lawsuit that forces a cluster of nearly-annoymous people together into a single defendant, finds that joint defendant liable for something one member of the group did, and then gives them the option of either having each member paying their equal share of the verdict, or turning against each other and trying to piece together from any actual clues available who did it.

      Oh, you most certainly can't convict a group of people of a crime that way... but slander and libel aren't crimes, they're just a cause for civil liability.

      I wonder if they'll end up calling the concept "common law companies." Just like a common law marriage, the law usually has a principle where if you keep doing something you should have filed paperwork for but didn't, we'll just pretend you did and keep going...

    3. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The same goes for this suposed "right" to be annonymous. You can try... but there's always somebody who can squeal on you if they want to.
      That's not true, the goats never squeal on me...
    4. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by nate1138 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This topic has been beaten to death, but it bears repeating anyway. Free speech cannot exist without a degree of anonymity. This has been repeated throughout the history of this country, from Deep Throat and watergate to the Federalist papers of revolutionary times. It may not be a "right", but its importance cannot be understated.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    5. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wireless in any of the top, oh, 300 cities around the world. Best of luck tracking people through that. The MAC address of the NIC should be spoofed every change of post and location, of course.

    6. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by skiflyer · · Score: 1
      Like most statements of "it can't be done" this one seems pretty suspect to me... let's think
      • Drop a typed letter into the mailbox (not the one in front of your house) addressed to a newspaper
      • Leave a stack of flyers somewhere (obviouslly places not filmed)
      I'm sure there are a couple others... but in general the real issue is in choosing the appropriate medium, and the internet is not it... granted freenet comes to mind, but I don't know it well enough to trust it.
    7. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You can probably come pretty close by spoofing your MAC address, and posting from a public library or unsecured 802.11 network, and routing your packets through Anonymiser (and other similar things)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by josh3736 · · Score: 1
      [...] then gives them the option of either having each member paying their equal share of the verdict, or turning against each other and trying to piece together from any actual clues available who did it.

      However, the problem with that is that Freenet doesn't keep any logs. You can't trace back what there is no record of.

      Of course, this assumes that Dubya's cronies weren't watching your computer when you published it...

    9. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The editor of the newspaper or the owner of wherever you left your flyers would have a right to mute you by tossing your submission into the trash can...

    10. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 1

      "You can't really publish anything truely anonymously. You never really could anyway."

      Cool. Maybe you can help me track down whoever keeps spraying graffiti on my neighbor's garage. Maybe there's an IP address embedded in the paint if I use the right decoder ring? I always figured unless (s)he was caught in the act we were kind of SOL but now I have hope!

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    11. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by mukund · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can you trust the software/network you know which is out there as "FreeNet" which actually keeps you anonymous as it is supposed to? It is not possible to trust that the software which others have got does what it is supposed to do.

      This is one of the problems even DRM faces. Manufacturers can't trust their own deployed software as these can be patched/cracked to bypass restrictions.

      Even with strong cryptography, it's just not possible to trust an implementation which is in another's hands.. with end-to-end encryption you can possibly protect the content of data, but you may not be able to protect its source/destination unless you trust each and every node out there and have absolute control over it to keep it trusted.

      Even with strong encryption, there are a lot of ways of exploiting the implementation.

      --
      Banu
    12. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Drop a typed letter into the mailbox (not the one in front of your house) addressed to a newspaper


      Making sure you have used a typewriter/printer that's commonly available to everyone, same for the paper and the ink, while ascertaining you don't leave any fingerprints, fibers or genetic material on the paper, the envelope, and let's certainly not forget the stamp...

      All in all, about as much effort as it would take to get an account with one of those "anonymous surfing" companies who are legally bound to keep your information a secret blah blah, unless law enforcement blah blah, you get the idea.
      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    13. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by prshaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> Free speech cannot exist without a degree of anonymity

      Why is that? I don't see how they are tied together.

      Not wishing to be help accountable for your speech might make you want to be anonymous. Not wanting to be held responsible for what you say might make you want to be anonymous.

      But neither of those are infringing on your right to free speech. You are given the right to speak freely, you are not given the backbone to do it.

    14. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't wait for the first lawsuit that forces a cluster of nearly-annoymous people together into a single defendant, finds that joint defendant liable for something one member of the group did, and then gives them the option of either having each member paying their equal share of the verdict, or turning against each other and trying to piece together from any actual clues available who did it."

      In most places, it's illegal to punish a group for the actions of one member of that group. (or technically, to punish someone for a crime that they personally didn't commit)

      Of course, in the spirit of this thread, I'll post anonymously. And JBoss is great. AAA++++, would buy again!

    15. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by josh3736 · · Score: 1

      But in order to reliably (read: conclusively enough to be admissable in court) trace back the originator of content, *every* node's implementation must be compromised. As soon as you hit one node in the chain which is trustworthy, you've hit a wall.

    16. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by mukund · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are right. But it is very possible for this situation to happen where every one of the machines through which your data is routed is compromised, or rather controlled.. I am not trying to say it for argument's purpose or as a paranoid case :-).. but if some body (government or otherwise) is trying to track you, they can.
      It's possible to change a many-hop freenet route to a force-routed path if you have your implementation at the front compromised.

      --
      Banu
    17. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video cameras, and a cricket bat is the British way.

    18. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I can understand your take on the first amendment for example, but then I have to ask, if the framers recognized these limitations, why didn't they spell it out? The law needs to be very precise on these matters and not left open to interpretation. Libelous and scandalous speech were understood concepts at the time, yet the amendment simply states "...no law...". It says nothing about these other things, yet the gov't put restrictions on free speech almost immediately after it's formation to protect itself from libel. I guess not enough people saw the irony in that to do anything about it. The law shouldn't be written in metaphors (we have the bible for that), but then I guess that's why we need lawyers, to interpret the law. Maybe if the law was written precisely, we wouldn't need these lawyers (cherish the thought) It could then be understood by everybody.

      --
      What?
    19. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Doubting+Thomas · · Score: 1

      It only reduces to an issue of backbone when you're a certifiable social leper. This 'accountability' of which you speak is not always lawful, and even then is not always ethical. As such, it is often visited on the heads of innocent bystanders, instead of on the perpetrator.

      Are you entitling me to blank checks on your backbone, should you happen to be my next-door neighbor, my relative, my spouse, or my dog? Do you speak for all of these people? Do I have your permission?

      --
      Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
    20. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by prshaw · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that my neighbor does not have free speach becuase of what might happen to me?

      I guess that might be true in some parts of the world, I didn't take that into account. I am in the US and we are not restricted or threatened by what our neighbors say/do.

      I provide anyone a blank check to to use their own backbone, and I give them nothing if they don't have one (no matter what the excuse).

    21. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by NoData · · Score: 1

      but its importance cannot be understated.

      Uhm, one cannot sufficiently minimize its importance?...Hate to go grammar nazi on your ass, but I'm pretty sure you meant to say its importance cannot be overstated.

      S'aright.

    22. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Annoymous speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Yes you should have the right to voice your opinon with out fear of going to jail but that does not mean that you have the right to say anything you you want. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to lie.
      Franky anything that is said in anonymity is not to be trusted.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by nate1138 · · Score: 1

      Oops. Another case of posting without proofing. I'll be more careful next time ;-).

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    24. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by nate1138 · · Score: 1

      There are certain situations in which it isn't about backbone at all. Speech isn't truly free when it has to be done under a shadow of retribution. For example, a corporate whistleblower. If their identity were revealed, it would destroy their career. Nobody deserves that for doing what is right. How about government criticism? In some situations this must be anonymous. Free speech doesn't mean speech without consequence, but when powerful forces align themselves against somebody speaking out for what is just, that person deserves the shield of anonymity. Just look at the recent spate of SLAPP lawsuits to see a perfect example of why anonymous speech is needed to preserve the rights of the people.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    25. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Doubting+Thomas · · Score: 1

      I realise this is a late reply, but for what it's worth...

      Are you talking about speaking out against government officials? There's still the Dick Nixon example there, but these weren't strictly the folks I had in mind when I talked of consequences.

      I was thinking more of situations such as speaking out against crooked cops, corrupt corporate officials, and organized crime. In other words, people who aren't the least bit polite about showing their dislike for what you're saying.

      --
      Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
    26. Re:Annoymous is a myth... by Eivind · · Score: 1
      You don't need to trust sofware that is in others hands.

      The protocols behind freenet are such that you "only" need to trus two things in order to really be anonymous (both in publishing and in browsing)

      You need to trust the copy of freenet running on your own computer. And you need to trust that you're connecting to a cluster of nodes which ISN'T 100% controled by a maliscious entity.

      If you can indeed trust your own copy of freenet is offcourse a tricky question, sure it's open source, and sure it's been looked at rather closely by rather a large number of very clever people. But that's still no guarantee that some mistake isn't still in there somewhere.

      So, 100% sure you can probably never be. But on the other hand, it's the best we've got. And it's atleast not as bad as you seem to think. (in that you do *not* have to trust that noone else has altered their freenet-client. Even if they have, you're still safe, barring errors in *your* freenet offcourse.)

  18. implications by Wellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is interesting, because if you can remember the stock market has even been swayed by posts on the yahoo economic forums in the past...I think this is a step in the right direction, anonimity is great and all, but when your using it to ruin the competition and make yourself look better (or in the case of the stock market to weasel people out of their money) then someone has to crack down on you....in this case I'm even more excited because it seems to be public/private intervention rather then the government, so these people DEFFINATELY are going to get what's just deserts for their actions.

    1. Re:implications by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Feh, I personally think that people should have a certain internal caveat emptor when reading anonymous postings. Then again, I feel anonymous speech in important to free speech, so I do have a bias against requiring every stock message board publishing IPs.

      Not for nothing, but there were several times I had wanted to tell the whole story behind a dot com I worked for that crashed and burned, but worried about being tracked. If I had, it may have gotten some people out of the company before it really tanked. Then again, I kind of figured most would just take it as an anonymous "short" trying to manipulate and it wouldn't really do much good. But who knows.

      --
      -no broken link
  19. And this is news because??? by Bomarc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This has been going on for years. What makes a company with it's hand caugh in the cookie jar news?

    1. Re:And this is news because??? by Stevyn · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, but this is about computer stuff so it's on slashdot. If you expect to see "real" news on every article then you haven't been here for a while. I'll do my best to sum it up to you so you don't have to waste your time reading the articles, but just the headlines:

      SCO, Microsoft, William Gates Foundation, RIAA, MPAA, Government, big companies not mentioned already, patents: bad

      Linux, Linus, Apple (with regards to BSD), BSD, Java (with regards to Sun opening it), Freedom of Speech, Natalie Portman: good

      There are probably a few I've missed (and they will be posted below along with complaining how I missed it) but you get the idea.

    2. Re:And this is news because??? by Kalak · · Score: 1

      You forgot:
      Beer: Good
      Napster: Bad

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  20. Were they that successful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were they successful in convincing anyone to buy their product? I don't know anybody who uses it, although I have been a Tomcat/Java/J2EE developer in a previous life. What on earth is JBoss?

    1. Re:Were they that successful? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      What on earth is JBoss?

      I always wondered what it was, but the official site, instead of giving a concise description, has a bunch of corporatese crap.

      This story means that I won't ever have to worry about finding out, which is just good for me.

  21. As P2P news moves into the realm of possibility... by saskboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder how well we'll be able to trust what we read on the Internet. Oh wait. Do we trust everything we read, as it is today?!

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  22. All tomcat users? Np PHP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Serve side, ha. I thought there'd be mention of PHP somewhere.

    All these people who are pissed off appear to be Apache/Tomcat users.

    This is like communist splinter groups all fighting each other over philosphical righteousness, but to an outsider like myself, i don't care.

  23. It's sad by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sad for Open Source primarily. Astroturfind is the sort of activity you expect from corporations like Microsoft, but I would much prefer F/OSS (and the industries it created) to flourish on its own merits, just to prove to the world that there is no need for dirty tricks when the software and development methods are good.

    This is just sad. Shame on JBoss...

    1. Re:It's sad by Dever · · Score: 1
      link to article that doesn't require registration here

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
    2. Re:It's sad by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's also something I would fully expect from someone who has a crap product or is otherwise losing. Microsoft did it because they thought they were losing to the DOJ, for example. (Turned out they could have just waited for a retard who bends over to the corporations to be elected president.)

      JBoss is doing to J2EE what Microsoft was doing to Java back then, only worse. They implement only whatever parts of the standards they feel like coding, and in whatever incompatible way they feel like implementing them.

      (Nothing against coding your own framework from scratch. Lots of people did that. E.g., Cocoon, Struts, Springs, etc. Very useful some of those. But FFS, don't call it a J2EE application server unless it actually implements the J2EE specs to the letter.)

      Their official response to any complaints was basically "then you suck." E.g., when we complained that under JBoss 3.0 an application loads classes from another application (and then throws an error), their response was basically "then it's your problem. You should recompile all those apps to use the exact same versions of all libraries." The problem that in an enterprise environment someone deploying a totally unrelated application can break your app that worked for months, never seemed to sink in.

      I'll go further and say: JBoss and IBM are also the main reasons I'm weary of the mantra "you don't need to sell software, you can make money by supporting it." Both JBoss and IBM's WebSphere (even though IBM's software isn't OSS) make their creators more money from selling expesive consultants than from selling software that works. And gee, in both cases, the software quality is _total_ _shit_.

      And I can see how they have no incentive to improve it. Good software that just works, also doesn't need tons of support and consultancy. Crap software, on the other hand, needs tons of it.

      On the flip side, they need tons of marketting to get more people to buy it... and end up needing expensive consultants to even just make it work. IBM has an army of salesmen to sell it to retarded managers. JBoss, turns out, has astroturfers. Why am I not surprised?

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:It's sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with open source stuff is that it doesn't have much merit. Maybe one day it will be, but there are so many idiots around trying to get credit and just fight with people for the belief that they are doing something good. Just look at slashdot 60-70% of them are zealots and idiots.

  24. Astroturf! You got the cutest little astroturf! by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ya da da da da da da
    Secret Smurf!
    Astroturf!

    The thing that really makes me laugh is that the last slashdot article featuring SCO getting an award for FUDdism also has some nice comments about JBoss.

    Don't be evil, please.

  25. Anonymous or not opinions count. by jelwell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess I don't see the problem. Whether the posters were anonymous or not, don't their opinions and refutations of the facts matter?

    "When these masked marauders enter a discussion, you are no longer debating facts and opinions; instead, you are fencing with a phantom"

    So the people are masked, their motives are unknown, but the discussions are still real, yes? Here at Slashdot, people can post anonymously, or with presumed pseudonyms/identities; I still don't see the problem.

    If some engineer tells you that you should implement some feature you either agree or disagree, it shouldn't matter that the engineer is from company X or some guy in a basement.

    This whole post seems like a rant from people who have a grudge so deep against JBOSS that they have made a policy of disagreeing with the company as a whole. Is it any wonder that such a flagrant policy has made JBOSS go undercover? How ironic is it that these people can have a normal discussion with "faceless individuals" but as soon as they realize those individuals were from JBOSS they want to scream bloody murder?

    Joseph Elwell.

    1. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous or not opinions count. (Score:2, Interesting) by jelwell (2152) on Tuesday May 18, @04:29PM (#9189227) I guess I don't see the problem. Whether the posters were anonymous or not, don't their opinions and refutations of the facts matter?

      It depends on the nature of what they're posting anonymously.

      Suppose I work for JBoss and I write up various posts of the form: "I used (fill in JBoss competitor here) for my business. Not only did they not do the work I paid them for, but they anally raped my mother while pouring sugar in my gas tank! Next time I will go with JBoss for sure."

      Or, suppose I work for JBoss and I write up a glowing review of JBoss's work, glossing over the problems or bugs. Then I post a few times agreeing with myself about how excellent they/we are. Astroturfing may be as old as the Internet (if not older) but that doesn't make it particularly ethical business.

    2. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Brento · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess I don't see the problem. Whether the posters were anonymous or not, don't their opinions and refutations of the facts matter?

      Well, it's like when you start having cybersex with somebody. It does indeed matter whether they're an 18 year old hot chick, or a 50 year old fat guy. Even if they both say the same thing, like "I wanna get with you, baby!"

      More seriously, it matters because it matters who you're speaking for. When I stand up in a developer community and say my company is using ___ and the speed has gotten better between versions, that it crashes less often, or that the new features work as advertised, then I need to have something behind those claims. While people usually claim they're not speaking for their company, it still means more when someone is actually employed.

      Furthermore, nobody wants to make enterprise software decisions based solely on the vendor's recommendations: you want to find a group of users that can verify the stuff works correctly. If I looked up JBoss's users to find out how it's working, and it turns out the entire JBoss user community consists solely of their employees posting under pseudonyms, you'd better believe we've got a problem.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    3. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is it any wonder that such a flagrant policy has made JBOSS go undercover?

      You obviously have no familiarity with JBOSS. Shy retiring innocents they are not. For years now they have been haranging anyone who listen that JBOSS is the best Application Server in the known universe, this despite substantial evidence that some of their critical systems were well below standard.

      I have no problems with an organistion hawking their wares. I do have a problem with it being turned into propaganda and stuck down my throat when I know it to be patently false.

      The JBOSS organisation are doing the OSS movement a serious disservice.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    4. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that start to fall under truth-in-advertising laws? Commercial vs. personnal speech? (I know that discussion has come up before on slashdot, as to whether or not it's fair to have different rules for each.)

      If they're working for their company, posting things in favor of their product and against other products, then it can be seen as equivalent to statements made by the company itself, promoting their software and bashing others. In that case, what's said has to conform to some rules about what's appropriate -- in some countries, you're not allowed to mention the name of the competing product at all: you can talk about yours, you can talk about "everybody else", but you can't say "us good, X bad". You're generally not allowed to outright lie either.

      But then it becomes a question of jurisdiction on the internet (along with selling nazi items, etc.) -- laws differing by country are hard to enforce on something like the internet. ... as to whether or not the posters are anonymous, that has little bearing on the matter. They could be logged in as SmackThePenguin, posting on behalf of their employer -- the problem would be the same. As we don't associate names with verified certifications, statements of non-entanglement, etc. ... even if you had the person's real name, you still wouldn't have any guarantee that what's being posted is at all relevant or accurate or objective. "Don't trust anybody but me"?

    5. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the people are masked, their motives are unknown, but the discussions are still real, yes? Here at Slashdot, people can post anonymously, or with presumed pseudonyms/identities; I still don't see the problem.

      Flooding discussions with anonymous, biased praise presents the illusion of many happy users when they do not actually exist. It is unethical. Sure, opinions matter, but creating happy users out of thin air is deceitful.

    6. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How ironic is it that these people can have a normal discussion with "faceless individuals" but as soon as they realize those individuals were from JBOSS they want to scream bloody murder?


      Because now they know that those "faceless individuals" were not there to help them but instead were there entirely for their own profit and deliberatly misleading, even lying, to them in the process. If I found out someone whom I'd been turning to for advice because they claimed to be an honest individual had been lying about who they were the entire time to conceal a conflict of interest so they could sell me something I'd be pretty pissed off too!!

      (and although I suspect my company *might* make something that may compete with JBoss that doesn't have any affect on my opinion)

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by mrtom852 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think people have grudges against JBoss because of these online forum practices. I've followed a couple of flame wars in the past and believe me, the JBoss guys just do not shut up. I remember looking back at how often they would post and wonder how much spare time they had on their hands - and that didn't include any of these 'anonymous' posts.

      They always shoot people down, telling them to put their money where their mouth is but their problem now is that people are actually starting to do this - eg. Geronimo and these blogs.

      I still use JBoss as I use JMX heavily, but their online participation has seriously put me off. I only hope that Hibernate doesn't fall to the same standards.

    8. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      This whole post seems like a rant from people who have a grudge so deep against Microsoft that they have made a policy of disagreeing with the company as a whole. Is it any wonder that such a flagrant policy has made Microsoft go undercover? How ironic is it that these people can have a normal discussion with "faceless individuals" but as soon as they realize those individuals were from Microsoft they want to scream bloody murder?
      Hope that helps.
    9. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well lets turn this question around. If it doesn't matter who the opinion is comming from then why do the JBOSS employees have to hide behind anonymous psuedonyms? Why don't they just admit that they are JBOSS employees and let the peole judge the merit of their posts in that light rather than pretending to be satisfied customers? The fact that they do hide thier identity shows that they believe that there is an advatage to misleading people as opposed to telling the whole truth. If they are willing to mislead people about their credintials, why should the content of the post be considered trustworthy?

      And besides, an opinion is only as valid as person giving it, and a "hard data" is only as valid as the method in which that data was collected. So if company X says their product works great that is less valid then a third party saying it works great. Furthermore, if I know that group X is conducting a study I will be more on the guard for things that might might tilt the results in thier favor.

      This behavior is deliberatly misleading and thus unethical. Period.

    10. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's like when you start having cybersex with somebody. It does indeed matter whether they're an 18 year old hot chick, or a 50 year old fat guy. Even if they both say the same thing, like "I wanna get with you, baby!"

      Here's a hint - if you are having cybersex you can rule-out right away that it's a hot 18-year-old.

      But why does it REALLY matter? You have no way to know, so if you are doing this by definition you do not care.

      More seriously, it matters because it matters who you're speaking for. When I stand up in a developer community and say my company is using ___ and the speed has gotten better between versions, that it crashes less often, or that the new features work as advertised, then I need to have something behind those claims. While people usually claim they're not speaking for their company, it still means more when someone is actually employed.

      Possibly. The thing that bothers me about the accusations of foul play are this - what are the exact contents of the posts being made by JBoss employees? There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and being employed all at the same time. Sometimes I just want to give quick technical advice without bothering to identify myself. The links seem to be /.ed so I cannot find out more. Itsure seems like anyone going to these lengths to track down anon IP's and such have some kind of personal beef so I'm not sure how much to trust them either! The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

      I can also see the possibility of people wanting to defend thier company being bad-mouthed on forums without nessicarily revealing they work there. Sometimes you do that so you don't get in trouble at work, sometimes because if it gets out you work somewhere you have a lot of people contacting you for various things related to the company and you don't want the hassle. There are a number of legitimate reasons to conceal identity when posting online.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    11. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't know, or if what you believe is not the truth, then to YOU it doesn't really matter. However, if what you think is an 18 year old hot chick when in reality she's a 15 year old girl with a snoopy mother, you may be in a world of hurt.

    12. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, it's like when you start having cybersex with somebody. It does indeed matter whether they're an 18 year old hot chick, or a 50 year old fat guy."

      Welcome to IRC, where men are men, women are men, and girls are policemen.

    13. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Products/tools are not judged solely on technical merit, but also on the level of perceived support. For commercial products, that's easy -- look at the vendor, look at the market share, etc. The more market share a product has, the easier it will be to find tools, extensions, developers and other support.

      However, when you add open source to the picture, you have to start looking at "mindshare" instead of marketshare. Unless you have thousands to spend on Gartner reports that may or may not be useful, this means hanging around message boards, reading blogs, reading success stories, basically getting a feel for what people are using and recommending.

      Anonymous posts don't disturb this process. People tend to take them with a grain of salt. However, when JBoss employees started masquerading as "Arun Patel", "Chip Tyler" and other real-sounding names (pretending to be average Joes who use and enjoy the JBoss products), they stepped over the line. Furthermore, they didn't stop at positive marketing, they spread a particularly insidious flavor of FUD, creating multiple personas who could work together to abuse and silence/convert anyone who disagreed. (Check out the blog entries for evidence of this.)

      Even Microsoft probably has more class.

      A sad day for such avid promoters of "Professional" Open Source.

    14. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the actions of 1 company tarnish the whole community? If it's that easy, there's no hope for Open Source.

    15. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it's like when you start having cybersex with somebody. It does indeed matter whether they're an 18 year old hot chick, or a 50 year old fat guy.

      It should NOT matter at all. The whole thing is fantasy; and any expectation of the other party being whatever they claim is rather foolish (aka "fucking idiot"). But oftentimes half the fun is to play with such fools... try playing a female character on a multi-player online game, if you are a guy, and you'll see what I mean. It's downright pathetic to see horny 14-year-old pimple faced superheroes play thinking you are the next Pamela Anderson. :-p
      (it also gets old pretty quickly, if you actually want to play the game).

      Basic problem is that cyber"sex" really is just one form of role-playing and fantasy, akin to writing and reading stories (ie. "user stories" from porn mags), but doing that in real-time. It has much to do with "cyber", and almost nothing with "sex" (except with solitary sex, I guess).

      I know that even educated people (judges, for one) get confused by the concept, but that doesn't mean concept itself is that hard to understand. Main problem is that people do not realize full implications of actual anonymity. Cyber"sex" is not even closely related to phone"sex"; latter also being an incomprehensible concept for many people (exception being phone sex lines, where parties actually are anonymous... this gets more similar to cyber"sex").

    16. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by maximilln · · Score: 1

      -----
      For years now they have been haranging anyone who listen that JBOSS is the best Application Server in the known universe, this despite substantial evidence that some of their critical systems were well below standard.
      -----
      This approach has worked for other companies.

      Can you think of any in particular?

      The truth is irrelevant. Marketing is all that matters.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    17. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      More likely it's a 15 year old boy with a snoopy mom.

      Double whammy!

      --
      resigned
    18. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 1
      These aren't clear cut engineering discussions. Check out some of the threads; they are mostly political and personal in nature, or else just generally trumpeting how good JBoss is.

      There's a big difference between an opinion of that nature coming from an employee of the company in question, vs. the opinion of a more or less objective third party. I for one was definitely duped by some of these fake posts into thinking JBoss was much more popular and much better received than it actually is.

      I work for a software startup that has been getting a fair bit of buzz in the media and in the blogsphere. Anytime I join a discussion, the first thing I say is that I work for the company. To omit this information is simply disingenuous, and it's something I believe many of JBoss's most outspoken detractors would never do.

      It's true that a lot of prominent people in the Java community and esp. on TSS.com have very deep grudges against JBoss. No doubt there's a lot of bias on both sides of the fence. But the JBoss crew always seems to fight a little dirtier, or in this case, a lot dirtier.

    19. Re:Anonymous or not opinions count. by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      It does indeed matter whether they're an 18 year old hot chick, or a 50 year old fat guy.

      Just FYI, lest any slashdotter think otherwise, the chances of the person actually being female are small enough, let alone 18 and hot...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  26. Sure you can! by warrax_666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You can't really publish anything truely anonymously. You never really could anyway.


    Linky. There's no guarantee anyone will read it, though. Them's the breaks.
    --
    HAND.
  27. Story is a Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "The evidence shows how a corporation can manipulate popular opinion via anonymous personalities, that open source companies can be just as ruthless as closed source when it comes to marketing their wares"

    This story is a reminder that corporations are corporations and they will do almost anything to get money. In fact, by law they must put the bottom line above any other consideration. The documentary, The Corporation, discusses this fact, and how corporations are legal persons. The whole premise of the film is: Since corporations are recognized legal persons under the law, what kind of person are they?. Watch the movie to see the 'diagnosis' of what kind of person the corporation is.

    Even nice corporations to open source like IBM will sell out open source in a heartbeat. To counter these corporations' bad motives and behaviour you have to punish them in the wallet, which means boycotting JBoss, M$, and any other misbehaving company. If you buy from them then you are an enabler of their wrong behaviour and, I argue, bear a part of the moral responsibility for their behaviour.

    1. Re:Story is a Reminder by CowboyMeal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, that's gutsy, anonymously advertising a movie in this thread. Were you meaning to be ironic?

      --
      Your credit card information wants to be free.
    2. Re:Story is a Reminder by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out My article on the subject. Basically it talks about the problems of corporations as apposed to sole proprietorships.

  28. One question by Hatta · · Score: 1, Interesting

    WTF is Jboss?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      An Open Source (LGPL) implementation of a J2EE aplication server.

      There is a lot more than PHP out there, you know?

    2. Re:One question by Dever · · Score: 1
      WTF is google?

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
    3. Re:One question by raverbuzzy · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with just using this?

    4. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummmmm, it's not Open Source?

    5. Re:One question by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with just using this?

      Last I checked, Sun doesn't allow deployment of the reference implementation.

    6. Re:One question by raverbuzzy · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Sun doesn't allow deployment of the reference implementation.

      That's what I thought about previous versions. But as far as I can tell, now it's free.

  29. TheServerSide Sucks! by md17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't mean to start a flame war, but honestly... TSS is a great spot to find articles related to J2EE, but I don't hang out there much simply because they do not have moderation, karma bonuses, etc. I would post and read comments a lot more if there were those features. Until then, /. is my home.

    1. Re:TheServerSide Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taco? Is that you?

    2. Re:TheServerSide Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coyboy Neal, we know its you...

  30. Besides... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow this is all Microsoft's fault. If they weren't anti-competitive, no one would have to lie, puppies would never grow up, and everyone would have a pony.

  31. Re:Anonymous is a myth... by Grrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    True words, and it's a shame. There is a source of help that's lost to some groups, such as sexual abuse survivors, when there is no truly anonymous forum (anon.penet.fi, we miss ya...).

    The tragedy-of-the-commons aspect is that it takes responsible adults who respect each other to preserve anonymized communication. Fraudsters always get their fingers in the pie, as well as those who promote ever-increasing surveillance ("It's for the children !")

    Freedom's just another word for nothing left yto lose...

    <grrr>

  32. No way! by thebra · · Score: 4, Funny

    I must say that I am shocked to hear that some thing like this could take place, and on the internet of all places. I thought that every thing I read on the internet was true and that I would make millions from forwarding emails and that hot 18 year old on AIM that wants me is not a man.
    Oh wait, I'm retarded...

    Trust nothing you read on the internet...I am sexy!

    1. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this guy in Nigeria, he's gonna give me $35 Million USD if I help him and the Royal Family escape !!!!

      WOOHOO !!!!!! I'm gonna be $RICH$ !!!

  33. I heard they used AOP differently... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Opinion Posting

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  34. what is the fuss? by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Lest see TSS puts a forum that allows anonymous posts..

    How is Anonymous posting in of itself automatically fake, again?

    I would submit that there probably is anonymous posting form other j2ee vendor groups and that JBOSS may not be certainly alone in the act of posting anonymously..

    Sometimes it is the technical discussiion details of the message rather than the speaker ..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  35. Truth Independent of Person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Even if their argument is completely flawless and/or logically impermeable, ignore them."

    It seems to me that the truth of someone's statements is independent of the person or their character, i.e. if Hitler origionally argued that E=MC^2, it would not be any more or less true.

    I actually think posting by anonymous cowards is better then arguements by 'known' people since I look more closely at what the cowards say to verify if it is true or not.

    Although the ideal situation, time permitting, is you double check what everyone says :).

    1. Re:Truth Independent of Person by cyb97 · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of truths, somebody's truth, and _the_ truth...

      In the extremely rare case they match, you could say that somebody is telling the truth, but with the normal deviating version of the truth you should always take into consideration whos truth you are listening to...

  36. doesn't much matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jboss can get the job done. It isn't the best tool, it isn't the worst. It's kind of like MySQL. Free, as in beer, yet capable.

    It doesn't matter that the Jboss crew:
    posts bs pretending to be someone else
    lures you in, then you end up needing to hire them, unless you are a badass like me
    or that they engage in questionable marketing.

    It works, especially when you can't afford de-luxe duct tape. Bash their methods, but the product works.

    not a jboss developer

    1. Re:doesn't much matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kind of like MySQL. Free, as in beer,

      I thought MySQL wasn't free if used in any commercial context - a company that seems to be shouting a little too loudly about how "free" it is.

      This post brought to you by the sole developer of PostFireInterSleepyDBSQL Server - absolutely the best free database software...

  37. Speaking of crap... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It looks more like the parent poster is just pissed off that the guys/gals of JBoss have different opinions. None of the referenced posts appeared to be FUD or PR. Every post I saw in that thread was what I would expect the personal opinions of those individuals to be. What, if you participate in business, you must at all times put your professional reputation -- and that of your entire corporation -- on the line? Bull.

    I almost never post 'anonymously,' however, I put a pretty hefty distance between my online postings and my actual professional life. In fact, in many cases, my personal opinions have been restrained by contract. I can't post "I, an employee of XYZ organization involved in ABC project feel this way." That's what corporate PR departments are for and it is such standard practice to curtail officila public comments--for good reasons--that it smacks as pretty ignorant to start whining that someone isn't slapping their corporate logo on every utterance.

    JBoss is a solid product and their licensing and revenue models are downright charitable. The posts addressing those issues were absolutely on the mark and perfectly justifiable. So there was some petty personal squabble. Big deal. Someone doesn't like you. Wah. This whole conspiracy theory comes off as pretty fscking childish in that context.

    They want to make money AND give something away and you don't like that for some reason.

    Get over it.

    1. Re:Speaking of crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How do we know you're not working for JBoss?

      Christ.. it's like the Salem witch trials.

    2. Re:Speaking of crap... by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      The gp obviously does not work for JBoss because the post is not a mindless raving of how crap BEA are, how fantastic JBoss is, and how they are revolutionising the way software will be developed with their professional approach.

      It cant possibly be Marc Fleury (JBoss Head dude) because there is no profanity in the post.

      The definitive proof though is provided by the fact there is no mention of UnifiedClassloaders (either 1,2 or 3), no mention of Interceptors and most conclusively no mention of the totally visionary JBoss AOP.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Speaking of crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't see a difference between posting pseudonymously in order to respect obligations not to express opinions of your employer, and posting pseudonymously in order to give the impression that you are specifically NOT affiliated with your company and represent an independent viewpoint, including referring to yourself in the third-person and making up false claims that make the company look good?

      One is called discretely exercising your right to free thought and speech, the other is astroturfing and inherently deceptive.

      You sound like a shill, but that really is irrelevant (I don't want to be guilty of ad hominem). The fact is, these individuals at JBoss look like complete asses. I would be embarassed if I was discovered to be the fake identity that was writing great things about me. Gawd!

    4. Re:Speaking of crap... by glwtta · · Score: 1
      the post is not a mindless raving of how crap BEA are, how fantastic JBoss is

      Wait a minute, but BEA is crap and JBoss is fantastic - does that make me a JBoss employee?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:Speaking of crap... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      No, I do see a difference. I just saw much more evidence that this was a personal battle where there was more blatant evidence of petty malice behind the accusation than evidence of what was being accused.

      As for being a shill, no, I like JBoss, but in production environments, although I *would* use it, I've been forced to work with shoddy products costing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars that are complete crap *cough*iPlanet*cough*. There are other options out there and I'm by no means a campaigner for JBoss and I certainly have ZERO professional affiliation with them. I just think the guy raising all this hell is out more to exact a personal vendetta for something totally unrelated to his accusations, which is every bit as unethical (actually, I find it worse becasue it is so petty) as what he's trumpeting around about.

      Seriously, anyone who has ever worked a commercial sales or support line has had to pretend that their product is just the bestest thing ever even if they thought it was complete crap. Really, so what if employees at any level are going out and saying the same thing? JBoss can't afford the kind of marketing that is behind Websphere or SunOne. Can you really blame them for using other avenues to toot their own horns?

      IMHO, all the shit this guy is tossing around about them is a hell of a lot more reprehensible than anything he's accused them of...

  38. The JBoss Investment by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Since recently Intel invested money in JBoss, I wonder if other investors are going to think twice about investing in a company that uses these kind of unscrupulous tactics, yeah business is business. But I wonder what potential investors, who want to help get JBoss certified, think? Although this isn't as bad as that Lindon UT outfit, it has to be akin to being bad buisness. Long live Geronimo!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  39. More common than you think by frenetic3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know you were being funny, but this is a very clever (albeit very unethical) and common technique. I know that at my last company (who had, well, some additional ethical concerns, but anyway) they would post on targeted message boards hyping up their site and would pretend to be happy customers. It's highly cheap, low effort, and effective.

    It sucks because unlike marketing efforts and vendors' sales messages, which everyone has learned to always take with a grain of salt, I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it.

    In fact, it's very dangerous, because my trust can be easily manipulated this way; I usually don't have time to bother to verify the source of a given posting (Think of how many hundreds or thousands of posts you read a year). However, if I encounter product Y sometime later having read something about it before, I usually vaguely remember whether the post said the product was any good or not and that will usually determine my first impression. In that way, libelous anonymous postings are very dangerous -- I remember hearing some people post that "Python sucked" (probably because of some BS like the whitespace indentation) and for that reason I stayed away for several years until reading some very positive articles and posts -- and now it's one of my most useful productivity tools and I could have saved ridiculous amounts of development time reinventing the wheel had I known about it before. That's kind of a trivial example, but when $ is involved, it's even worse.

    Sadly, it's basically the next form of spam. Most of us used to read (mostly) every word of all our emails -- now spam and outrageous commerical claims make that means of communication virtually useless. It will be a shame to see message boards and blogs, etc, filled with this kind of crap (blogs are already targeted by spammers). However, postings by these kinds of shills are often pretty blatant and easy to spot just because of their outrageous claims and distinctive style, but they will get more and more subtle. They're also virtually impossible to track, since real people are on the other end (and you can only really ban problem users after the damage has already been done). And if a company pays a few random dialup users (a tactic my old company was about to try -- yes, I've left since) to troll the net and make these kinds of postings, good luck trying to prove that the company did it or trying to track down or prosecute them.

    Really, the only way to tell is to view a given poster's karma/post history and to look for certain suspicious patterns.

    -fren

    --
    "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    1. Re:More common than you think by cptgrudge · · Score: 3, Funny
      (Think of how many hundreds or thousands of posts you read a year)

      You do, of course, mean hundreds of thousands, right?

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    2. Re:More common than you think by frenetic3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's also called "astroturf" (as in fake grassroots) in the offline/PR world.

      -fren

      --
      "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    3. Re:More common than you think by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it.

      I spent a lot of time thinking about this sentence, carefully formulating a well-reasoned, thoughtful response to it. Then I went back over it, polishing it and making it more concise, pruning away every superfluous word that might obscure the essential message I was trying to get across. It came down to one word:

      Boob.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    4. Re:More common than you think by Computer! · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it's as old as the hills.

      The linked articles look like a bunch of Fark forum drama to me. *YAWN*

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    5. Re:More common than you think by Bobdoer · · Score: 1
      "I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it."
      I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Ohio that I think you'd like. I bought it with no money down and low monthly payments. Needless to say, it was the best thing to happen to me ever. You should buy yours while supplies last.

      To purchase, send a check or money order to the "Collective Assessment Supplier's House" at 231 Psitube Plaza 42nd St. Aberdeen, Ohio 45101. When sending checks, please use the initials of the company.

    6. Re:More common than you think by Mitijea · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he didn't... to be hundreds of thousands (say 200,000) you'd have to read approx. 545 posts everyday. Now that is conceivable and probably done by some, but most likely the majority do not read that many, even here on /.

    7. Re:More common than you think by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 1
      Sadly, it's basically the next form of spam. ... It will be a shame to see message boards and blogs, etc, filled with this kind of crap (blogs are already targeted by spammers).

      It always puzzled me why /. never seems to get as much spam as other message boards that allow anonymous cowards. Was this ever a problem, and how was it solved?

      --
      It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
      - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    8. Re:More common than you think by hippycow · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sounds like you need che@p V1@gra! Visit our site at http://cheepviagra.com today!

    9. Re:More common than you think by donheff · · Score: 1

      "-- I remember hearing some people post that "Python sucked" ...and now it's one of my most useful productivity tools..."

      Hmmm, could this nugget be the real reason for the post?

    10. Re:More common than you think by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      It always puzzled me why /. never seems to get as much spam as other message boards that allow anonymous cowards. Was this ever a problem, and how was it solved?

      All things in Moderation.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    11. Re:More common than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you were being funny, but this is a very clever (albeit very unethical) and common technique.

      No shit, TrollTech have been doing it for years.

    12. Re:More common than you think by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he meant articles, not posts.

      That would be why everyone screams RTFA when someone makes an error in their post.

    13. Re:More common than you think by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      You obviously are in a western timezone! At 2-3pm here (GMT+7), that's 2-3am on the US east coast, and the GNAA posts outnumber real posts on virtually every story for the hour after it opens for posting. Amazing that moderation works so well.
      I'm part of another forum where there are no mod points, only moderator deletions, and it's hell. As bad as /.'s system is, it seems to work better than anyone else's.

    14. Re:More common than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Now that is conceivable and probably done by some, but most likely the majority do not read that many, even here on /.

      You're new here, aren't you?

    15. Re:More common than you think by cptgrudge · · Score: 2, Funny
      545 comments a day? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

      And people wonder why US tech jobs are being outsourced.

      "Yes, just one moment, sir. I understand that you can't get your email but I've got this killer post I've just got to get done before too many other people post. My Karma is at stake here!"

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    16. Re:More common than you think by BerntB · · Score: 1
      I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it.
      Personally, I tend to be shocked whenever someone on /. posts without hating incompetent products. Why say something when you only have positive things to say? You look like a stupid fan-boy!

      To take an obvious example, why write about how wonderful Emacs is when you can write about how 'vi' is utter garbage? Both are truths, of course, but one looks a bit naive.

      So I would be a bit more suspicious than you... any gushing reviews like that are obviously written by idiots if they weren't outright astroturf!

      For safety's sake:
      :-)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    17. Re:More common than you think by B747SP · · Score: 1
      Boob.

      So what does Janet Jackson have to do with this?

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    18. Re:More common than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it"

      I think you are an idiot if you really believe in what slashdot endorses, or someone in slashdot endorses because you think there is no zealtory involved and that the poster really believes in what he/she says.

    19. Re:More common than you think by roady · · Score: 1

      In Gibson's novel "Pattern recognition", there are people who are paid to hang out in bars, get to meet people, and then covertly advertise products during the ensuing discussions.

    20. Re:More common than you think by boinger · · Score: 1

      In a sort of weird turn-around on this theme, I used to work for a marketing company that also had a publishing company 'grafted on' (as it was owned by the same guy). One of our marketing techniques to promote a book (that the president of the company had written) was to log onto various sites and talk about how bad the book was and how reading it is akin to satanism. The fundies ate it up, and there were actually local protests about it and a mention on G Gordon Liddy's show to not buy it (which spiked sales). It was a fairly inflammatory subject and his idea was to ride the controversy wave, so I think it worked.

      Honestly, I don't mean this is a bait - How does that place in you (or anyone's) scale of morality?

      I was hesitant at first, but I decided it's not immoral to talk false shit about something when the 'inventor' tells you to. I think it's a very different thing to lie about something along the lines of software or mortgage rates or something. Or even a bent like "This book will change your life" (in the good way).

      --
      Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
    21. Re:More common than you think by stephenbooth · · Score: 1
      To take an obvious example, why write about how wonderful Emacs is when you can write about how 'vi' is utter garbage? Both are truths, of course, but one looks a bit naive.

      Or to put it another way: To take an obvious example, why write about how wonderful vi is when you can write about how EMACS is utter garbage? Both are truths, of course, but one looks a bit naive.

      Do get the point tho'. A couple of my hobbies are writing short stories and photography. I belong to a number of online forums for discussion of these and, hopefully knowledgable, critique of people's efforts. Many of them are over run with peole posting truly excreable material, material that has significant (but usually fixable) problems which are then followed by feedback which is utterly praising the piece like it was the best piece of writing or photography ever. If anyone dares to post an honest critique with suggestions on how to improve the shot/story then they are immediately bombarded with flames and the forum is filled with calls to the moderators to eject and ban them. Of course you do occasionally get a troll who will post a flame dishonestly critiquing a piece and not offering sugestions for improvement (usually easily recognised by the fact that it's very brief such as "That sucks, you're crap. Why don't you just kill yourself and save us from your crap!" rather than being several pages filled with suggestions). If anything the trolls tend to be just ignored. It's like people have lost the ability to distinguish between honest polite critique and sadistic flaming. It's actually very annoying, as someone who is learning in the field. If I post something and someone can see a way to improve it then I want to know so I can incorporate that and see if my work improves. Mindless praise helps no-one.

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    22. Re:More common than you think by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

      There's something similar already happening. Actors are paid to hang around in bars, cafes and other public places and, when there are people close enough to over hear, have a scripted conversation that promotes a product.

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    23. Re:More common than you think by nv5 · · Score: 1

      yes, this is a recent marketing phenom/fad:

      bzzagent

      cbsnews

    24. Re:More common than you think by r7 · · Score: 1

      >It's also called "astroturf" (as in fake grassroots) in the offline/PR world.

      And it was first widely used right here on /. by Microsoft after the USDOJ comment period in '02.

      Microsoft's phantom anonymous marketing is still orders of magnitude ahead of jboss' and others. You don't need to read slashdot to see that.

    25. Re:More common than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      yet another post that almost caused me to spit coffee on my screen and keyboard...

      nicely done...

    26. Re:More common than you think by BerntB · · Score: 1
      I was quite obviously at least 80% joking!

      (Not about Emacs, of course... vi isn't pure crap -- just not as good!)

      If anyone dares to post an honest critique with suggestions on how to improve the shot/story then they are immediately bombarded with flames and the forum is filled with calls to the moderators to eject and ban them.
      It needs trust and time to accept criticism.

      I know people in a writer's circle. They have to do honest criticism -- and also learn who among them will give good review. It is not easy -- try going for a smaller and/or more isolated forums and get to know people.

      As Strindberg wrote (my bad translation), "in the book shop, the small book hanging -- it's a bleeding heart dangling there on it's hook".

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    27. Re:More common than you think by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      It sucks because unlike marketing efforts and vendors' sales messages, which everyone has learned to always take with a grain of salt, I'm inclined to believe, often instantly and completely, a slashdot posting endorsing product X, because the poster seems unaffiliated and genuine and doesn't really have anything to gain from endorsing it.

      If you believe everything you read in a slashdot post, you've got bigger problems than a bit of astroturfing.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  40. One more question by Hatta · · Score: 1

    WTF is PHP?

    nahhh. j/k

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:One more question by MartinG · · Score: 1

      What does WTF mean?

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    2. Re:One more question by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

      > What does WTF mean?

      What's a Nubian?

    3. Re:One more question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You ruined a potentially good joke. You should have said: What the fuck does WTF mean?

    4. Re:One more question by Smork · · Score: 0

      > What does WTF mean?

      This reminds me of this brilliant bash.org quote
      For the click-impaired:

      what the fuck is wtf

    5. Re:One more question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does WTF mean?

      (Sentence inserted in attempt to defeat the lameness filter)

      WTF? AFAIK, IIRC (IANAL), FWIW RTFM!

    6. Re:One more question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What does WTF mean?

      They got it wrong. It's supposed to be:

      ~WTF!~

      and it's internet shorthand for "Waves To Friends!"

  41. jroller.org down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now EVERY blog out there that talks about Java is slashdotted...

    1. Re:jroller.org down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Java SCALES for large projects....

      Oh wait, i meant to say because Java sucks.

    2. Re:jroller.org down by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 1

      Great, now EVERY blog out there that talks about Java is slashdotted...

      How much do you bet they run on Java too?
      This explains that...

    3. Re:jroller.org down by r.jimenezz · · Score: 1
      Gosh, and to think I have no mod points now to mod you down. Not for the context of your comment, but simply for being so stupid as to post on a thread without knowing what you are talking about.

      Oh, sorry. I just noticed you're the famous Roland Piquepaille. That explains everything.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised.
    4. Re:jroller.org down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me, were you ever bullied at school?

  42. BileBlog Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Since JRoller seems to be Slashdotted already, here's the text of fate's BileBlog:

    Does the fun ever stop with these guys? It turns out that theserverside.com forums now has an interesting new feature that many of you might not be aware of. If you click on a particular user, you will see all the other users that have logged in from the same IP. Obviously, this method is not foolproof, and can be easily misinterpreted to mean that two people behind the same proxy are indeed one and the same.

    Having said that though, it is with immense glee that I see that once and for all, the JBoss wankstains can be seen for the hypocritical, conniving, underhanded, petty and insecure little fuckwits that they are.

    So, let's pick a user at random! Say..ohhh I dunno...Marc Fleury. Who else does the slimy little fleury have hidden away in this too-large-for-one-person personality of his? Why, none other than our friend Arun Patel! Arun, for those of you unfamiliar with TSS, posts incredibly offensive polemics that happen to exactly mirror the unspoken thoughts of a certain JBoss cult. To be fair, many of the posts are too eloquent to be His Royal Garlicness, what with his penchant for multiple exclamation marks, rambling sentences, and all round freakish usage of full stops.

    So, who else posts from that IP? Well, we have James Hardy. James' posts are often of the 'I'm sane but lets face it, JBoss rule' variety, as opposed to another on that list of deranged psychopaths, Chip Tyler. Chippie here will eagerly pipe in in any number of threads to say how much CDN suck, as well as how every move JBoss makes is intelligent and wise. There are literally dozens of other accounts that show how widespread this behaviour is. The only thing they have in common is a surprising love and admiration for all things JBossy, and disdain and abuse for all things non-JBossy.

    Needless to say, Ben Sabrin and the majority of the JBoss folks are all on the trail too. So while it's impossible to actually draw lines between the fakes and their puppetmasters, it's very very easy to spot the group of nefarious rumprangers who have embarked on this laughably incompetent marketing exercise. Having said that, some of the linkages are very clear and easy to follow to individuals who happen to not work in the same turdfactory as the fleurys do. Bill Burke has the highly dubious honour of also being Joe Murray, famous for making noises to the effect of 'Mike Spille doesn't exist!'. Let's see you uuhmm and err your way out of this one Billy! Marc'll have you back in that gimp suit pretty sharpish if you keep being this sloppy.

    It all makes an awful lot of sense, if you think about it. JBoss is very very little beyond a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. I was actually surprised at how many people at TSSS for example smirked when I asked if they used JBoss. The silent majority pretty much views that server as a bit of a joke, and rightfully so!

    What is stunning is how they seem to have next to no capacity for learning. Come on garlicboy, how fucking hard can it be to write a classloader? Do you really NEED UnifiedClassLoader, UnifiedClassLoader2, AND UnifiedClassLoader3? Didn't your mother teach you how to name classes? The thing is, it'd fine if you lot were just crapping out hilarious code. Sadly, it isn't enough for you, instead you feel the need to go out of your way and create a million fake accounts everywhere just to spread the word and hijack any potentially intelligent conversation. Are you that scared of innovation and a world where JBoss co-exists with the rest of humanity?

    The saddest part about all this is that the most likely outcome is for these posters to now ensure they use a different IP when posting, to disguise the trail more effectively. I'm sure the very notion of 'gosh, maybe we should let our software do the talking instead of using underhanded tactics like these' is heretical in that camp.

    So, the next time you see someone posting anything positive about JBoss, rest a

  43. Anon Cowards World Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On behalf of the Anonymous Cowards Union of the World, may I say that we are ashamed. Ashamed that we didn't think of it first and sell it to somebody.

    Oh, and SCO is great.

  44. Erupting? by melee · · Score: 1

    You're erupting? My condolences. Do they have treatments for that yet?

    Astroturfing is very common. Call 'em on it if you will, but I question if it's even close to unethical At worst it's probably slimy.

    You set up a situation that allows this and then get upset when people use it? Really.

  45. This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully. by sllort · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you look at subroutine checkForOpenProxy in Slashcode, you'll notice that it contains a hand-written port scanner/proxy checker built in Perl. Slashdot uses this to aggressively port scan and service map any IP address that tries to post anonymously, and saves the result in the DB. While this does have the unfortunate side affect of setting off IDS sensors across the globe and disrupting poorly hardened services on ports in Slash's scan list, it has the benefit of keeping us safe from those who would use a proxy to maintain anonymity, such as Chinese dissidents and corporate whisteblowers.

    1. Re:This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      [a feature of Slashcode] has the benefit of keeping us safe from those who would use a proxy to maintain anonymity, such as Chinese dissidents and corporate whisteblowers.

      Sorry, but Slashdot does not exist primarily as a medium for people who are making ethically right use of anonymous publishing. It is a community for dissemination and discussion of technology-related news. While it does have features to allow for some reasonable level of anonymity, Slashdot also has a number of hostile adversaries sufficient enough to warrant counter-measures, including the ones you highlight.

      With these measures it may be unuseable for extremely serious anonymous posting. But that doesn't mean Slashdot is a failure, for without these measures it would be completely unuseable in the way that the vast majority of users want it to be - the trolling, garbage, automated attacks, etc. would make it intolerable.

      So it is unfortunate that it is difficult for the noble people you describe to find a secure medium with which they can do what they need to, but it is not the purpose of Slashdot to solve that problem.

      If the editors are interested in this problem, they can act like real journalists and break a story while refusing to reveal their source. If the source requires technologically guaranteed anonymity, they will have to deal with the pitfalls that (necessarily? or just contingently) plague any medium that can provide it, including a very low signal to noise ratio.

    2. Re:This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully. by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "in Slashcode, you'll notice that it contains a hand-written port scanner/proxy checker built in Perl. Slashdot uses this to aggressively port scan and service map any IP address that tries to post anonymously, and saves the result in the DB"

      Port-knocking proxies it is then...?

    3. Re:This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god that slashdot also posts stories about port knocking...

    4. Re:This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:This can never happen on Slashdot, thankfully.dened services on ports in Slash's scan list, it has the benefit of keeping us safe from those who would use a proxy to maintain anonymity, such as Chinese dissidents and corporate whisteblowers.
      [ Reply to This ]

  46. Ok and so? by zx-6e · · Score: 1

    And tell me again why I care about JBoss again?

    1. Re:Ok and so? by detect · · Score: 1

      Um, Hibernate?

      --
      // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
  47. theserverside.com is a cesspool anyway by consumer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That site is full of so much flaming and mindless shrieking, it makes me wonder how Java gets anywhere. Seriously, there are a few exceptions, but the average quality of comments there make Slashdot seem like a community of polite geniuses by contrast.

    1. Re:theserverside.com is a cesspool anyway by md17 · · Score: 1

      I agree. And as I posted in another thread, I would actually read the comments if there were moderation so I could browser at +4. But even then, if morons are moderating, does it matter?

  48. Ugly Story by corby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is another ugly story that shows how little we need SCO and Microsoft to attack the open source community, because we are so willing to do their work for them.

    First, JBoss Group betrayed the trust of what should have been a largely sympathetic community in TheServerSide with their anonymous posting campaign.

    The fraud was exposed by levelheaded participants, including the submitter of this story and staff at TheServerSide.

    Then, the opportunists jumped in.

    Some bloggers gleefully joined the witchhunt, accusing their least favorite people of being anonymous posters, including real people, of course.

    When I told one blogger that he needed to offer evidence when he accused someone of being an anonymous poster, he publically implied that I supported the posting scheme.

    Several of the bloggers are themselves contributors to respected open-source projects, making this a particularly disturbing form of cannibalism.

    The net result is another wedge driven into what was already an overly polarized community. No real winners here.

    1. Re:Ugly Story by Mawbid · · Score: 1
      ...making this a particularly disturbing form of cannibalism...

      Moreso than the regular cannibalism, you mean?

      --
      Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    2. Re:Ugly Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "This is another ugly story that shows how little we need SCO and Microsoft to attack the open source community, because we are so willing to do their work for them" it is a proof of the stupidity of yours. While you are trying to give us a hint on how to protect this community, you also illustrate the fact that you are one of those idiots who essentially destroy the open source. I can understand SCO, but how exactly Microsoft attacks us? By giving away stuff on Sourceforge? What is the exact attack from Microsoft? Some unknown tactics? It is certain that there is no such community. People help each other on various issues, just like people help you when you have a windows question. The idiots who try to put together a community are those who wants to take some money from Microsoft. That's really what has been going on and still going on, but the stupidities against Microsoft will end some day. The last problem Europe has to concede sooner or later, because what they are trying to impose on Microsoft is illegal. So we will end up bunch of idiots on slashdot trying to defend something they never participated in, and in most of the cases they are Mac users who simply want to destroy Microsoft but have no interest whatsoever in Linux.

  49. If they were really evil, by twitter · · Score: 1
    Can't read jroller's sad little EV1, SCO supporting page right now, but I can imagine a few things Jboss could have done to make their posts really anonymous.

    They could have hired PR firms. This would be cheaper than spending engineering hours. The results might not be as good because engineers know what they are doing and can give you honest answers. If they really wanted to post crap and act like, oh M$ term, "net thugs", they could have offshored it!

    They could use anonymizers.

    They could have

    I'll have to see the evidence before I make up my mind, but companies that let you read and post on BBS are cool. Encouraging employees to constructively contribute to online discussions is not a bad practice. I'd like my next company to do the same.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:If they were really evil, by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      twitter! I didn't think I'd see you here. Hey, I was just wondering - would it be OK for me to refer you to this little gem of a story the next time I see you using the tired "Steve Bartko" argument you (judging from your posting history) seem to love so much? You wouldn't mind that, would you?

      BTW, are you saying that they were stupid for not figuring out how to be truly anonymous? Oh, wow. That's a fantastic argument!

  50. JBoss is innocent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hey. The people here are all wrong. You can totally trust JBoss. All this news is just trying to unfairly smear their credibility. Take it from me, there is nothing to be suspicious of at JBoss.

  51. Congratulations! by xski · · Score: 1

    You've been slashdotted...

    Anyone get a copy?

  52. Thorny Problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that open source companies can be just as ruthless as closed source when it comes to marketing their wares,

    An ethnic minority person walks into an ethnic majority bar and orders a beer. The ethnic majority guy next to him says, "we don't like your kind around here." Words are exchanged, and the ethnic minority guy pulls out a knife. The ethnic majority guy pulls out a gun and shoots him. Ethnic majority guy turns to the bartender and says, "just like an ethnic slur to bring a knife to a gun fight."

    So what should you do when the enemy is both more powerful and unethical? Most business people don't grasp (or care about) the long run benefits of open source software. If they don't see the open source equivalent as being better - and let me stress, they have to see it as being better, regardless of whether it is better - if they don't see it as a better product, they're not going to use it. If they're reading the trades, the open source people should be promoting their products there by all means necessary. Anonymous? Do you think Microsoft's shills on this site are adding disclaimers? This isn't pattycake, this is business. This is war. If you can't handle it, at least stay out of the way.

    1. Re:Thorny Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same lack morality which is touted in business today.

      The statement "it's business" or some thing like this is touted as an excuse for all kinds unethical behavior. Business is not war, it has some properties that are similiar to war but so does school, family and many other aspects of life. War has no customers, or do you consider your potential customers your enemy, so lying to them is ok.

      Philosphically, the free market and companies exist (are allowed to exist) for the benefit of humanity, not the other way around. No company just has a right to exist.

      Moreover, one of the primary assets of a small company is it's name, it's image. Large companies (usually) provide a certain assured value for their customers by means of there size, there inertia. The perceived value provided by a small company is related to the integrity of it's personnel. This doesn't necessarily mean that a large company will provide a better value, just a more known value.

      Being part of an organization automatically disqualifies one for evaluating it's and it's competitors products. Even when trying it's hard to be objective about competitors products.

      When advertising (and this is advertising) the advertiser should show the source, i.e. that it comes from the company itself.

    2. Re:Thorny Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't pattycake, this is business. This is war.

      Could you please tell me which company you work for?
      I promise to "stay out of the way", i.e. never ever buy anything from you.

      With your morals you probably are pushing drugs anyway ("promoting products with all means necessary").

  53. What is JBoss? by ggvaidya · · Score: 5, Informative

    When google fails ;)

    JBoss
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    JBoss (pronounced Jay Boss) is an open source, Java based application server. Because it is Java based, JBoss can be used on any operating system that supports Java. It is open source, but a company (also named JBoss) creates it. The company has a tech consultation service, but the consultants spend half of their time programming.

    JBoss implements the entire J2EE suite of services.

    The Sims Online uses JBoss to run its multiplayer games.

  54. Iraqi minister by Fullmetal+Edward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just wait, they will hire that Iraqi minister

    "It is all a lie, there was no blogs, there is no internet! YOU ARE NOT ON THE INTERNET I TRIPLE PROMISE YOU!"

    --
    --- [Insert intresting Sig here]
  55. Professional Open Source in 3 easy steps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Collect Underpants!
    2. Create 100s of avatars and spread Bullshit!!
    3. Profit!!!
    (read 5 minutes ago in the blogsphere, can't remember where however)
  56. As jroller.com is being slashdotted... by Roullian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here is a copy of Hani's excellent Bile Blog.

    JBoss panties around ankles, again.

    Does the fun ever stop with these guys? It turns out that theserverside.com forums now has an interesting new feature that many of you might not be aware of. If you click on a particular user, you will see all the other users that have logged in from the same IP.
    Obviously, this method is not foolproof, and can be easily misinterpreted to mean that two people behind the same proxy are indeed one and the same.

    Having said that though, it is with immense glee that I see that once and for all, the JBoss wankstains can be seen for the hypocritical, conniving, underhanded, petty and insecure little fuckwits that they are.

    So, let's pick a user at random! Say..ohhh I dunno...Marc Fleury. Who else does the slimy little fleury have hidden away in this too-large-for-one-person personality of his? Why, none other than our friend Arun Patel! Arun, for those of you unfamiliar with TSS, posts incredibly offensive polemics that happen to exactly mirror the unspoken thoughts of a certain JBoss cult. To be fair, many of the posts are too eloquent to be His Royal Garlicness, what with his penchant for multiple exclamation marks, rambling sentences, and all round freakish usage of full stops.

    So, who else posts from that IP? Well, we have James Hardy. James' posts are often of the 'I'm sane but lets face it, JBoss rule' variety, as opposed to another on that list of deranged psychopaths, Chip Tyler. Chippie here will eagerly pipe in in any number of threads to say how much CDN suck, as well as how every move JBoss makes is intelligent and wise. There are literally dozens of other accounts that show how widespread this behaviour is. The only thing they have in common is a surprising love and admiration for all things JBossy, and disdain and abuse for all things non-JBossy.

    Needless to say, Ben Sabrin and the majority of the JBoss folks are all on the trail too. So while it's impossible to actually draw lines between the fakes and their puppetmasters, it's very very easy to spot the group of nefarious rumprangers who have embarked on this laughably incompetent marketing exercise. Having said that, some of the linkages are very clear and easy to follow to individuals who happen to not work in the same turdfactory as the fleurys do. Bill Burke has the highly dubious honour of also being Joe Murray, famous for making noises to the effect of 'Mike Spille doesn't exist!'. Let's see you uuhmm and err your way out of this one Billy! Marc'll have you back in that gimp suit pretty sharpish if you keep being this sloppy.

    It all makes an awful lot of sense, if you think about it. JBoss is very very little beyond a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. I was actually surprised at how many people at TSSS for example smirked when I asked if they used JBoss. The silent majority pretty much views that server as a bit of a joke, and rightfully so!

    What is stunning is how they seem to have next to no capacity for learning. Come on garlicboy, how fucking hard can it be to write a classloader? Do you really NEED UnifiedClassLoader, UnifiedClassLoader2, AND UnifiedClassLoader3? Didn't your mother teach you how to name classes? The thing is, it'd fine if you lot were just crapping out hilarious code. Sadly, it isn't enough for you, instead you feel the need to go out of your way and create a million fake accounts everywhere just to spread the word and hijack any potentially intelligent conversation. Are you that scared of innovation and a world where JBoss co-exists with the rest of humanity?

    The saddest part about all this is that the most likely outcome is for these posters to now ensure they use a different IP when posting, to disguise the trail more effectively. I'm sure the very notion of 'gosh, maybe we should let our software do the talking instead of using underhanded tactics like these' is heretical in that camp.

    So, the next time you see someone posting anything positive about JBoss, rest assured

  57. Core Values by andman42 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    JBoss would never do this.

    After all, JBoss's second Core Value is "Group trust and personal integrity."
    • We operate internally on the basis of mutual trust. Nobody in the company will knowingly deceive another member.
    • We are honest.
    • We tell the truth among ourselves, to our clients, to our partners, to our investors, to our prospects.
      Note to self: anyone who has to state that they're honest probably isn't.
    • We are committed to profitability and sound finances. We are thrifty.
    • We place the needs of the federation of projects above individual ones.
    Note to self: anyone who has to claim that they're honest probably isn't.
    1. Re:Core Values by mjc_w · · Score: 4, Funny

      The way I've heard it is this:

      If someone says "Trust me.", count your fingers after shaking their hand.

      --
      This is the Constitution.This is the Constitution under the Bush administration. Any questions?
    2. Re:Core Values by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Funny
      George Orwell wrote "1984" as a warning; the Bush administration uses it as an instruction manual.

      Thats thoughtcrime bitch!

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    3. Re:Core Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do trust them and I'm proud to say so in public.

    4. Re:Core Values by Monkelectric · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      oh GOD FUCKING DAMNIT. Who marked me a "troll" for a comment about 1984? I am so sick of the moderation on slashdot! If you don't get that joke, read 1984 and then get back to me and see if you think I'm still a "Troll".

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    5. Re:Core Values by ptbarnett · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Who marked me a "troll" for a comment about 1984?

      You didn't make a comment about '1984'. You posted a political diatribe against the Bush administration.

      If you don't get that joke, read 1984 and then get back to me and see if you think I'm still a "Troll".

      I've read '1984'. And I think the moderator was right, although I think a better choice would have been "Flamebait".

      (For the record, I agree with you in principle. But, I find the repetitive political attacks as tiresome as the "beowulf cluster" and "in the Soviet Union" jokes)

    6. Re:Core Values by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      No, the bush thing is my tagline, the thoughtcrime comment was the post ... and i've got karma to burn :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    7. Re:Core Values by xoboots · · Score: 1
      No, the bush thing is my tagline, the thoughtcrime comment was the post ... and i've got karma to burn :)

      So lessee, you put your tagline before your comment; your entire comment is only related to your so-called tagline; you complain about your moderation of your strange post; you top it off by claiming that you have 'karma' to burn after-all.

      Your original post wasn't funny, but your Kramer-esque process is hilarious!! I wouldn't reply except for the fact that you took your own self so seriously. Well, seriously then, your joke wasn't funny, and I'm not commenting on its content but rather judging it only on comedic value. It just plain had nothing humourous going for it. Like Orwell references have ever bust anyone's gut...

      Greets!

    8. Re:Core Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Orwell wrote "1984" as a warning; the Bush administration uses it as an instruction manual.

      Is the sig of the poster he responded to.

      Thats thoughtcrime bitch!

      Is his 1984 joke reply.

      All I know about Bush is I had a job when Clinton was president.

      Is his sig (you might notice comes after his post not before)

      It really shouldn't be that difficult to interpret. Mod him offtopic for responding to a sig instead of troll or flamebait or whatever. People should understand what they're replying to before swinging expressions like 'Kramer-esque process' in the direction of the parent.

    9. Re:Core Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a similar one: "Don't be evil"

      Note to self: anyone who has to claim that he is not evil probably isn't.

      Warning: this anonymous coward could be astroturfing for Microsoft or Yahoo.

    10. Re:Core Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with responding to sigs. Makes no sense to people who read with sigs turned off.

  58. The Plant Principle by xp · · Score: 1

    I want to add my voice to this chorus of indignation. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone would use postings to bulletin boards as a way to market themselves.

    JBoss could have avoided this problem if they lived by the animal principle instead of the plant principle. For more details see The Plant Principle.

    1. Re:The Plant Principle by glenstar · · Score: 1
      I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone would use postings to bulletin boards as a way to market themselves.

      My belief system has always included the concept of integrity, honesty, and brutal truth when it comes to comes to posting on slash dot. I guess the moral crux of the matter is that you can't trust no one.

      Sometimes don't you just get so sick of it all and wish that you were somewhere in Thailand, sitting on a beach with a member of the the fair sex (or, if you prefer, a strapping young lad), testifying about how much things suck in the real world?

      aha! you say... that sounds like good, clean fun!

      Well, I guess that today is the day and that from this day forward we should follow through and actually live by the honor system.

      Any questions?

  59. Not news by Salamander · · Score: 1

    Does anyone seriously think JBoss hasn't been doing that same sort of thing right here for ages? Or that the reviews you read on Amazon are all on the level? Or that the reviews you'll find when you're looking for a web host are all honest? Come on. Internet astroturf has been rampant for years.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
  60. right again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    All my years of slamming Anonymous critical Cowards on /. is being vindicated every day.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  61. Yet Another Company.... by kmmatthews · · Score: 1

    that I will no longer purchase anything from.

    Of course.. At some point very soon, I'm going to have to start my own farm for food, and a slave labor workship for socks.

    Slave labor? Whoooops, how'd that slip out?

    Now let's see who mods me down for using the word "slave," which is obviously in and of itself offensive.

    *wanders off into the distance ranting about California*

    --
    feh. stuff.
    1. Re:Yet Another Company.... by vegetablespork · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't worry, no one's going to waste their mod points modding down someone's recently created troll ID, unless an editor is in the mood.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    2. Re:Yet Another Company.... by kmmatthews · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, I'm not trolling; I merely lost my old accounts password.

      http:://slashdot.org/~negacao is my old account. And I no longer have that email, so..

      Now who's the troll? Me, talking about the article, or you, commenting about the youth of an account? Not to mention the newness of your account.

      Also, if you look at my comments thus far, not one troll rating.

      --
      feh. stuff.
    3. Re:Yet Another Company.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, referring to your sig... unless you're promoting that nick berg troll, why else would you put it in your sig but to have people mod down posts?

  62. Maybe some of them.... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    Goodnes knows I would If I were linus. Hmm. come to think of it how do I know I'm not linus? I shall require five pounds of herring and a finnish swimsuit model. Only then can I know for sure.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  63. Called out by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Usually though if someone did something like that on a public forum, they would be called out if the statements were untrue (if the readership is large enough to have anyone that would care). So it still balances out to some extent, by people posting they had no problems with a product someone else did not like, and perhaps disagreeing with rosy assesments of other software.

    In the end I'm not sure how much effect comments like these really have, as there is balance.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  64. Ethical?.. by nyjx · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You might call people for posting anonymously - but what surely tss has more than a bit to answer for by clearly violating the notion of ANONYMOUS posts. This post on the tss regading the "new feature" makes the point perfectly:

    It's stupid and dangerous. Posted By: Mouloud - on May 18, 2004 @ 05:58 AM in response to Message #122469 1 replies in this thread

    1. Which confidence can one grant on a site which sets up such a process without informing its members as a preliminary ?
    2. It throws suspicion on the posts: how to distinguish 1 fellow with 2 users from 2 poor fellows which share the same proxy ? What happens if one member uses 2 different proxies (for example : job and home) ?
    3. This is dangerous, because it creates implicitly and insidiously a link between individuals and thus between their opinions.

    ... deleted some

    Retroactively identifying people is highly foolish - particular subsequentely linking individuals to a company. If a site provides an anonymous mode:

    • Users / Readers have their own responsability to take those posts with a pinch of salt!
    • You cannot retroactively undo this anonymity - we all live in a world we put trust in the service provider (in this case tss) to stand by what it says on the tin: this is an anonymous post.

    If people using anonymous mode in an "unethical way" may be a problem - remove it, give everybody warning and move on.

    No i don't work for JBoss, and yes i know IP/cookies etc. are tracked - however i don't expect amazon of anybody else to post what that information!

    --
    .sig
  65. No such thing as anonymous coward on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One thing that the slashdot crowd probably don't get is that there isn't a notion of "Anonymous Coward" (they should implement that).

    It is one thing to post anonymously... that should be defended.

    Is is another thing to NOT be anonymous, and to even claim to be someone who you are not, and then to personally attack people. From the blogs it even looks like they claimed OTHER people were fake, which is humorous.

    Anonymous posting is fine. The other stuff isn't IMO. There is a difference.

  66. Good code, mixed message idea by smallfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting
    JBoss is an odd sort of open source project anyway. The developers are trying to make it a paying concern. There is no documentation that comes with JBoss, but you can buy it on the web site (it is inexpensive). The developers also sell consulting services, so that while sometimes you can get good help on the forums there can't be any incentive for the developers to answer forum questions.

    IMHO there should be more of an air gap between the OS project and the for profit JBoss group. But they did produce a good product, so maybe $$ is a good motivational tool even in the OS arena.

    1. Re:Good code, mixed message idea by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Except that, as others have pointed out, as they make their money from consultancy they actually have an incentive not to answer questions and not to produce an easy to use product. The more obscure and difficult it is to set up and use the more money they'll make.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  67. fake review sites by ripflash · · Score: 1
    This is bad, but not worst than entire sites that are fake. Try typing "top web hosts" into Google. All the review sites are fake: hostreview.com, tophosts.com, top10webhosting.com.... They pretend to be unbiased review sites but are really just advertising for the companies listed.

    A friend who works at a prominent ISP was asked by a potential customer why they weren't on Top Hosts. So people are falling for it. And hosting companies feel obligated to advertise there because the sales people are demanding it.

  68. There is Still a Case to be Made for AC Posting by cmacb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now THIS is an interesting article. It touches on several issues at once: Privacy, Honesty, Openness, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Media manipulation... I could go on.

    We all want privacy don't we? Do you really want someone throwing a rock through your window because you said something negative about a group they are a member of on Slashdot?

    Open Source is all about, well, openness right? It seems so ironic that a company based on the Open Source philosophy would do such a thing. But how many times have many of us said that Open Source is about freedom to create not about anti-commerce. If it is ever proven that Open Source companies CAN'T be profitable, then I think the future of Open Source will be bleak.

    Media manipulation is both harder and easier with the popularity of the Internet. Anyone who wants to can be a publisher now. How many of you regular posters to Slashdot used to write letters to the editor of your local paper on a regular basis? I know I didn't. I've written more on issues I care about in the last 2 years than the previous ...um... thirty something, combined. OK, its drivel, but if you multiply that by all the Internet users, there is some good stuff out there that would not be out there otherwise. The trick is of course to separate out the good stuff from the drivel. You know, signal to noise ratios and all that. Systems like Slashdot's moderation system help, but they are a long way from perfect yet. In particular...

    Systems such as Slashdot are easy targets for conspiracy. We "rate" one another by name. My real identity MAY be secret, at least if I've been very very careful, but unless I do all my "Karma whoring" under this id and all my controversial posts anonymously, people are going to have a pretty good idea of what cmacb thinks about things. They may have a pretty good idea of what other Internet activities I engage in, who my online friends are, and a lot of other inferences not so easily drawn. Am I comfortable with this? Sometimes I'm not so sure...

    The other day I posted what I thought was a perfectly normal reaction to a Slashdot article. I was a bit surprised that it got quickly modded up to a 5 (I really don't care that much about mod points other than the general "acceptability" of what I've said) I was even more surprised though to find myself personally insulted several times in the 14 posts that followed and then shocked to see the posts containing nothing more than insults modded up to 3, 4 and 5 while my original post dropped down to "1 troll". There was nothing the least bit resembling a troll in my post. I didn't bother to defend it though, as I don't want rocks through my window and I had clearly offended a group who, by their own writings, is capable of doing such a thing. Hopefully the fact that they had enough mod points among them to make my post disapear and their insults at me "informative" that they won't be tempted to hunt me down as well.

    It made me realize that Slashdot, and several other systems I use just like it, are broken in a serious way. The moderation is good, but allowing me to filter posts based on WHO and individual is is just plain wrong. Some of the best posts I've seen on Slashdot are AC and some of the worst are by other people with good Karma. But I'm more interested in rating the post than the person. Why can't Slashdot (and systems like it) tally the ratings on my posts in such a way that nobody even knows what my ID is? Essentially combining the moderation and meta moderation and providing anonymity at the same time. I thiink that if you rated a particular poster poorly some number of times you would stop seeing their posts, without even knowing who they are or that you had done so. Some people ONLY want to see posts they AGREE with, and those people could rate posts accordingly and they would gradually get their wish. Others (like me) would rate on the "quality" of the posts without regard to agreeing or disagreeing with the content, and event

  69. Somebody called Slashdot a failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you responding to the wrong comment? WTF are you talking about?

    1. Re:Somebody called Slashdot a failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the italicized, quoted portion of the parent *after* you turn on your sarcasm detector.

      All right-minded free thinkers (the Slashmob) know that we don't *really* need to be "protected" from the claims of whistle-blowers and dissidents in totalitarian regimes. The OP can be interpreted as suggesting that the relevant feature of Slashdot is doing a disservice to the free flow of this important information. My reply explains why it is not fair to burden Slashdot with the responsibility of facilitating the free flow of this kind of information.

  70. In USSR, Santa Claus doesn't believe in YOU! by hexatron · · Score: 1

    In USSR, Santa Claus doesn't believe in YOU!

  71. Links not /.ed, more thoughts... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hey I clicked on a link before and got nothing - now they all seem to work.

    I agree that some of the posts seem a little shady, but nothing as bad as this group of bitter blooggers seem to make it out to be. I didn't even see a lot of good examples of real problem posts - there was one like "Hey in the last six months JBoss CMP has got way better!" - but even that is OK with me, if it is true (have no personal experience with JBoss CMP yet).

    But take a look at this quote from the posters blog:

    As far as distributed tx and recovery and logging goes, yes, that is a weakpoint, but how often do apps require that kind of functionality. My guess the number is in the minority. I guess what I am saying is that the JBoss J2EE stack is quite complete minus distributed tx and recovery based from what I've seen

    That all sounds fine to me, even if I didn't know that came from JBoss it still makes a lot of sense to me. I personally also believe that not a lot of people need distributed TX (sometimes I wonder if ANYONE really needs distributed TX really) or distributed logging. I have played around a very little with JBoss and it does indeed seem very complete - I use Weblogic during the course of my job and of course that is pretty good, but it's also very expensive and for a lot of work I see going on in my company JBoss would more than suffice (and has, some groups have been using it and are only moving to Weblogic to keep with a corperate standard).

    One thing not mentioned by the original poster is there seems to be an undercurrent of this CDN company (I think the poster is an employee from his blog?) which split off from JBoss and they were very pissed about the whole thing, as it seemed to have been done in an underhanded way (which they support with dates of the domain registration). So from that aspect I think a lot of the worst posts were sort of revenge for this action, and this have at least some explanation behind them beyond mere astroturfing - there were strong emotions involved. So this whole blogging attack against posters from JBoss seems to be orchistrated by CDN people resentful of people attacked by multiple sources they felt were from the parent company (which they may have screwed over).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Links not /.ed, more thoughts... by scubabear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, not even close. I'm not an employee of CDN, have never been, am not affiliated with them in any way. Neither are the other bloggers referenced. The only person referenced with any affiliation with JBoss is Rickard, who used to be a major committer on JBoss.

      The reason I blogged about this is really simple: truth. Yeah, I know, that sounds trite and stupid, but that really is the main motivation. JBoss people have been posing with very convincing names like "Chip Tyler" and "Joe Murray" for quite some time now, talking up their own product, dissing people like the CDN folks, and directly going after people like me. Some of it got quite nasty as well - and all under the cover of fake names. NOT anonymous ones - no Anonymous Coward. One of them - someone claiming to be Arun Patel but really a senior JBoss executive - went so far as to say online that he worked for WIPRO in Bangalore, India, and to attempt to prove that I was a shill. And he did this when the guy actually has e-mailed me and knew exactly who I really am. The icing on the cake is that the individual _setup the fake Arun Patel account using his real corporate e-mail address_.

      This isn't about a vendetta, or revenge, or personalities clashing. It's about exposing a company that uses deceitful tactics to gain market share and simultaneosuly attack individuals and companies. I personally don't care if it's common or not - no matter how prevalent it may, it's still wrong and it should be rooted out and exposed when it's discovered.

      Keep in mind also that this was a coordinated corporate policy, and it involved the "big names" at JBoss, and sometimes the weight of faker posts would actually overwhelm entire threads.

      It was coordinated, it was nasty, and had high volumes over a span of well over a year.

      -Mike Spille

    2. Re:Links not /.ed, more thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sounds like they were knowingly committing slander. With lots of evidence in te form of server logs. Time to break out the lawsuits?

  72. Nitpick... There is no community! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no Slashdot community!

    There are people from many communities, who take very different risks in common with other people.

    A bunch of forum posts can't really be a "community". If people don't agree on what they agree on, and don't share a social contract or constitution, they aren't really committed to a common view of risk and mutual self-defense. That is community.

    If Slashdot was a "community", you would have to ask: What risks do every member of the community agree to take in common? What harms might they suffer together? If none, are they really a community in the sense we physical beings with real bodies understand it? I would say none, none, and no.

    Consider "some body" vs. "no body". If something posing as a contributor has no body behind it (that is, it does not really represent the committed views of some body), but is a fictional construct or simply a bot, or a paid shill repetitively quacking some ideology not tied to any body that is actually threatened or constrained, we don't owe it quite the consideration (human rights, privacy, free speech, empathy) we'd owe a real living body with the same emotions as we feel. Can no body have the same status as some body? If so, doesn't this mean you are letting ghosts run your "Community"? That isn't what most communities do, even if they trust some high priests to mediate with some divine being or other.

    Consider Slashdot contributors. Not everyone takes a position on an issue, and commits to some statement of it. Most people are changing their minds a lot. There is no reason to think a casual "contributor", especially one who works anonymously, wants to be part of any "community". That assumes too much.

    Consider party and faction formation. It's not even clear yet that we have the same words for things, let alone the ability to cooperate. Let's see some evidence that these things, which appear in any community ultimately, have appeared here, before we start claiming "we" are like a real community. Really, we have to wait for that, before "we" know who "we" are at all!

    Consider ideology, governance ideas, etc.. Without them, is there really "community"?

    OK, let's nail down the various definitions of a community one by one and show they aren't here:

    One definition of a community is those who accept one version of a story. But we don't. At least not yet.

    Another is those who accept a common glossary of important moral and ethical terms. But, we don't. We are not a phyle (see Diamond Age).

    A third is those who live in the same place. But we don't. We are not a village.

    A fourth is those who accept some obligations to each other, like in Neal Stephenson's Reformed Distributed Republic from The Diamond Age. This is more like community. But we aren't about to take such chances in mutual self defense of each other. This proves we are not a community.

    What most people mean when they talk about "virtual community" is epistemic community. Which is really not community as the ordinary person understands it. So let's not call it that.

    1. Re:Nitpick... There is no community! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I don't think this hinges on whether "community" is the best word to describe the thousands of people who frequent Slashdot.

      Still, whether or not these people meet your preferred definition of community (which apparently involves some shared risk?), I think there is a reasonable sense of the word in which it does apply to the Slashdot users.

      Most of us who come here find some value in the site (even those who just love to hate it). One common risk we share is that Slashdot will stop being the way we like it.

      Another risk that we all share, not necessarily Slashdot related but to some as important as physical harm, is the threat of powerful interests (e.g., the various proprietary intellectual property industries) to eclipse our own interests in the free flow of information and the freedom to have control over what we do with technology.

      These and other shared interests, I contend, are strong enough to warrant speaking of "the Slashdot community". Perhaps the ultimate facts about what makes the Slashdot community supervene on, or emerge from, all of the small individual actions each user makes when deciding to visit the site, deciding what to post, deciding how to moderate other posts, deciding what to submit, deciding what stories to post (in the case of an editor), and so forth.

      Yes, there is no formal system of rules we all agree by that defines our common interests, just the particular actions of thousands of individuals. But the fact that we communicate with each other, and by the nature of the types of actions described above, there emerge patterns of group behavior and interests that are correctly collectively called a "community".

    2. Re:Nitpick... There is no community! by Spock_NPA · · Score: 1
      A third is those who live in the same place. But we don't. We are not a village.

      This works in defining a physical community. However, it needs to be updated when applied to Internet communities. Instead of living in the same region, it becomes visiting the same website(s).

      One of the thing that binds people into becoming a neighborhood community is living a shared experience. Likewise, by consistantly visiting the same website as some group of people, the set of people can become a community.
      --
      Regards,
      Spock_NPA
    3. Re:Nitpick... There is no community! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does any definition need updating. It bears mention that the epistemic community predates the Internet by a considerable time. For example, the 'zine era beginning roughly at the end of World War II fostered groups with community-like elements based on shared values, interests, and experiences. Amateur radio, with its popularity dating to roughly the same time, did the same, using a form of electronic communications we might now consider primitive. And there have been various topical groups in constant written communications, working through newsletters and so forth. Some of the non-mainstream religious groups fit this model to this day.

      Also, it is no coincidence that the most successful so-called "community" social groups are of the mutual support group nature, i.e. oppressed or geographically divided groups using a single communication medium when group already knows itself to be oppressed in the same way, or to be subject to the same bodily threats or limitations: compared to this, the collective hallucination caused by believing the same mass media is not nearly so strong or significant.

  73. /. ACs by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    I don't suppose any of this will get rid of ACs here on /.?

    1. Re:/. ACs by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      We can only hope!

      If you can't put your name on it, you wasted your time typing it because we ignore you.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:/. ACs by double_h · · Score: 1

      If you can't put your name on it, you wasted your time typing it because we ignore you.

      Yes and how is Mrs. BCW2 these days?

      - Steve Harvey

    3. Re:/. ACs by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      At least it's my real initials, ans Mary's fine thank you.
      Boyce C. Williams II

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  74. not new - many others by Down8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago, during the dotBoom, I was looking for a summer job/internship in the marketing area of IT. I went on one interview where they were looking for me to go on BBS', and in chat rooms, and front their product, as if I were a satisfied user. This would be my job, 8 hours a day, just running around the 'Net looking for ways to infiltrate the masses and say how good their product was.

    I didn't get the job, b/c I think they could tell I wasn't happy with their idea during the interview.

    -bZj

    --
    .sig
  75. You didn't answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does the OP label Slashdot a failure?

    1. Re:You didn't answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just seems clear to me that the OP implies (without explicitly asserting) that this feature is a flaw in Slashdot, insofar as Slashdot represents the interests of free speech. So Slashdot fails to represent those interests as well as it could if it did not have this feature.

      Do you really need to have this all spelled out?

    2. Re:You didn't answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt anyone thinks Slashdot represents or even claims to promote free speech.

  76. Jboss is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhps

  77. I Support JBOSS by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 1

    I am not an employee of JBOSS and I love to endorse and tout their product because it is one of the best EJB server available.

    What should be investigated are those who disparage JBOSS. I bet that most of those who complain about JBOSS are employees of competitors who are being beaten to a pulp by the JBOSS Group.

    1. Re:I Support JBOSS by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

      Psst! You were supposed to post this anonymously!

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
  78. So what was the real motivation? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When looking around at the various posts I saw your user being mentioned by the blogger as fake... then the retraction. That was pretty funny, it does seem like a few bloggers went over the top the other way.

    What do you think was the primary motivation behind the multiple posts from JBoss employees, since you were reading through most of them? From the sketchy reading I did I formed the thoery that JBoss did this to attack CDN which they belive betrayed them by splitting off, and thier emotions ran away with them. Most of the positive posts did not seem so much like cheerleading to me, and didn't seem to offer than much gain for JBoss as a company.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So what was the real motivation? by scubabear · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have to realize first that this really did go on for years, and involves hundreds of posts. The motivations seemed to be three fold. 1) Show JBoss in a good light. 2) Disparage competing products. 3) Gain control of discussion threads, and discredit people who wrote negative posts regarding JBoss.

      A big key of this is hijacking threads. If a thread started going "bad" from a JBoss perspective, both employees with their real names and fake names would sweep in simultaneously posting positive things about JBoss and refuting negative parts. They literally turned some threads from being anti-JBoss to looking positive.

      Along the way, they made people who posted any negative JBoss posts look like they were the bad guys. "Oh poor us, look, these mean people are persecuting us!". This is a prime JBoss tactic - do something underhanded and slimy, and if there's a whiff of being caught make the people doing the catching look like the bad guys - and make yourself look like a poor victim.

      Keep in mind that, having literally done it for years, they're pretty good at it. No blatant cheerleading. Sometimes they would put a mild negative comment in to make the post look more realistic "gee, CMP really sucked, but I hear it's better in 3.2", or "yeah their JMS wasn't that good, but they say they're making it better - anyone know anymore about that?".

      To judge it, you have to look at the volume of threads and volume of posts over time. The blogs referenced have touched upon only maybe 5-10% of the total! We had neither the time or energy to exhaustively post everything the fake users did. If you happen to have the time, check out some of the threads on TheServerSide. Watch for their entry into them, and watch them turn the tide of opinion on a thread, and discredit naysayers along the way. In an odd way you have to respect it - they've raised these fake posts to an art form, they've honed their craft over many years.

    2. Re:So what was the real motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that's Fleury's whole tactic: whine about how attacking JBoss is bad for the community. Remember when Apache announced their (competing) app server? Fleury pissed about how it was going to weaken the OSS movement, etc. etc. and we should all rally around JBoss. I hope Fleury's investors ask for their money back.

  79. Astroturf is astroturf by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    no matter what organization uses it.

    Now what has JBoss learned from this, besides using machines with various dial-up accounts to different states and clean the cookies out after every use? ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  80. But why would they do it? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Sorry to link you to CDN, some snippet I read made me think that.

    The whole thing is though - what was really the motivation behind this action? If it was a policy, it must have had some point to it - and I really can't see it would improve sales or use all that much. Especially the negative attacking posts, is some guy on a forum complaining about BEA really going to drive people away from Weblogic? It seems unlikey.

    I'm just trying to understand where the motivation came from to do this, and since most of the negative comments I read seemed to be linked to bitterness about CDN people splitting off from them, it was the only motivation I could ascribe (at least to the negative parts).

    The positive parts, some of them oce off as wierd (as I mentioned in my original posts) but some of them just seem like something I would do, when I post about my own company but don't nessicarly want to link an ID to them. Or sometimes when I'm beta-testing something I have to post in a more roundabout way since people don't like it if you reveal you are a beta-tester.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:But why would they do it? by scubabear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, sorry, I'm too deep into the community and forgot that what's obvious to me may not be obvious to the world at large.

      The CDN folks are some of the leads for the Geronimo project. This is an Apache-licensed J2EE application server.

      In other words, it's a new free Java application server which is in direct competition to JBoss. Since it's Apache, anybody can use it (and particularly modify and distribute it) with far fewer restrictions than with JBoss. They are a direct competitor to JBoss - a direct open source competitor.

      The JBoss fake posters publically called the technical skills of the CDN/Geronimo folks into question. They did exactly the same to the other major open source Java server, the Jonas people.

      The purpose is simple: generate interest and market share for JBoss, get the residual interest that pays their training/services/support bills. Do it by boosting your own stuff, and trying to do verbal hatchet jobs on your competitors and detractors. Make regular people who happen to disagree with you or compete with you look like the bad guys, make you look like poor besieged victims and underdogs.

      As for the rest - you'd be surprised what a fake grass roots campaign like this can do. In combination with other legit marketing techniques, it's powerful and persuasive. It gets them just enough attention to get articles written, to get research firms like Gartner and Forrester to take notice - and to get enough attention to get VC funding.

      I can understand your puzzlement given the examples and if you're not in the community. But imagine the sample of posts in the referenced blogs - and now imagine 500, 600, 700 of them over years. It has an effect, a very measurable effect. Smearing the names of people who disagree with you just serves to magnify that effect, particularly when it _seems_ to come from uninterested parties.

  81. Who cares? by glwtta · · Score: 1
    JBoss is hands down the best J2EE app server out there, including both comercial and free alternatives - I really couldn't care less what opinions their employees post to message boards, assuming they still find the time to write code.

    The Java blog space now erupted with posts from a variety of bloggers (here, here, and here for a start)

    And what is it with this whole "blog" thing? I thought it was just a form of public masturbation?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You sound just like the people on those forums that were mentioned.

      Either you are one of these alter egos, or you never tried any other app servers. JBoss is one of the worst app servers actually. My personal favourite in Orion.

    2. Re:Who cares? by tbien · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it isn't... Their classloader design in simply broken (at least in the 3.x series - which I tried). It's maybe possible to use JBoss in an 1 Server - 1 Application environment, but forget it if you want to use more than one application using the same libraries in different versions... In that case you're screwed!

  82. interesting part (1934 plot) by rnx · · Score: 1

    admittedly kinda offtopic but the following line from the movie page made me curious:

    From a 1934 business-backed plot to install a military dictator in the White House (undone by the integrity of one U.S. Marine Corps General, Smedley Darlington Butler) ...

    never heard of that one ... the wikipedia entry
    of that general doesnt mention the plot but
    google offers a few pages.
    pretty interesting.

  83. Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Additionally there are safeguards in place to correct non-community-oriented behavior, such as editors IP banning your comments, modbombing you, banning you from moderating, banning your subnet, and other community enforcement measures.

  84. So this is how they spent the $10M VC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The JBoss business plan:

    1) Write free software
    2) Raise $10M in venture capital
    3) Hire 250 bloggers
    4) ???
    5) Profit!

  85. Hooper X's Black Rage by Cyno01 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hooper X: For years in this industry, whenever an African American character, hero or villain, is introduced USUALLY by my white artist names. They got SLAPPED with racist names that singled them out as Negros! Now--my book, "White-Hating Coon", don't have any of that bullshit. The hero's name is Maleequa and he's descended from the black tribe that established the first society on the planet while all you European motherfuckers were all hiding out in caves 'n shit, terrified of the sun. He's a strong role-model that a young black reader can look up to. 'Cause I'm here to tell ya: the chickens are coming home to roost, y'all. The black man is no longer going to be playing the minstrel in the medium of comics and sci-fi fantasy. We're keeping it real! And we're going to get respect by any means necessary.
    Holden (Ben Affleck): Ah, c'mon, that's a bunch of horseshit! Lando Calrissian was a black guy, y'know, he got to fly the Millenium Falcon! What's the matter with you!
    Hooper: Who said that?
    Holden: (standing up) I did. Lando Calrissian is a positive role-model in the realm of science fiction fantasy.
    Hooper: Hey, FUCK Lando Calrissian!
    (Holden shrugs and sits down)
    Hooper: Uncle-Tom nigger, heh. It's always some white boy got to invoke the holy trinity. Bust this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this shit. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi poster boy blond hair blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian god!
    Banky (Jason Lee): (standing up) What's a nubian?
    Hooper: Shut the fuck up! (Banky sits down) Now. Vader, he's a spiritual brother, down with the force and all that good shit. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides HE'S gonna run the whole fucking universe! Gets a whole KLAN of whites together and they go bust up Vader's hood, the Death Star! Now what the fuck do you call that?
    Banky: Intergalatic civil war?
    Hooper: Gentrification!! They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote-unquote safe for white folks! In "Jedi," the most insulting installment when Vader's beautiful black visage is SULLIED when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty old white man! They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all wants to be WHITE!!!
    Banky: Well, isn't that true?
    (Hooper pulls out a gun, releases the safety, kicks over the podium and shoots Banky several times, and Banky falls, clutching his chest. All the other speakers and audience members (excluding Holden and Alyssa who we are about to meet) dive for cover or scatter screaming as...)
    Hooper: (shooting into the air): Black rage!!! Black rage!!! I kill all white folks I lay my motherfuckin' eyes on!!

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  86. Similar to Amazon's book reviews by carrowood · · Score: 1
    This reminds me of an earlier /. article where "prominent authors who posted glowing five-star reviews of their own work" on Amazon's site were accidently revealed.

    It's amazing how unethical we can become for $...

  87. Ethics matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I guess it's taken me like 5 jobs to realize it but ethics does matter.

    My first job, at IBM, wonderful, the only company I'll name because they were perfect. Awesome. My granddad set me down before I took it, he had 35 years there and is a true blue retiree, blue to the end. He told me something that I still remember, it may not be the best place, they have their problems but not once was he ever asked to do or expected to do something uncomfortable for him ethically. They don't speak negatively about their competitors, generally, and they don't expect anyone to. I got bored, the place didn't move fast enough for me, there were politics but I never felt obliged to do anything uncomfortable, in 5 years. It didn't seem like much at the time.

    Next job. They cursed at each in the status meetings, first week there I was treated to a stream of insults during a status meeting, because that's how they are. In the two years there I saw people lie to other people I saw people intentionally break code before handing it over to business partners. I saw a whole assortment of dishonesty. That shit runs down hill. They will treat you that way by the time you're done. I remember some of the meetings with vendors, I felt embarassed, I felt like we were treating them like crap and I was ashamed to be part of it. It's one thing to hate your job and just do it because they pay you to and you're a professional; something else because you don't like the way the company makes other people feel. I'm not talking about cut-throat business or anything like that, I'm talking about making people feel bad about themselves, on purpose. There is something to be said about professional conduct.

    Insert a few good years of consulting, pretty much clean and pure capitalism. All the shit is kind of taken care of before you start. I always felt inclined to do more though. It may be some of the purist moments of my career; I did work and got paid and that was that. Not completely satisfying, I didn't get to see a lot of projects all the way through, but not all together bad either.

    Now I work for a startup with the real deal sleezy VC people pulling the strings. We take open source software, put some pretty kind of GUI on it and then oversell it to people and charge a lot of money. At first we didn't want to admit that we used open source until we learned that it was a benefit in the market place. During that time we actually tried to hide the technology under the covers. Then we started claiming that we did more to it, we took it and made it better, when in reality we never touched a damn thing. Then we placed a couple of TM's on shit that the OSS does, gave it a name and called it our own. Then when an author took exception to some of our practices we were told to go out anonymously and bad mouth him. We've done this to 2 or 3 open source authors. (Now I've done a fair amount of my own OSS coding, I'm a bit of an ideologist and I'm kind of taking a back seat in this new biz, I know what it's like to have people telling you your free code is shit and that you're no good because of it.) I've never directly disobeyed my boss until I got here, if they asked me to do something and the pay kept coming, I'd do it even if I thought it was bad engineering or something; here they have asked me on several occasions to try to influence people, use my reputation to do it, do it anonymously, to try to spread bad FUD about specific people, all while riding on their backs and I won't do it. I sit in on sales calls all the time and we pretty much lie to people, I know how sales is and you put your best side forward but we lie to people. "Do you support blah hardware?" The answer is that we support a particular model, the answer told is that we support most models. I've been tutored in the techniques, you are never supposed to say no, first you say that most people don't want that to make the customer think they are odd by asking for something nobody wants, then you change the subject, then if that doesn't w

    1. Re:Ethics matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft never says antyhing bad against its competitors. That's something slashdot idiots should learn from Microsoft.

    2. Re:Ethics matters by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      No ! They pay someone else to do that.

  88. Pitiful by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Think about how pitiful it would be to be an astroturfer.

    At some point you would have to admit to yourself that is how you make your living.

    Not by your education, your skills, or your talents.

    Maybe you don't have any.

    That is your contribution to your company.

    Pathetic.

    Steve

  89. DRM by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DRM is a farcical use of encryption. Until a bunch of corporate lame-brains decided they were smarter than Alan Turing, the accepted use of encryption was to secure comm channels. An alternative use is to limit access to data to whoever possesses the keys. Specifically, it was intended to allow Alice to talk and share info with Bob without Eve listening in.

    Even that well defined chunk of functionality is rife with botchable details. Anyone with half a clue also knew that even if the channel was secured correctly that incorrect or malicious behaivor on either side of the link could compromise it.

    Now we have DRM. In DRM, Bob wants to communicate something to Alice but at the same time he wants to prevent Alice from communicating it to Eve. All of the data and necessary keys are in Alice's possession. Granted, the data and keys are obfuscated but she in still in physical possession of everything needed to decrypt the data.

    From a strictly information theoretic point of view, why should anyone take that scenario seriously? Bob can make it varying degrees of PITA for Alice to blab to Eve but there is no inherent security here.

    1. Re:DRM by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Man, that is the best short description of DRM flaws I've ever read...bravo.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  90. c'mon by golgafrincham · · Score: 1

    what's the point? it's just a marketing possibility the web offers. it's not illegal to state one's oppinion anonymously. just read /. and other forums. any ac who's got a business running will do the same. hell, when i'm writing usenet posts and someone's bitchin 'bout my companies products (the products i actually think are good) he'll get a response without stating that i work for this company. why do have most /. posters nicknames, and why do only posters with some ego problems sign their comments with "Chief Architect of blabla"?

    --
    beer as in "free beer"
  91. Re: New Feature of Tracking Users by IP by SuperJames_74 · · Score: 1
    It may be a new feature for these folks, but it ain't for some of the rest of us. Allow me to explain my simple implementation...

    I've done work for "people with money" that involved accepting open public input. Part of the "value" was that the folks soliciting said input would like to analyze the data in a meaningful way...

    In a nutshell, you submit your opinion via an HTML form. When it is processed, it looks for a specific cookie to identify you. If it finds it, it uses that to look up your user in the database and associates your opinion with your existing user record (whether it contains any real user info or not - don't matter). If it doesn't find it, it creates a new user record with whatever personably identifiable information you have submitted (which could be *none*), associates your opinion with that user entry, and writes a 20 year cookie to your hard drive documenting that you're *that* user.

    Just thought I'd share.

    --

    @sshatrack

  92. *Think* Howard Dean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flop

  93. Well...what do you expect? by Banjk · · Score: 1

    I was part of a now dead .com who did the same thing! This is a practice that has been used since the inception of the web and before. Proving it has always been a problem, but in the past whistleblowing has kept it under control. I'm glad to see the net finally got up and did something to prove it. Now if download sites could do the same thing with user reviews....

  94. Marc Fluery aka Chip Tyler - The Gay Porn Star! by md17 · · Score: 1

    So after reading all the rants about Marc posting on TSS as Chip Tyler I decided to do a google'n. Here is what I found... Outside of TSS related posts, Marc's alleged alias "Chip Tyler" only really matches a gay porn star. No Joke... The Star - Chip Tyler and The Movie! Now that is just too funny!!!

  95. Fraud by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Fraud:

    1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

    2) A piece of trickery; a trick.

    3) One that defrauds; a cheat.
    4) One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

    If it quacks like a duck...

    --
    1. Re:Fraud by Destoo · · Score: 1

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it's probably just a tool of the conspiracy.

      Besides.. They said they're not ducks.

      We are thrifty.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  96. Ah, so JBoss figured it all out... by Valdukas · · Score: 1

    1. Write software
    2. Anonymously post great reviews about themselves
    3. PROFIT!

  97. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  98. It's because of you, sllort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These precautions (proxy checking) were added because of repeated abuse by you (sllort) and your troll friends. You were already caught once mass-crap-flooding from your many accounts, and reading your username backward betrays your intentions. You abuse the system until the admins are forced to deny posting from proxies, then you have the gall to whine that this hurts those poor "Chinese dissidents". You are only advocating for removing the ban so the crap-flooding scripts you downloaded will work again.

    Mod this troll down before he uses the karma to post more cut-and-paste trolls like this one.

  99. Re: I believe what I read online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my trust can be easily manipulated

    Bush is God.
    Kerry is Satan.

    Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the "Re-elect OberFührer George W. Bush" campaign.

  100. Rosebud by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
    William Randolph Hearst: 'You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war.'

    'The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.' -H. Truman (?)

    'There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take...'

    aaahhhh...never mind...you get the idea...

  101. The post that started it all, from Rickard Oberg by eduardodude · · Score: 1

    http://www.jroller.com/page/rickard

    Rickard was a key contributor to JBoss early on, and seems to have a long running gripe with the JBoss major players since they parted ways.

    He later worked for TheServerside.com, who added this user tracking which caught JBoss in the act after Rickard's prompting.

    Go Rickard!

    PS, he's also the author of XDoclet, WebWork and something else I can't remember right now. And no, I'm not him. Check my IP!

  102. Anonymity Coupled to Responsibility by spun · · Score: 1

    We need a way to tie a given 'anonymous' identity to a measure of responsibility, perhaps through a bond. The identity could be sued or fined up to the amount of the bond, but the actual person (or persons) behind it would never be known. Also, bonded anonymous identities could participate in trust or reputation networks, allowing others a means to judge the identity's trustworthines.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Anonymity Coupled to Responsibility by Wellmont · · Score: 1

      I like how they do anonymous here on Slashdot...i don't know why there is so much argument or supposition over the subject Mark them as cowards and let the viewer deal with it....i've made it so AC's automatically get a -1 so i never see them unless someone moderates it higher.

  103. Jboss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jboss Rulez DUDE.
    I love JB055
    Jblowjob is Jgreat!
    -Bob "i just got laid" smith former JBoss employee

  104. No biggie by porkface · · Score: 1

    This may discredit JBoss to a lot of untrained people, but it doesn't discredit results of testing and experience of many people I know that say that JBoss is a quality product.

  105. Alternatives? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Okay, I know people have gripes against the JBoss Group, and Marc Fleury in particular. But really, most people just want software that works and doesn't suck, and free is a good price, and Open Source is mighty nice too. I used JBoss back about 2-2.5 years ago fairly extensively, and at the time it was substantially better than some of the trash commercial products out there (specifically Weblogic - I had the misfortune of dealing with BEA's 'support' if you can call it that on several occasions). We used JBoss for development and test, and did some smaller deployments on it. I would hardly claim it's perfect, but the commercial products at the time sucked too (there are some decent ones like Orion server, but at the time, the Orion documentation blew, and closed source product without big company behind it == possible money sink that might not be supported in a year).


    So now we are supposed to think JBoss sucks because nobody who knows better really uses it, and only shills endorse it (does anybody who knows better really use EJBs anyway? The architecture sucks, and that's Sun's fault, not JBoss'). Fine, so what the hell is the alternative? Apache Geronimo isn't off the ground yet and got off to a rocky start with licensing issues with some reused JBoss code (that whole thing left a sour taste in my mouth about the JBoss people actually, who seemed too eager to try to discredit a competing project).


    Thankfully I got out of the enterprise software world two years ago, and if I never have to see another heinous piece-of-shit EJB system for the rest of my life, I can assure you it will be too soon. Nonetheless, for my personal edification and to enlighten those I still interact with who are stuck in that world, what the hell Open Source J2EE platform ought they to be using?

  106. microsoft employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are paid to post here too

  107. Slashdot falls for link spamming? by The_reformant · · Score: 1

    I cant beleive this rubbish, this guy has nothing but a lurking suspicion that this JBoss faking thing is going on and certainly not a shred of evidence that is is a policy of the JBoss organisation.

    This reeks to me like an attempt to use slashdot to drive traffic to the submitters personal blog.

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
  108. Frankly I'm not surprised by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you go to their forums you'll get a taste of the sheer nastiness around JBoss:

    • Books about JBoss written by anyone other than a JBoss guru (eg the rather good "JBoss 3.0 Deployment and Adminstration Handbook" by Meeraj Moidoo Kunnumpurath) get slammed.
    • Newbies looking for help get cursed and told they're cheap for not paying for the documentation.
    • Any slight criticism: even constructive, is instantly flamed.

    Altogether a very unpleasant community. So the kinds of slimey, underhand and outright dishonest behaviour by JBoss people being reported here doesn't exactly surprise me. I guess they must take Microsoft and SCO as their inspiration.

    The bad behaviour of the JBoss community has been reported previously on Slashdot.

    Such a shame really as JBoss itself is an excellent App Server.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  109. No. You, my friend, are just a loser by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First of all, you're _not_ an oppressed minority. You're not even oppressed. When people will start throwing slurs at you on the street, cops start pulling you over for no reason all the time, you're given only crap jobs like manning the reception desk (because they need the token minority person in a very visible place, not in some well paid job), and even then at half the salary of the ethnic majority... _then_ you can claim to be oppressed.

    Second, those minorities are oppressed for something completely out of their control. They didn't choose their skin colour or face type, like on MMORPGs. Even if they wanted to get expensive surgery to change that (which is already a demeaning and stupid thing to be forced to do), they couldn't afford it. Because they're only getting the crap jobs.

    Which rules crap software programmers out of that category on both counts.

    (A) Noone's going to do any real discrimination against you. Au contraire, you're one of those fairly rich white-collar guys.

    (B) when a company deliberately decides to release crap products and cover it with lots of nasty PR (like JBoss did), they're discriminated against for their own goddamn fault. Not for something out of their control and which they can't change.

    So spare me the whiny emotional rethoric already.

    And here's another thought for you: software is a _tool_. Repeat after me: "software is a _tool_."

    It's _only_ job and role is to get a job done. A company or individual using it should see some benefit from it. That's the _only_ reason they're using it.

    It is _not_ a weapon of mass destruction in your retarded ideological wars. Which is exactly what you're proposing to use it as and for. You don't care what collateral damage you cause, you don't care if your lies and astroturfing cause someone a loss. You just care about getting ahead in a petty imaginary war against Microsoft.

    In other words, the exact same morals as scammers and those virus writers selling zombie machines.

    And I wish such people would die a slow painful death. It's about time this industry returned to being about providing something useful, instead of being one big bullshitter contest.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  110. most basic reason for moderation ... by GreenEggsAndHam · · Score: 1

    ... because of blog spamming by twits such as the Meowers (for example) who roll in and just bomb the forums with "meow", harrass any dissenters and generally destroy any kind of community feeling that there may have existed in the blog before their arrival.

  111. sure thing, bugger. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Hey, I was just wondering - would it be OK for me to refer you to this little gem of a story the next time I see you using the tired "Steve Bartko" argument you (judging from your posting history) seem to love so much? You wouldn't mind that, would you?

    Bartko behavior is what JBoss is accused of, I have yet to see it proven. Once identified, Barkto slithered off to ... another name. I have not seen evidence of intentional identity concealment from JBoss. Point it out to me and fuck off.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:sure thing, bugger. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Bugger?

      Bartko behavior is what JBoss is accused of, I have yet to see it proven

      Huh? Read the linked articles. Did you read them? What, do you think this is some sort of concerted anti-JBoss conspiracy? Or anti-open source? JBoss' unethical (there's a word you like) and shady (and another) behavior is a matter of proven fact. It predates this little episode by a couple of years. Hey, use Google. The stuff is out there.

      Once identified, Barkto slithered off to ... another name

      Read them. Read the TSS threads. Go on, make an effort. C'mon now, you can do it. Read through the evidence.

      Point it out to me

      It has been pointed out to you. But I guess evidence is evidence as far as you're concerned only if it furthers your own beliefs, eh? I'm sure you've been more than happy to accept Microsoft's "evil" on much less evidence than this (stealing from schools, remember?), so what's the problem?

      and fuck off

      Holy tamales twitter! You do lose your cool rather quickly. That's bad for your cholesterol, did you know?

      BTW, I asked you about your assertion that JBoss' "mistake" was bungling the whole anonymous astroturfing thing instead of refraining from doing it in the first place. No response?

    2. Re:sure thing, bugger. by twitter · · Score: 1

      I read the articles. What I saw was one IP that had two accounts. Big deal.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    3. Re:sure thing, bugger. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Big deal.

      Here you go.

      Anything else?

  112. Addendum by elwell642 · · Score: 1

    The company has a tech consultation service, but the consultants spend half of their time programming.

    And according to a recent Slashdot article, they spend the other half slandering competitors.

    --

    <insert witty linux comment here>

  113. Poor Fyodor, still a bitter little liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't even have the nuts to post logged in.

  114. He's bitter all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitter Jamie didn't use nmap as Slashcode's port scanner. Didn't want to get himself trojaned, smart chap!

  115. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 200 people who visit theserverside.com and javablogs.com might care about this. They're also probably among the most likely to be JBoss users.

    Most normal java developers don't give a damn about theserverside, javablogs.com, or JBoss.

  116. SPOILERS!! by FreeForm+Response · · Score: 1

    Hey, give us a spoiler warning next time, all right?? J/k. =)

  117. Editor Warz! :-) by stephenbooth · · Score: 1
    I was quite obviously at least 80% joking!

    I thought I was as well. My view on the vi vs Emacs arguement is that different people have different preferences and ways of working. For some people vi suits them, for others Emacs suits them and others like Joe or another editor. Personally, I've used both vi and Emacs and found that vi works best for me when I'm using a text terminal. I've tried a number of X-Windows editors and haven't found anything I like, I just fire up a terminal window and use vi. On MS-Windows I use Programmer's File Editor if I can or Notepad if that's all that's available. If Emacs works best for you, great. That's you happy.

    Stephen

    --
    "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  118. JBOSS who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is JBOSS and why would I care. I guess they didn't influence my opinion.

  119. I hijack your bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those photos aren't all that great.

    By the way, his wife does great anal. Really active, lots of pushback.