Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."
Don't believe SCO's revionist history! Han Fired first, dammit.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Hope that helps.
Don't you think there's a certain irony about a poster on Slashdot saying to take anything you read on Groklaw with a pinch of salt?
Jeff Merkey has been involved in contacting media figures around OSS centric sites, and it's the information he's involved in spreading that's problematic.
Like he's been known to do before, he spreads several versions of the "truth", often completely at odds with one another depending on which situation he's in at the moment. Having had to deal with him in the past, I can only say: He's going to get worse, and quickly. Never was a repository of 'just the fact ma'am' needed.
The plan? to push management towards prosco.net as it will appear one HELL of a sane place compared to OSS news sites that insist on following Merkey's manipulations.
> Groklaw is heavily censored and always has been. PJ deletes/
> hides posts on a regular basis.
Logical fallacy. Response posts have nothing to do with the repository of information and editorials.
Indeed interresting.
Now, where did the rumor that IBM said it couldn't find the sources come from ?
some people believe that o'gara is more believable because you know what she looks like. http://images.google.com/images?q=Maureen+O'Gara&h l=en&btnG=Google+Search/
On the other hand, it's impossible to find out how PJ looks like. Or for that matter why she doesn't use dots in her initial. How could we believe her!!
Clearcut case of failing journalistic integrity.
Let LinuxWorld know what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.
Make it polite, short, and to the point.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Everytime a story involving Groklaw comes up these kind of posts appear on /.
They always claim that Groklaw is not a reputable source, make certain claims about the site, like for example that it has a nazgul posting policy and never, ever back their claims up with anything.
Also note that these kind of posts are always posted by ACs. (Just like my post, I know, but I simply don't have an account).
These kind of posts are neither interesting, nor are they insightful, they are plain and simple FUD!
+5 Interesting? Jeeze, it's a joke.
Either Maureen O' Gara (the real one) posted that or someone else posted it under her name. Other commenters include "Linux guy", "Johnny Cash" and I remember seeing "Darl McBride" himself post somewhere there (although it's now removed). There's no way of knowing if, in fact, it was the real Maureen or an imposter.
*crickets chirp*
Right.
In a statement released to the press today, O'Gara said, 'I actually voted for the AIX code, before I voted agaisnt it.'
Hold a moment here.
Doesn't Linus _own_ the Linux trademark now? This being the case, is there not
some form of direct action he could take, forcing anti-Linux websites from using
the word "Linux" in their name?
Har har har.
Further up in the comments:
William Gates commented on 23 October 2004:
Thanks for the Pro-SCO article Maureen. I'll be sending you another $20,000 soon. Keep up the good work.
Darl McBride commented on 23 October 2004:
Everything Maureen has said is exactly true. I can't believe that we haven't used this in our case! Keep up the good work! We could really use some advice.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
If you have any facts to refute anything posted on Groklaw, you can post them here.
If you don't, we have to assume you're just posting innuendo on SCO's behalf.
Here is what I think Slashdot did wrong yesterday when it first reported the O'Gara story. Remember, /. has great control over how a story is reported. It is NOT just putting up a link and that's it. A headline is created by /., and the editor posting the story has the ability to add editorial comments to what the submitter added. Finally, they usually get many simultaneous submissions, which means the one submission they picked is the one they think has the most interesting wording or the best links or something they feel makes it most post-worthy. With that in mind, let's see how /. handled this story yesterday:
The submission came from Ghostx13, and here is what he or she wrote that caught /.'s eye: "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"
OK, is this slanted? Yes. The loaded question at the end, the complete acceptance of the underlying Linuxworld story facts, all leads an air of acceptance of these facts. 'Does IBM have something to hide?" That's a laughable question given what the facts turned out to be, but it's a question that, left unchallenged, serves the wishes of SCO very well. That is precisely the sort of uneasy feeling they want us to have about IBM.
Did CowboyNeal add any editorial comments to this? No, he did not. On the one hand, that's good because he didn't choose to add any slanted thoughts to the already slanted submission. On the other hand, he didn't issue any caution about the submission as /. sometimes does. That, in itself, is an editorial decision that amounts to him implying that the submission stands on its own. Because they chose that submission over any of the others, it implies they were satisfied with it as it was.
Now here is the title that /. added to the story: "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code." Well, that is no longer true, is it, even if you read the O'Gara story at face value. So the headline refers to past circumstances that the actual submission contradicts. Again, an editorial slant that makes IBM look worse than the facts show.
Finally, go back and look at the comments to that story and see how many people contradict the idea of the story, point out the true facts, etc. So yeah, I do think /. made an "unfortunate editorial decision" to the story. They didn't just give a link, but they made a series of editorial decisions that gave extra weight to that link, weight it did not deserve. Did CowboyNeal do this out of ignorance of the facts? Probably. He may not have had the time to research this. Was it deliberate, to stir up the readership and get lots of angry comments? I have no idea. But it wasn't a good editorial decision, IMO.
Are you truly surprised that it would still apply?
This SCO story isn't just one instance of bogus journalism - it's a hypotypical example of the weaknesses of the journalistic profession as a whole (although I hesitate to lump that person in with the real professionals). This sort of thing isn't something that we're ever going to "get over", because it isn't just a "sign of the times". It's an endemic condition.
There's always going to be a difference between conscientious professionals and sloppy hacks. In any profession, not just journalism.
Caveat lector.
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen
Hello LinuxWorld editors,
3 153851359).
I was very disappointed with the article "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code" (http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_p.htm) by Maureen O'Gara. I was offended by the demeaning tone of the article which shamelessly mixed personal opinion with reported fact. However, it has come to my attention that the article may not even have fact in it - another reputable news site, Groklaw, apparently had several people on hand at that particular hearing and not only reported that nothing Ms. O'Gara claims to have happend did, but also that Ms. O'Gara was never there. The full article is available here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004102
I hope you investigate this matter to discover if Groklaw's claims are true. This is a serious breach of journalistic integrity that should not be ignored if LinuxWorld expects itself to be seen as a source of reliable news.
Thanks,
<me>
Slashdot works perfectly as it is. First, the editors post a story. Then, you have 20 comments saying "F1TS P0ST!!11" at -1, mixed with various +5, insightful reiterations of the story as posted by the editors. Then you have the comments about how this will stifle free speech and innovation, and others on that CmdrTaco has posted yet another dupe. After a couple of hours, the people who actually bothered to read the linked article, comment on how the story is totally wrong, and that, yes, it was a dupe. At last, the editors will update the story with "Update: Dupe!" and correct some of the most grave mistakes, so the readers will understand that the story wasn't remotely interesting to begin with.
MS paid them $20M to change names after it looked like they were going to lose the very dubious Windoes Trademark. MS sued and pretty much lost.
Help fight continental drift.
There are good reasons for not giving it wide-spread attention.
First is that the judge sealed the hearing transcript. Probably because one of the SCO lawyers tried to read sealed material into the record. Sealed material is not for the public eye. Helping to spread it could even be an offence, but IANAL.
Second, links to stories that are debunked on Groklaw have a tendency to disappear, so the links could very well be dead soon.
Groklaw is dedicated to accurate reporting. Providing links to bogus articles could give the articles more credit than they deserve.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Remember the *other* O'Gara story? About IBM's "discovery abuse"? Funny, that may well have been put out by SCO--see here. Groklaw refutes yet another wild story.
:]
As an aside, though, that sure looks like a direct quote of the article in the story above. I wish submitter had at least put it in quotes... *sigh*
Giving her articles front page placement on Slashdot is exactly what she intends. It get tens of thousands of ad impressions, her bosses think she's writing controversial, hard hitting opinion pieces, and everybody is happy except a bunch of fuming Slashdotters. This is EXACTLY like Rob Enderle - these people desperately want attention, and they don't care if it's negative.
Please dear Slashdot editors, once it's been established that a particular writer is trolling for page views (i.e. they brag about how hated their articles are and exerpt Slashdot hate mail their publication has received) STOP giving them the front page placement they want, or you'll just encourage more of the same.
I'm sure the /. editorial staff will jump right on this. Not checking the background of a story could even lead to duplicative stories being posted. Heaven knows, /. would never do something like that.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I don't dispute that the man seems to me like he has a screw loose (and that just from the posts I've seen by him--there are plenty of others who offer evidence that would tend to support the idea that he's clear out of his mind).
:] Damn, someone ought to make a movie out of it, though I guess it'd be hard to explain the importance of it to people who didn't follow this...
Anyhow, if you read this Groklaw story, you'll see that there may be a SCO lawyer connection here. That might be bad, because when they talked to O'Gara, they sure went on a lot about the privilege log and such concerning that privileged document SCO tried to read into the public record (which is *bad*). In other words, it *really* looks like SCO is leaking things it ought not to the media. Now, I can't prove any of that, but I would say that it's certainly beyond the appearance of impropriety to even discuss that with the media.
As for Merkey, here, I doubt he was behind the O'Gara stories here--I suspect O'Gara and a source close to SCO were. Expect IBM to be on the ball here and to start seeing just *what* all SCO has told the media. Now then, you're probably right about him coming up with more wild stories (buying Linux for $50,000 and putting it under a BSD license to "save" it... after he removes all the "SCO-owned" bits).
In other words, we can expect a LOT of crazy stuff before this story is over
Although Maureen O'Gara is creeping quite lowly, I wonder if she is worth much attention as a person. There are enough prostitute scribblers in the media and they are totally immune to any moral outrage.
Instead, let us consider her role in SCO's delaying tactics. Last month, she was kind of announcing that SCO would charge IBM for fraud:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384.htm
And why? Because of a killer story unearthed from IBM e-mails SCO got during discovery. Well, if you have been following the SCO-IBM case from the beginning, you may recall that SCO charged IBM of fraud in the initial complaint of March 2003. They retracted the charge in the 2nd Amended Complaint of July 2003, which is the one currently valid. Just imagine, SCO would ask the judge for permission to revert to the initial fraud charge in a 3rd amendment. And they cannot simply amend the complaint, they need permission these days.
One month has elapsed since Maureen's Sept. 18 exercise, SCO is not murmuring any longer of fraud charges, nor is Maureen. What can they do to keep the FUD simmering and delay the case to the end of time? A 3rd Amendment would help. Maureen proclaims it is already in place (in other words, accepted by the judge after consultation with IBM) and under seal. This time the reason is non-licensed code included in AIX. Needless to say, the issue is another rotting carcass of zero importance. For details, please do a search on Groklaw.
At this point, let us refresh a few other details of the case. SCO succeeded in Summer 2003 pushing up the closure of discovery and the start of the hearings. But when Judge Kimball set November 2005 as new date for the hearings he also said very forcefully that there would be no further delays. However, a 3rd amendment would possibly make his position untenable both in respect of discovery and of hearings. If SCO gets a 3rd amendment, they will be able to request additional months for discovery and the case would skid to Spring 2006.
Parallel to the 3rd amendment dreams, SCO is also trying hard to disrupt operations of the magistrate court managing their discovery shenanigans. First they introduced papers at the very last minute before a discovery hearing so IBM could not respond. The magistrate judge postponed. They took a dislike to her and tried to get Judge Kimball to convene an emergency meeting to bypass her. He refused. In the discovery hearing on October 19, they read from confidential material and it takes two interventions by the judge to stop them. One week after the hearing, Maureen O'Gara helps spread confidential details plus blatant lies purporting to be confidential material. This is an attempt to trap the judge in formal procedural errors - from which the desired delays may hopefully follow.
Memo to los SCOjones: you will not get a 3rd amendment, not even if Maureen O'Gara and LinuxWorld present fresh fanciful reasons in November and December. The reality check is approaching, drop by drop. Next Spring one of the three pending Partial Summary Judgments requested by IBM will have been decided. It does not matter which one because that will be your end in any case.
Ladies and gentlemen,
If you write to LinuxWorld, that letter confirms that they have readership and ad views, which is a good thing, and encourages that behavior.
If you write to the sponsors and question their integrity for sponsoring such an article, THEY will contact LinuxWorld, and that will threaten LinuxWorld's income, which LinuxWorld will see as a bad thing. Hopefully this would discourage the behavior that you want discouraged.
It's not a government organisation, but rather a self control entity by the press.
The idea is, that the public or victim of a press campaign can file a complaint and they will determine if the general agreed upon press ethics where violated by that media and/or journalist.
Of course there are a lot of frivolous complaints around the lines "they shortened my letter to the editor" (which is perfectly fine as long the meaning is not distorted) or "this article hurt my feelings" (which a paper is not obliged to respect in the first place, you can stop reading it after all).
What is a clear violation is to publish gross accusations (Politico Suchnsuch embezzled the church bingo fund and then fucked a pig) without confronting the victim with such allegations prior to publishing. A practical example was a paper being reprimanded for fotoshoping water stains to a blood red color, to make the site of a terror attack more ghoulish.
Of course lying outright, possibly knowingly and heaven forbid! taking payola for such an outrage (alas I don't know if this was the case and would never accuse a fine member of the press of such an atrocity) is about as much violation of press ethics as humanly possible.
Finding are published and the idea is that the media in question is publicly hung up high and dry and shamed into humility.
It doesn't replace a libel court case, though but overall it seems to work pretty nicely.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Good idea. However, since sys-con (the company behind this) has supported Maureen's spamming operation, I can't say I think they all that much in the way of "integrity". Complaining to them about anything has been a waste of time for me.
Allow me to explain. About two years ago I started getting "newsletters" from Maureen. To my knowledge, I never signed up for them or gave sys-con my primary email address. These were sent using a mailer by Lyris (according to their site "Lyris develops opt-in email marketing software"... oh, great), and were as spammy as can be. 10K to 20K of HTML marketing. Here's a partial sample:
To: "linuxgram"
...
From: "Linux Business Week"
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram
Maureen is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the software have abandoned having press conferences !
Linuxgram is published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc.
Send press releases to: news@g2news.com
Subscription price per year: $195/?140 individual reader.
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Breaking News
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-linuxgram-2307683E@mailbox.sys-con.com
I will assure you that, for me, sending the blank unsubscription email was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I complained to every address I could think of @sys-con.com but the garbage continued to arrive. I finally had to resort to adding this block to sendmail:
207.178.67.103 ERROR:"550 known spammers (sys-con) blocked by SPOO database"
Suffice to say that I've (whenever possible) avoided doing business with sys-con ever since, and have lost most of the respect I might have had for them. So now they're spreading lies about the SCO case? Big surprise. Maybe there was some cash in it for them.
Wouldn't an effective way to complain about poor journalism be to complain directly to the advertisers whose ads appear in association with the matierial?
A simple statement of "As long as you continue to support the publication of (insert description here) such as in/at (insert example here) I will aviod the purchase of your products, and encourage my friends and workplace to do the same."
That's crazy. By the way in case you're wondering the article says:
:-)
"My wife runs Windows 98 on her little 300mhz computer and it basically does what she needs - some photo editing, writing of documents, spreadsheets, e-mail, and Web surfing."
Um...Maureen's Wife?! Wow ok cool. Maybe Maureen is not a real person. Maybe she's like agony aunt or whatever. Maybe Maureen is just the name that they put on articles when they're so bad that no author would want to have their name associated with the article.
-={ Security does not exist - give up }=-
I guess we could add #4, that she's really a transgendered "he", but I'd say you could swallow that inside of #1.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.