Slashdot Mirror
Daniel Lyons of Forbes Admits Being Snowed by SCO
certain death writes "Daniel Lyons of Forbes Magazine has admitted to being snowed by SCO, regarding their lawsuit over Linux and SCO code. He specifically mentions Groklaw's role in the case, and regrets his early articles giving the company the benefit of the doubt. 'I still thought it would be foolish to predict how this lawsuit (or any lawsuit) would play out. I even wrote an article called "Revenge of the Nerds," which poked fun at the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose. Turns out those amateur sleuths were right. Now some of them are writing to me asking how I'd like my crow cooked, and where I'd like it delivered. Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true. I've told these folks it's not true. Hasn't stopped them. The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.'"
...welcome our new amateur sleuth overlords!
It's nice to see at least some journalists out there in this day and age are willing to publicly admit when they are wrong.
He's only a journo who got it wrong.
I wonder about the investors who will now lose pretty well everything they banked on the crapshoot.
Then there's also the poor employees who will undoubtably suffer as they seek employment elsewhere. I'm quite certain most of them don't say a lot of bad things about Darl publicly with their names attached, but they have some real feeling of betrayal all the same.
So a journo got it wrong, not like he's Dan Rather being lead down the garden path and left there by CBS researchers and management.
of course he doesn't have a crapshoot for $70 million either...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Although the majority of the crowd here knows better than to take it that way, it's a amusing to see the term "nerd" used in a derogatory fashion once again. How very 1980's of him.
-foo
I like this guy, he is willing to admit he made a mistake, furthermore, he made it in print. Albeit online print.
If we only had more journalists willing to do this about other things... Like Iraq, WMD etc. It takes courage to admit you were taken in, I applaud this.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Daniel Lyons thought that SCO had a case at first... or at least had enough nuisance potential that someone would eventually blink and pay them off.
So he thought wrong. So did the people who thought the CueCat would be a tool found on every household computer.
As far as I see it, he's taken his lumps, and he's ready to go on with life.
Works for me... so am I.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I hope everybody shows class and doesn't rub his nose in it. It was probably a very hard admission to make. You didn't see Maureen O'Gara admitting she screwed up, incredibly she is still holding a candle for SCO. Rob Enderle just claimed he hadn't been following the case in a long time.
My rights don't need management.
Its one thing to admit your wrong. This may redeam character but not credibility. With a history of being wrong and smearing those with a different view, he sets a precedent as being an unreliable news source and despite whatever appologies are given - a liability to Forbes as a trustworthy news source. He would have to work to regain credibility with people checking the facts against what he said. It would be easier to just move to another source of information. If this is merely an attempt to regain face in the journalist world, it will fall flat with any critical thinker
One step further, for someone writing on the technology field - it doesn't serve his purpose to put out condescending statements like "the nerds got it right".
When all else fails, try.
'fessing up to being wrong? but how much of that is just to save your reputation, and how much is true 'oh, man, I messed up...' sentiment?
Forgiveness? Heh. Please. Any fool with two neurons would've figured out that SCO was shoveling manure a long, long time ago... and wouldn't have waited until their buddy was on the gallows platform before shouting long and loud about how he'd deceived you.
You've made your bed, Mr. Lyons. Now lie in it. /P
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Apology accepted, Daniel.
Laura DiDio, it's your turn.
On the 0th day, God created C
It's not often that a journalist will publicly admit to being wrong. Now I'm waiting for similar apologies from Laura Didio, Maureen O'Gara, and Rob Enderle. I won't hold my breath, though.
just so you know
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Sorry Dan. Too little too late. The most you can hope for is the SEC overlooks your pumping of this stock.
Perhaps we oughta come up with an equally stupid name for those who like using the word "nerd" in a derogatory way.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
but i'm glad i wasn't aware it started. seriously, unless u had already known about this article is 0% interesting. "the nerds were right"? of-fucking-course they were, didn't he goto highschool?
Some writers dwell on words they've written. Some don't care and are already on to something else.
Where I went to college was a small college paper. Someone I knew wrote for it and as there's a thing as "lead time" -- that amount of time between when a writer turns something in and it is published, during which anything can (and often does) happen. She wrote something scathing, including mispelling the college president's name. Before the issue came out it was revealed the president had nothing to do with it and for the most part there really was no scandal. When the paper came out and I asked her how she felt about it she was "meh, whatever." Maybe it did bug her she listened to the wrong source or didn't bother to quiz the president directly, but she didn't appear to lament it one bit.
This bloke is doing his mea culpa, so he's of a different cut of cloth. There's all kinds, just like there's all kinds of people who run a business, from Warren Buffet to Darl McBride.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
in particular the kind found on the roads. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/arts/design/03taxi.html?ex=1262494800&en=0bf8e9ea4eada89b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
If he felt this way from the beginning, he should have been clearer. He should have made it clear that he thought SCO was little more than a sophisticated shakedown artist--the Jesse Jackson of software companies if you will. I remember there being a distinct gloating tone to the articles when I read them back then. He seemed happy that OSS developers were going to possibly get their comeuppance. He struck me as one of those stereotype dumb businessmen who cannot tell the difference between the professionals who make real OSS work like the people behind the Apache projects, and the rabid zealots, most of whom are inconsequential morons.
No one except SCO should have been rooting for SCO, or even saying nice things about them. They are a parasite on capitalism. Regardless of his feelings about OSS development, he should have been honest about SCO, and admitted that they were just trying to extort their way into profitability.
is that SCO filing for bankruptcy was necessary for him to admit his mistake.
That's not being mistaken, that's being IRRATIONAL and STUBBORN. We can afford that, we're hobbyists - but he's a journalist. Now I'm starting to wonder if he has committed OTHER mistakes.
At the time at least.
I felt it was ludicrous that SCO would invest so much in this if they didn't at least have a chance of winning.
I must say I'm quite pleased to look a little stupid in this respect.
I know it's pretty common to skip reading the fine article, but in this case, don't miss it.
He explains why he was fooled by SCO; for example, how Caldera won a settlement against Microsoft, which led him to believe that the SCO Group (successor of Caldera) might actually win. But he doesn't try to dodge the blame; he takes on the blame due him and apologizes.
With only about seven posts up so far on Slashdot I've already seen a couple that snipe at him for IMHO unfair reasons. He's a reporter, not a computer expert, and he was fooled by some slick con artists. Don't hold him to an unreasonable standard, unless you have never ever been wrong about anything yourself.
He apologizes very nicely and pokes fun at himself (the article is very entertaingly written). So, read it and enjoy. And please, reserve your vitriol for the actual villains of the piece, the SCO Group itself.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Does anyone else read " It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right" like a high-school jock saying "damn nerd beat me again"?
Mr. Lyons, let's rephrase it to say "I fucked up big time; and everyone else with half a brain COULD see the facts but I couldn't".
Also, downplaying the fact that the journalist made a huge mistake by saying "I got it wrong, big deal", is in itself a tremendous blunder; as someone whose most valuable skill is his reliability, knowing that he fucked up big time in something so obvious should ring sirens for anyone currently paying this guy money to write.
I bet you work for CMP! LOL!
I seem to remember SCO released all its technical employees several years ago. Towards the end, they consisted of a handful of people who just handled the books and the lawyers.
Really, there has been no SCO for a long time.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
We appreciate that you are man enough to apologize.
BTW: We're having 1,000 humble pies delivered to your house.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Fuck him. He stood up and openly ridiculed the informed opinions of many thousands of IT professionals who actually understood the issue and knew that SCO was full of shit and doomed to fail. Even as he backpedals, he manages to insult us further, calling us "the nerds", and "an amateur pack of sleuths", as if our lowly science degrees and years of experience in the industry are nothing compared to his ability to write shitty blog-worthy articles about his own ignorance.
I say we lash him to the rigging and let him go down with the ship along with McBride and co.
You're one of these two things:
1. A Microsoft shill
2. A complete mouth-breathing idiot
Seriously. There were very few people who fell for this. You read Groklaw, so it should have been obvious that there was something to what everybody was saying.
The only people who really feel hard for this were you, Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and, of course, the Didiot. Of those three, we know that at least the Didiot's company gets paid for "research" by Microsoft, and she even appeared in a video on their web site, and of course Maureen worked for a pro-Microsoft fake news site. I don't know about Enderle. But the point is that there was money to be made.
So, if you're not a shill, that leaves "idiot". Take your pick, buddy, I'd rather not be either one. But then, I review the facts heavily before taking sides in a case like this.
Do you have ESP?
Not entirely sure I buy the bit about it being a mistake, but perhaps he could have avoided the whole deal if he wasn't so eager to paint F/OSS advocates as amateurs. As a journalist, commentator, analyst, or whatever he's supposed to be, he lives on his reputation. Maybe next time, he might value his reputation (i.e., paycheck) enough to check BOTH SIDES of the argument in an unbiased manner. Maybe spend some time with a psychologist, examining why he has an innate desire to see the little guy lose, a community of volunteers destroyed by a failing corporate interest, and puppies being tortured.
Either way, he'd like it all to go away? After insulting millions of F/OSS users? I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon Daniel, sorry. The apology is a nice start, the roman catholic rosary is another option, and a whole lot of honest stories about how this community has built itself up from what many have said was a shaky foundation, to become a force even mighty MS has found itself bending to. Maybe some NICE ARTICLES about the people who have worked so hard to make sure that the code is clean, and so on.
You wanna win your respect back? The apology is a pleasant change, now get to work earning respect!
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
Well then, maybe Forbes should hire some actual nerds to write about technology than leaving it to bozos like him that usually "got it wrong". There are journalists out there with a much better track record who probably write just as well. There may even be one or two who will listen to all sides of a technology story and not just go with whatever corporate spin say.
Oh, I forgot. This is Forbes. The business "PRess". They are so objective and truth-seeking. You're still a shill whether or not you got paid by SCOX or MSFT, Lyons.
That is all.
Perhaps I should clarify. I don't know the guy - in fact, this is the first time I heard about him. So that's why I said "if".
People who bought SCO during the Darl Days knew it was a long shot at getting a hefty slice of IBM. At best they were speculators. At worst they were greedy vultures. Nothing worth feeling sorry for.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Funny, I don't see an apology. Just complaining about the pile of....feedback he is receiving from the community.
That's usually how I insult such people.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
...I thought this turkey could fly.
Now all he has to do is apologize for all the personal attacks against those very same 'nerds' that he made in his articles for the same period.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
When the spin begins. When even those who are a little slow can smell the winds of change enough to start some damage control, you know the fat lady is about to step up to the plate. (I can't think of any other metaphores to mix in there, but maybe my grammer nazi overlords can think of a few.)
http://www.sco.com/company/jobs/
You to can go to India now and be considered "senior" but
only if you have "BS degree in computer science with at least 2
years of relevant experience, no more than 4 years experience."
Stuff like that is too priceless to be made up.
Please Indian outsourcers, keep considering people with 2-4 years
of experience "senior". It makes the rest of us with real
senior experience in the US, UK & Europe who are merely good, look fucking great!
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Most journalists won't ever admit they are wrong. Well most people wont either. he flat out admitted it.
Nice, I dont mind if someones wrong, but they should man up and admit it.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
It is big enough for someone to admit when they have had poor judgement. It takes a bigger man to do so with not only such humility and grace, but with a touch of humor to boot. Hats off to you good sirah, you have shown that not only are journalists human, but that, on occasion, they will even own up to it.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
He made up his mind that SCO was right ... and then he actively opposed any facts contradicting him.
... until they filed for bankruptcy and received a delisting letter.
He belittled Groklaw and PJ (and he is still doing so) for digging up the real facts while he kept repeating the "smoking gun" claim of SCO as a "fact".
I could have accepted that INITIALLY, but as Groklaw collected more and more facts from the EXPERTS (the people who WROTE *nix) there is no way anyone who didn't have an agenda could have still believed that SCO had a case.
Yet he kept right on supporting SCO
If I've learned anything from recent Presidential elections, changing your opinions due to new information is a sign of weakness. One must make a choice and ride it all the way down.
Blar.
I did not see that coming. huh.
I think reporters in the media today are mostly about broadcasting lies for which ever cause has the most money and/or power. This reporter is probably just attempting to reload his public integrity somewhat so he can spew another round of nonsense.
Congratulations!
Indeed when his buddy was standing upon the gallows, only then did he cry (and loudly) about how evil his buddy had been for deceiving him and abusing his naive trust.
It shows his true character.
If Microsoft ever files a patent suit against Linux, do you believe that Lyons will not be the first and one of the loudest proclaiming the righteousness of Microsoft's claim?
of defensive bullshit. It wasn't about getting it wrong. It was about getting it wrong based on looking at the evidence and insisting that it meant the opposite of what it obviously showed. SCO never showed a single line of code or anything else that had been "infringed". Notice how he changes the subject to bad people attacking his integrity. But it's one of the few rational explanations left when somebody watches a a dog running by and insists that it's a crack pipe. He may not have been bribed, but he clearly let his own pro-corporate prejudices persuade him that black is white.
He used something along the lines of "amateur sleuth". And when he used "nerd", it was meant as a bad word -- do you call a mechanic a "motorhead"? No, you call him a mechanic, and if he's designing cars as well as fixing them, you call him an engineer. In other words, you call him a fucking expert.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
when the subject matter is Nerdy...listen to the Nerds, NOT the businessman's PR representatives who took you out to lunch to give you the "scoop".
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
Naw. Lots of professions have ethical standards for their professionals.
Being a "professional" doesn't mean that you just do it for money. Although it can be used that way.
Being a "professional" also means that you follow the ethical standards of your profession. Otherwise your behaviour is "unprofessional".
The word you're thinking of is "whore" or "prostitute". One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.
So...business as usual?
Not that your analogy is bad ... it just doesn't have the visceral impact.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304087&cid=20688963
Yeah, it's mod'ed "flamebait" at the moment.
After trusting the journalistic integrity Forbes and trusting Lyons to research the story SCO was telling him I invested my life savings on the SCO stock. After all they are listed on the prestigious NASDAQ. Now I am without pennies. :-
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
...and labels in general.
Calling someone a "nerd" because he knows *nix.
Calling someone a "gearhead" because he knows how replace a clutch.
Calling someone a "health nut" because he goes jogging and takes a multivitamin.
All of these labels have something in common, they describe a single aspect of someones life (something you "do") and a judgment is made of that person as a whole. It's stupid and tiresome. Let's start making labels for people based on what they *DON'T* do.
For example, when someone puts zero effort into staying healthy and strong he's an "idiot".
Someone who depends on an automobile to live but cannot change his own brakes is an "idiot".
Someone who spends years of his life in front of computers, depends on them, and yet cannot make some time to learn what's happening behind the wizards, is an "idiot".
Anyway, not to respond to the parent specifically since I don't really know his perspective, but in general, I'm tired of people being too lazy to learn anything and deriding actual human beings that strive to understand their own environment and the tools needed to interact with that environment.
Once when I was a young deckhand on a tug boat the skipper told me to go down in the galley and cook a meal. I said, "I don't know how to cook though," and he said "Bullshit, how can you be a man and not fucking know how to cook food?". He was right about that, and I'm right when I say "How the fuck can you spend all day sending and receiving emails and yet not know how to configure an imap client?"
Etc.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
"not like he's Dan Rather being lead down the garden path and left there by CBS researchers and management."
Who are you trying to kid? Try looking for the recent quotes from the people that worked with Rather at the time he was preparing that bullshit report. He was an active participant and had editorial control. Enough time has past, stop deluding yourself!
Since a lot of people who criticised him came from a site which bills itself as "News for nerds, stuff that matters", I hardly think it's out of line for him to refer to them as nerds. :)
On the other hand, this seems like a fairly weak apology overall, considering the amount of vitriol he's heaped upon Linux developers, advocates, supporters and fans in the past. I think he owes a few people (especially PJ) a more personal apology. On the gripping hand, this move clearly shows that he's a hell of a lot more classy than O'Gara (whose career would be over if there were any justice) or Didio.
When apologising, and when you were the one to get it wrong, it's gauche to take a flailing, after-the-bell swipe at the IT community ("the nerds got it right") and Groklaw ("amateur sleuths").
Other than that, we all make mistakes and this should be forgotten in no time.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
The fundamental problem is that journalists are not so much reporting the news as creating it. The spin they put changes peoples' minds. Not entirely their fault (although this must attract the manipulative personalities). People expect to believe what they read. Silly rabbits! News is for alerting you what might bear closer scrutiny.
"In the print edition of Forbes there's a great (albeit sometimes painful) tradition of doing "follow-through" articles where a reporter either takes a victory lap for making a good call or falls on his sword for making a bad one. Online publications don't typically ask for follow-throughs. But I need to write one."
.... no hiding behind "it's only a metaphor" please. If you had been right, I have no doubt you would have *physically* taken a victory lap of the Forbes office, so it's only fair that you *physically* fall on your sword as you described since you were wrong.
... and GO!
Ah ah ah
Please make sure to put down a drop sheet first for easy cleanup afterwards. Thank you
Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
Sleuth? WTF? Any idiot could see scox was lying. All the events below happend in 2003:
* Remember scoforum 2003? That is when scox did the great unvailing of the infringing code. It was proven bogus within one hour.
* Why did scox require journalists to sign an NDA to see the code?
* Scox claimed they could, and would, stop IBM from selling AIX - an outright lie.
* Scox claimed they would audit all AIX customers, they didn't.
* Scox told the court -twice- that scox would provide evidence of UNIX being dumped into Linux. We're still waiting.
* Scox claimed to own UNIX, even though the trademark was clearly owned by the open group.
* What about the odd funding? Remember the halloween memo?
There is probably a lot of stuff I'm forgetting, but those shameless stunts were just in 2003. Scox was proven a liar over, and over, and over. It didn't take any sluething.
I'm not even going to dignify his so-called 'mea-culpa' by quoting it -- suffice it to say he falls on his nail-file, calling it a sword, while throwing back-handed insults at the people who simply did a far better due diligence on this case than he did (if he really did any at all).
First of all, a true falling-on of the sword would be him admitting that he sucks an analyst and resigning his post at Forbes. (I'm not holding my breath).
Secondly, he gives extremely short shrift to the people at Groklaw -- an incredibly synergistic group ranging from complete beginners through to senior and retired senior IT and law professionals -- a group that does detailed work produces (and archives) their background evidence and pulls no punches.
As pro-Open Source as GrokLaw may be, if it really looked like SCO was going to win, Groklaw would have honestly admitted it -- mostly because that would be information that the Open Source community would need to have. ... and if Lyons is going to use the fact that he completely mis-read one case as an excuse for ignoring meticulously complied evidence that he had mis-called another case, then Bob Lyons is worse than useless as an analyst. If what he wrote in his so-called apology is really the basis of his analysis, then I'd be better off throwing darts at a dartboard than listening to him. At least I wouldn't be constrained by his (past failures.
Unlike Lyons, Groklaw is not interested in either deluding itself, or ignoring obvious evidence.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
that should read: "past articles".
:)
See, you can fix a mistake without waiting a few years!
STFU about slashdot bias.
So he got conned. A journalist would not have.
A journalist would have done some INVESTIGATING.
The fiasco with the code at the Las Vegas show should have been a red flag.
Did any of the stuff he read on Groklaw sink in. Follow up? questioning?
This is not a mea culpa, this an attempt to save a bit of a shredded rep.
no sympathy.
I caught the reference, if no one else did. Arthur Carlson (WKRP in Cincinnati): "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!" Said after dumping scores of turkeys from a small plane. or was it a chopper. Hilarious.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
He got it wrong because he did about zero investigation into the subject. Even a monkey would have been more accurate simply making guesses by chance. He was simply wrong about every possible detail except the parties involved. I'm surprised forbes still employs him. I lose all respect for the publication thanks to Mr Lyons.
It's not like fans of Enderle and O'Gara frequent Slashdot, never mind reply to comments. A flame, yes, but not flamebait.
Here of all places I figured that nerd wouldn't have a negative connotation. So why are we getting so upset about being called nerds? Is this the new "N" word. We can only call each other nerds and if anyone else does we will make them go on radio shows and apologize? Lighten up. The guy apologized and was just trying to add a little humor to what he wrote.
...I really don't get why people have to take everything so seriously. I am getting incredibly offended that everyone is getting so offended (as hypocritical as that sounds).
I swear, with Christians flipping out over an emmmy speech that was a joke, people losing their jobs for calling some girls nappy headed hoes
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
They used to advertise themselves as "Capitalist Tool", so the anti-F/OSS bias is not exactly surprising coming from them...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Please mod parent up ;-)
sigfault (core dumped)
Most reasonable people accept that Dan Lyons articles on SCO were wrong.
Reasonable people and FLOSS conspiracy theorists realize he was paid for writing untruths.
He DID create and disseminate misinformation.
He DID get paid for misleading Forbes' subscribers and readers.
Ergo he did, for hire, aid and abet SCO in their snowjob.
When given lemons Dan, make lemonade:
You have the qualifications and professional integrity to be a lobbyist.
Plus, it pays better than selling used cars.
I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft.
Mr. Lyons, as much as I appreciated your apology "I got it wrong" in the first moment, the sentence above wipes it out again, big time.
You simply brush aside the suggestion of having been paid off. You might think in monetary terms, but I am pretty sure that you have been paid off, yes, in all other respects. Have you not had contacts to Microsoft and SCO managers? You had no calls and messages from them? You didn't meet anyone and made jokes about the nerds? Maybe a drink or a bite was offered to you, while getting the(ir) message across?
All this bombardment of 'insightful information' did not prevent you from studying Groklaw with an open mind? I bet it did.
An apology is most welcome when it is the result of enlightenment, and a change of one's wrong ways. You apologise, but the phrase above is proof that you don't see your errors. Not having received brown envelopes clears you of all wrong-doings, you assume. It doesn't.
You might be a nice chap, but as an independent journalist you are a failure.
i rarely admitted. can i still hold him to an unreasonable standard ?
Read radical news here
The nerds like the ones who are posting in slashdot with ridiculous nicknames and even as anonymous cowards but occupying and performing important duties, and occupying many important positions, even some of them being in very high profile positions in the it world, whereas at the same time almost all being experts in their respective fields ?
you bet they would get it right, you dumb oaf. and they got it right. you should have listened to them when you had the chance, being a 'reporter', 'journalist' as you are. but you didnt, and you are eating up what you have said.
maybe from thence on, you will see those "nerds" as what they are - the people that built the thing that is reflecting on your monitor now - internet.
Read radical news here
.
Daniel Lyons admits he was wrong. In my book, that puts him square with the mistake he made. Now, we (tinw) as open source supporters, have to step back, take a deep breath, and prepare to admit that one can make a mistake without having been paid off to do it. That, or else admit that truth, evidence, and honest intent have no weight in our view if it impeaches open source in any way. For myself, I'm not prepared to take that step. Because honesty does mean something to me.
Not to say that I trust Forbes. Seems they get almost everything wrong, in the long run. But that isn't the fault of Daniel Lyons. That's the fault of the editors of Forbes. Daniel can make his own assessment of what kind of news outlet he chooses to associate with, and under what terms.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Over at the Yahoo and InvestorVillage SCOX message boards, we have reason to believe that Dan (or someone that defends him WAY too strongly) has been spending every waking moment trolling for comments from the anti-SCOX crowd... every time he gets brought up, a cadre of fake Indians comes along trying to drown out the discussion.
(If you don't think that's possible, we already know that SCOX supporters (like Mike Anderer), employees (like Erik Hughes and Ryan Tibbetts), and Darl's wife, if not actually Darl, have posted there - search the Yahoo SCOX board for the account names treycc, anmcbride, pathetic_geeks, and tibbcat.
One of my cohorts there, Tim, has written an excellent summary of why Dan Lyons is deserving of nothing but the same utter contempt that I hold for the management and fellow yellow journalists and shills the The SCO Group used to spread this FUD campaign. You can read it here;
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&pt=msg&mn=44164
Here's an excerpt...
"...The "money quote", as Dan likes to put it, in his "mea culpa" is this:
>
Translation: *Please*, for the love of God, *ignore* all *the other stuff* I have yet to apologize for! Also, *pretend* that the *misrepresentations* I'm insulting your intelligence with (I was "poking fun"! Yeah, that's the ticket!) in this empty gesture aren't just more sophistry! When I say that the "truth" is "simply this", what I mean is *do not look anywhere else*!
As much as Lyons would like the "truth" to be "simply this", I feel that perhaps we are doing the "truth" a disservice by *omitting* all the other stuff Dan has written in the last few years that his "mea culpa" studiously avoids (notice he doesn't provide links to the articles he does mention? Go figure). I guess misrepresenting his Revenge of the Nerds as "poking fun" felt like enough BS per character, or however he rationalizes it..."
The bottom line is this - Dan is a hack, and he's as bad at apologizing as he is at being Fake Steve Jobs, let alone the possibility of pretending to be an outraged fake Indian; no integrity, no intellect, and if he insists on snuggling up to Steve Ballmer, no future.
-the saltydog aka saltydogmn
Come on, folks, why do you have to search for a bitter insult where none was intended?
He mentioned that he wrote an article called "The Revenge of the Nerds". This title is a clear pop culture reference. (And by the way, he said that he was poking fun at them back then, and now he realizes they were right all along; this is what we call an "apology", one of several in that short piece.)
So then, having referenced "The Revenge of the Nerds" by name, he refers back to it by saying: "I got it wrong. The nerds got it right." And that is the entire extent of his use of the 'n' word. Two times!
I saw someone else complaining about the phrase "amateur sleuths". I really don't see how you can make an insult out of that. They might have been professional computer experts, but that doesn't make them professional sleuths.
Here, check this out. I just did a Google search and found a link to his original article "Revenge of the Nerds". Some of the amateur sleuths really do sound kind of crazy or disingenuous. (The pious "I don't associate 'Dildio' with anything bad" is the kind of disingenuous spin I'd expect from a corporate PR hack. Oh sure, calling Laura Didio "Dildio" was never meant as an insult.)
So, while I enjoyed his article, finding his writing lively and entertaining, many people here apparently found insult piled upon insult. Folks, don't make it into something worse than it is. Would you have been happier if he had written a painfully straightforward text? Something like:
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Oh, for goodness sakes Daniel .. you are making it sound like it was a wild 50:50 guestimate of who was going to win the next Melbourne Cup or something. You make it sound like this time (by pure good luck) the nerds got it right for once.
.. but then again blind freddy got it right as well. Every man and his dog actually got it right. Every man and his dog that is, except for yourself and a small handful of (surprise surprise) 'Professional Tech Journalists'.
Sure, you got it wrong and the nerds got it right
You didnt just 'get it wrong', you got ALL of the facts completely and blatantly ass up. Lets not pretend it was just an unlucky guess on your part - like putting a dollar on the wrong horse. What you did is akin to turning up in court to provide a character reference for Al Capone, and lavishing the most extreme praise upon most honest self when you barely know the guy.
OF COURSE anyone with half a brain knows why you did it. Nobody thinks you are incompetant or stupid - we just think you are greedy and unethical.
The reason you gave is valid, and it's only one of many.
The site is insensitive. I didn't read it thoroughly and am sorry I linked to it.
We didn't need that vivid an example of what trolls these are.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm sorry, but Lyons' portrayal of himself as an ordinary Joe who made a reasonable evaluation of the case which just happened to be wrong because SCO was keeping its deception so well-hidden is just plain wrong. There was at least one red flag which Lyons has no excuse for not catching.
That red flag was when SCO presented their excuse for not showing anyone (except under draconian NDAs) what the alleged copyright infringement actually consisted of. They didn't want that information getting to the Linux crew, they said, because that would allow them to remove the offending code.
That there is all you need to know to call "BS". It is your obligation to notify someone you suspect of infringing your copyright of just how you think they are infringing your copyright so that they can remedy the wrong. You cannot say "I would rather let them continue to infringe my copyright so I can soak them for more damages"; despite what SCO might have you believe, that is not the purpose of copyright law. As for the idea that the offending code would be scrubbed from the record in order to hide the evidence of past infringement, again, that's BS. If there was copied code in the kernel, as SCO assured us there was, SCO could have downloaded copies of the kernel twice a day to have a historical record of the violation.
Lyons still refers to "amateur sleuths" as though he's some kind of professional. What sort of "professional" doesn't investigate the most glaring contradiction between what someone claims they want and what they're actually trying to arrange?
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Nice sentiment, but I'd take it less ironically if you had a name.
The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe.
The truth always is. There is one common trait to conspiracists, and it doesn't matter if they are 9/11 Truthers, Roswellians, Tax Deniers, Lunar Landing Hoaxers, or the everpresent Everyone-is-a-Shill-For-Microsoft loons. That common trait is a dissociation from reality.
"No rational person could ever deny the awesome truths presented in Groklaw," the conspiracists say, "And since Daniel Lyons appears to be rational, he must have been paid off by Microsoft or SCO."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
He's wrong, he was obnoxious about it at the time, and he's obnoxious about it now.
Major asshole.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Which code is infringed? We can sort this out pretty fast. We'll remove whatever it is, just show us what you own.
-- "NAUH! I AIN'T GONNA!"
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
on more than one level.
1. He was forced to accept that all of his sources for a series of stories were lies. (Rather with Bush's Guard service in the 70's, source MoveOn.org, Democrat party dirty tricks dept. Lyons on SCO's version of history or code or their own responsibliity.Source, SCO Group, formerly Caldera.)
2. He refused to change when confronted with the truth, insisting that the story was correct, even if based on a pack of lies.
3. He continued to insult the innocent even after having the truth thrust in his face.
4. He did all this to support the editorial bias of his superiors (editors).
5. He took the fall for the corporation. (ongoing for Lyons, recent history for Rather.)
6. Nobody bought the act, except for willing fools.
Looks to me like he almost exactly fits the Dan Rather mold. Now, he just needs to sue his bosses. Then his journey to the dark side will be complete.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Was Lyons a liability to Forbes, or was Forbes a liability for Lyons? After all, he was only supporting the magazines editorial policy in supporting proprietary systems verses open Source.I don't think that editorial slant has changed, has it?
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Have you ever heard the slogan News for nerds - stuff that matters? If he is speaking of the slashdot crowd, "nerd" is not an insult.
Good examples are the Iraq war, or the earth' climate change.
I wouldn't call it a weak paper, though.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Better to admit you were wrong, than to admit you were paid off to participate in a conspiracy.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Has anyone got a link to an English version of the article? Or can give a few hints about what "snowed" means or why he seems to be talking about cooking crows?
I was surprised that so many people missed this, but then I found your comment. He is using a reference to an earlier article titled "Revenge of the Nerds" which he then refers back to by saying the nerds were right.
Compare:
"last year I wrote a review of 'March of the Penguins' claiming they could have flown to their nesting place. As it turns out it is to cold to fly in Antarctica, when being a fetherless fowl. I was wrong, the Penguins were right".
"last year I wrote a review of 'March of the Penguins' claiming they could have flown to their nesting place. As it turns out it is to cold to fly in Antarctica, when being a fetherless fowl. I was wrong, the members of Spheniscinae were right".
In the first sentence I refer back to something I have said earlier, giving some flow to the text. In the second example it is clear who the members of the Spheniscinae (a Greek mafia family?) since they have not been defined earlier in the text.
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
In my mind, it comes down to simple pedagoguery. The readship of his rag - in his mind is more likely to:
a) think highly of themselves as financial decision makers, well versed in the protection of the almighty corporation, and more willing to believe that corporate lawyers rarely go wrong compared to loners
b) think that domain knowledge is more important that blind trending
I hope this isn't read as flamebait, but so be it - there exists then, now and always people who believe that engineered solutions come from on high - and then, there are the engineers. This guy plays to the first group - and is still condemned to straightjacket thinking. The phrase, nothing new under the sun, comes to mind for people like this.
That said, I like to read Forbes from time to time, but this guy is a flack, nothing more.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.'"
Do not attribute to conspiracy something that can adequately explained by groupthink.
I really appreciate that he admits he was wrong, and admits it in writing.
But I have to wonder: How many of you really got a kick out of Fake Steve and started reading it regularly? And how many stopped going there as frequently when you found out it was written by Lyons? And how many of you read TFA and kind of feel like Fake Steve deserves a second chance ...?
I disagree with your assertion that "No possible interpretation of the Constitution would allow DC to have a congressional representative."
Article IV would suggests that Congress has the power to give voting rights to the District by making it a state:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
or possibly deciding that it is a needful rule or regulation:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
especially since Congress is composed of representatives from the several states, but not explicitly exclusively composed:
Article I Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
I would think creating a state from the district would be the most direct way to do that rather than simply adding reps by law.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Daniel Lyons, you are a fucking dumbass. Just go ahead and say "I am a dumbass" and quit your job. No one deserves to have to read the retarded shit you write.
Oh, and if you call me a nerd one more time I am going to find you and break your fuckin jaw. Bitch.
#!/
Given his chronic anti-OSS ranting, you have to wonder whose agenda he is pursuing. At best, he listens only to those people who seek him out in order to push their own agendas. MS is really good at that, as demonstrated with OOXML and numerous other examples. OSS does not have a professional "spin machine"; attempts to push the OSS perspective are limited.
I have met some people (even in the IT industry) whose technological horizon is limited to what they see and hear during free lunches and golfing trips. If Mr. Lyons falls into this group, that would partially explain his tireless support of SCO up until bankruptcy time.
At worst, he's a shill, with or without direction from Forbes. Remember, some publications are well-known for writing articles that are favorable to advertisers. I doubt SCO is advertising in Forbes but I'll bet MS is. Was Lyons directed to write puff pieces for Forbes? Maybe his latest article is "taking one for the team".
Time will tell. Nobody gets to be this wrong for this long and retained as a journalist for a publication that has been thoroughly discredited. Unless, of course, he was just following orders, in which case he remains as a valued team member. His presence (or absence) from Forbes will tell the real story.
Mainstream media - not experts.
Its an information factory,designed to turn in profit. Their quality is superficial and overrated.
Is this guy SERIOUSLY reporting on technical matters? What would the idiot call an african american startup? Nigger biz?
Seriously, this guy is insulting those who he analyses? WTF?
As someone who has worked as a journalist and who also has a degree in journalism, I can say that any ordinary journalist could not be faulted for not understanding these issues. They are complex and most non-techny folks would not know what the hell they were discussing. However, isn't this guy supposed to be a tech journalist? Doesn't that imply at least a basic understanding of how the source-code issues really work? I think this guy was just put into a field that he was not qualified for.
This is a clear case of where the folks with knowledge of Unix and its history proved that journalists with no technical background shouldn't be writing for a technical publication or audience. There are *tons* of highly knowledgeable people in the IT industry that would love a chance to write, but who do the pubs get to do this? People with little to no background in computing. How are they supposed to know what they're talking about?!?! Please.
You see Mr. Lyons, revenge is a dish best served cold.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
1. People are allowed to make mistakes, even in journalism
2. He admitted his mistakes
3. He admitted the "other side" got it right
4. He was coming from an impartial side of things, initially, and he sided with SCO. To be honest, their argument had a lot of people wondering, and there was a LOT of discussion about it online.
5. What about the smearing of his name? Suggesting he was a paid shill? I think he has a little leeway in the attitude department because of that.
6. The comment "the nerds got it right" is condescending? Look around you son, who you keeping company with?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Daniel Lyons real problem is that he has no understanding of technology. Take his use of the word "nerd" in his statement. His usage is completely wrong. Nerd connotes someone who enjoys sticking their nose in a book for learning purposes. The more appropriate term would have been "geek", per this Wikipedia entry.
One thing to keep in mind when arguing with a nerd.
They have alot of free time on their hands to research details and facts since they don't interact with the rest of the world. And they're probably smarter than you.
WTF? Over?
But why did he get it wrong. It's a symptom of a larger issue; Microsoft is corporate, Forbes is corporate, Gartner Group is corporate. They meet on the golf course, they meet at seminars, they sit on each other's boards. The problem is, these pundits are influential, at least in terms of public perception.
People should keep reminding him that he got it wrong. He needs to be taken down a notch, recalibrated. Only then, will the good-old-boy start getting it right. When the feel the taser, they'll squeal like a little girl, but maybe next time they'll think a little more before they speak and act.
Best regards.
Dan Lyons mealy-mouthed retraction by way of apology simply doesn't fly. He fell down on the fundamental requirements of a journalist: to actually do some real research before publishing an opinion. Why he did that is still open to question, but it's just not a matter of simply having made a mistake.
By way of contrast, Bob Mims (Salt Lake Tribune) throughout the SCOX saga was as impartial, unbiased, and informed as you could ask. Now there's a journalist. Kudos to him for his integrity.
licet differant, aequabitur