Linux.com

Feature

Let SCO hang itself

By on August 24, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- by Eric S. Raymond -
The confrontation between SCO and the open-source community has now escalated to open war. I suppose, in retrospect, that this was inevitable once SCO announced its intention to sue on a theory that would make all open-source licenses invalid. And we all know who's lurking like Emperor Palpatine behind Darl Vader, funding his lawsuit to the tune of at least $6,000,000[1] even if not otherwise pulling his strings. Update 25 Aug, 0700 US EDT

SCO/Caldera's site is being hit by a massive denial-of-service attack today. The timing, the scuttlebutt on Slashdot and elsewhere, and the contents of my mailbox all suggest strongly that the DOS attack was triggered by Darl McBride's slanderous interview[2] accusing the community of being IBM's sock puppets, and my response[3] to it.

It appears that my response articulated what many of us have been feeling for months as SCO's public rantings grew ever wilder and more destructive. McBride's personal accusations against me bother me very little, but I am nevertheless honored and humbled by the heartfelt support many of you have emailed. A good number of you seem to want to elect me your war-leader in this crisis -- maybe it's time for me to dust off that Obi-Wan Kenobi costume the SVLUG people made for me to wear on the original Windows Refund Day . I will strive to be worthy of your trust.

With whatever authority I have, I ask that the DOS attack cease immediately. Please stand down *now*. We have better ways to win this fight.

There are at least three reasons running a denial-of-service against SCO is a bad idea:

First: We're the good guys. But that doesn't matter if we aren't *seen* to be the good guys. We cannot fight our war using vandalism and trespass and the suppression of speech, or SCO will paint us as crackers and maybe win. Let's keep the moral high ground here.

Second: We have other tools that are more powerful. We have an astonishingly strong set of facts on our side. SCO has been caught in multiple lies, wholesale IP violations, and defamatory statements. The way to destroy them is with legal weapons. We can do that.

Third: SCO is its own worst enemy. Every time its spokespeople open their mouths, they dig their company's grave a little deeper. Consider their statements at SCOforum and what followed. We're in an even stronger position than we were three days ago.

We *want* them raving in public. It helps us. Everything they say is more rope to hang them with in a courtroom, but they're too trapped in their own propaganda-based strategy to do the smart thing and shut up. Their problem is that the moment they stop FUDding long enough for people to get a clear-eyed look at the facts[4] their credibility will evaporate and their stock price will crash hard. Even all the legions of Microsoft's press shills, captive analysts, and astroturfers won't be able to rescue them.

Stop the DOS attack. Let SCO speak out and hang itself.

Right now, the most helpful thing you can do is collect SCO's published statements and show how they have repeatedly contradicted themselves and lied about the facts. I've received some genuinely useful stuff by email describing factual and legal vulnerabilities that the research team[5] here at Alliance HQ didn't spot on its own -- papers like Greg Lehey's analysis[6] of the code SCO revealed at SCOforum showing that they must have stripped BSD copyrights out of their kernel tree. The reports indicating reason to believe that there is probably GPLed code in Unixware's Linux Personality Module were helpful too.

One of our big advantages over SCO is distributed brainpower. There are a lot of us, and we have excellent Internet-research skills. Want to strike a blow against SCO? Help convict them using their own public statements, their own 10Ks and 10Qs, all the press coverage, the material that's in their web and FTP sites. Collate. Assemble dossiers. The facts are with us, so gather and use the facts. All cheesy Star Wars references aside, this is info-war. Truth -- believable and provable truth -- is the weapon.

This is why sites like the IWeThey SCOvsIBM page[7] and WeLoveTheSCOInformationMinister[8] aren't just good clean fun; they're valuable references to help lawyers demonstrate SCO's record of bad faith, lies, and massive intellectual-property theft. Do more of that; in particular. the IWeThey wiki badly needs updating and better cross-references. These things will be used to defeat SCO -- and sooner than you probably think.

I'm organizing a conference call early this coming week among a few key leaders to decide on the next stage of our response. Have patience. There is a plan developing, which I can't talk about because the element of surprise is part of it. We will counterattack at a time and place of our choosing and we will win.

Rebel Alliance provisional command, over and out...

[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/08/31OPcringely_1.html

[2] http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0825scoatta.html

[3] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/mcbride.html

[4] http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

[5] The research team: myself, Rob Landley, and Catherine Raymond, esq.

[6] http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

[7] http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBM

[8] http://WeLoveTheSCOInformationMinister.org/

Update posted 25 Aug, 0700 US EDT: I have just received confirmation that there was indeed a DoS attack on SCO's network, a rather sophisticated one organized by an experienced Internet engineer. The person responsible has agreed to terminate the attack in response to my earlier request[1], but it will not actually end until the timers on his 'bots run out.

I don't actually know who the attacker is, and don't want to; the person who phoned me was not him, but an associate -- what spies call a cut-out. It is clear that the attacker was no script kiddie; he was able to come up with a subtle, selective attack that only took out a subset of sites on the subnet that hosts SCO and looked like a site outage from the outside.

I had been hoping, and actually expecting, that the attacker would turn out to be some adolescent cracker with no real connection to the open-source community other than a willingness to stand down when one of its leaders asked. But no; I was told enough about his background and how he did it to be pretty sure he is one of us -- and I am ashamed for all of us.

This attack was wrong, and it was dangerous to our goals. I realize the provocation was extreme; since March SCO has threatened, grossly insulted, and attacked our community and everything we've worked for. I'm certainly not without sympathy for the person who did this.

Newvertheless...we must *never* make this mistake again, whether against SCO or any other predator. When we use criminal means to fight them, no matter what the provocation is, we bring ourselves down to the level of the thieves and liars now running SCO. That is unethical, and bad tactics to boot.

Public opinion matters, it even influences judges. We must do right, and we must be *seen* to do right, in order to win against SCO and the bigger, nastier foe pulling their strings. In an info-war like this, truth is the most potent weapon, but a reputation for virtue and honesty runs a close second. Don't be the one to throw ours away!

One more request. Please try to keep the conspiracy theorizing under control, at least in public forums. Yes, SCO is behaving much like a sock puppet of Microsoft now, but we have neither any evidence of conspiracy prior to the lawsuit there nor any need to suppose it to explain either company's behavior. Overheated speculation about how long they've been plotting this just makes us look paranoid. Stick to the facts; Microsoft, a convicted predatory monopolist, is funding a lawsuit against its only serious competition to the tune of more than six megabucks, and their money is the only real income SCO has. That's quite enough without the speculation.

Rebel Alliance provisional command...uh...thanks you for your cooperation. There will be further dispatches shortly. Keep watching the skies...

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/46229/

Editor's note: The opinions in this article are Mr. Raymond's, and may or may not be shared by NewsForge editors or OSDN management. However, it should be noted that, like Mr. Raymond, NewsForge editors and writers are not being paid or coerced by IBM in any way to write (or not write) about SCO's recent actions.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Let SCO hang itself

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Good move!

Posted by: edcor on August 24, 2003 08:47 PM
Keep organizing. The global linux force is immesureable.

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 11:00 AM
You people are morons, keep attackig SCO. hate it when you are WRONG. SCO will kill Linux, Linux will be extinct in a few years, it is a fading fad and I cant wait until SUN or MS and even SCO come up with a nice reliable system that will finally kill all the hype and crap I see from the Linux community, ESR is an idiot, neither him nor Bruce Perens have any proof of any wrong doing by SCO, SCO owns System V, any inclusion of System V code is WRONG and immoral. It is stealing. But I expect to see that of all the "innovation" Open Source supposedly offers, you people have to borrow and steal code from other Operating Systems to get anything to work, i am glad I use Solaris because you linux punks make me sick to my stomach.

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: edcor on August 25, 2003 11:54 AM
1. Your assumptions that the SCO code is in Linux needs proof. That will be proven in Court.

2. Your $oftware preference is your personal choice.

So you see SCO and bigots like you will only reinforce and strengthen linux because no amount of $cash$ can match a community with an open mind.


 

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 12:51 PM
Open Mind, criminal tendencies. Only the Linux community sees noting wrong with stealing code. SCO will win in court so dont worry you will be paying for linux soon enough. id rather pay for innovation then put my trust in a community that doesnt know anything but how to steal code.

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:56 PM
Either a pathetic troll or genuinely ignorant.

No one in the Linux community has intentionally used illegal code. In fact, the GPL forbids it and says you can no longer distribute the legal code if it contains non-GPL code.

I guarantee there will be no ongoing payments to SCO for licenses because the Linux kernel cannot legally be distributed with SCO-copyrighted code in it. We will go to court to force the removal of any illegal code. We do respect intellectual property and we will not infringe on SCO's rights.

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 08:16 PM
* Troll Scan 2000 booted Up*

Scanning...
Troll Detected!
Firing ammo at troll ################# Done!

[trollscanner@localhost trollscanner]$

#

Re:Good move!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 11:18 AM
I sure hope the above troll doesn't collect more than a couple responses. Unfortunately, I know better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

#

Re:Good way to discredit yourselves

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 05:24 AM
Thugs. Thats all you are.

#

100% sure?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 08:55 PM
If it's not 100% certain that SCO's website problem is a DoS, or more specifically a DoS from the Linux community, please don't state it as such.

SCO could use such a statement as "proof" that "we" are behind it. Or knowing them, even if it's just their own incompetence that's causing their server problems, they'll use it as an excuse anyway.

So if not 100% certain it's a DoS from "us", please reword the article.

#

No way he can know for sure who(if anyone) did it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 04:52 AM
Anyone can claim they caused the problem and be very specific about how they pulled it off and yet be completely full of crap. It amazes me that he would believe the person that told him that. There are so many trojaned systems out there that there could any one of a ton of people that caused this including people on SCO's side. Just because someone codes in open source or believes in opens source does not make them on of "us" anyway. Heck... there really is no "us" in that respect anyway so please stop talking like you represent some cult following(It just makes you sound very childish).

#

significant: ESR and his Thyrsus

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 08:58 PM
http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_ro<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> e/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Thyrsus.html

THYRSUS (qu/rsoj), a pole carried by Dionysus, and by Satyrs, Maenades, and others who engaged in Bacchic festivities and rites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The fabulous history of Bacchus relates that he converted the thyrsi carried by himself and his followers into dangerous weapons, by concealing an iron point in the head of leaves. Hence his thyrsus is called "a spear enveloped in vine-leaves", and its point was thought to incite madness<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

SCO website

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 09:02 PM
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Take look at this website for further info.
It's possible that they took their own website down.

#

Re:SCO website

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 12:33 AM
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Take look at this website for further info.
It's possible that they took their own website down.


Just what I was thinking. You figure it's possible they're worried about ESR's "guarantee you won't like what we're cooking up next", found a compromised or vulnerable internal email server, and figured their private internal email conversations are about to be used against them? That would make them disconnect from the internet pronto.

Also consider that ESR has openly stated that he has access to sysVr4 source code, and implied in another statement that he has access to r1-r3 as well. His team can dif that against Linux and BSD's to look for SCO infringements, which I would bet are many. Not a reason for them to shut down their website, but another indicator that this fight is about to get real interesting real soon.

I can hardly wait to hear SCO's story on the disappearance of their website.

#

Re:SCO website

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 08:22 AM
I'm the author of that analysis and, from what I see, it looks very possible that SCO/Caldera took the sites down themselves. SCO/Caldera's sites are served by routers owned by ViaWest and Center7, both Canopy companies. Canopy's site is on the same network (though not on the same class C, as I originally stated) and is not having any problems. If a DDoS was going through that network, Canopy's web site would probably be experiencing problems as well.

Since they are not, I assume that SCO/Caldera took the websites down themselves. It doesn't *prove* they aren't experiencing a DDoS, but it strongly suggests it.

-- JG

#

from slashdot

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 09:05 PM
If true, this is very unfortunate. The last thing the Open Source community needs in its fight against SCO (and indeed, in general) is to be associated with virus writers.

Unless SCO is behind the attack in order to create exactly the impression you cite.

Perhaps unlikely for SCO but in the 1950s the CIA organized mobs to riot againt the government then used the disorder to argue their case for a coup. Eisenhower was never told that the CIA rather than Tudeh (the Iranian communist party was behind it).

So yes this sort of thing does go on. But more generally it is important to police your supporters as vigilantly as your opponents. I was in Brazillia a couple of days ago for the Software Libre event in the parliament. The proceedings were in Protugeese and there was no translation so I did not follow all that was going on. But you could see the room turn against open source when the local loony firebrand started to speak. Instead of making the good case that his facts supported he went beyond the established facts to make claims that most people in the room simply dismissed as propaganda.

Up until that performance the tide was certainly with open source, afterwards there was a lot more opposition.

Basically the guy was speaking to his base, not building support.
If recalls are so great, lets have one to recall Bush [blogspot.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent | ]


            Re:SCO's Website Down (Score:5, Informative)

            by Archie Steel (539670) on 04:15 AM August 24th, 2003 (#6775999)

            (http://archie.homelinux.net:8080/)

            If you're asking for sources about the CIA's involvment in the 1953 coup in Iran, then I suggest the CIA's own declassified documents [gwu.edu], compiled by the National Security Archive. Very enlightening. Basically, the democratically-elected govt. of Mossadeq was seen as too "independent", and so the CIA orchestrated a coup that placed the Shah and the Ayatollahs in power. The Ayatollahs eventually decided they didn't want to share power, and the rest is history, as they say.


            Oh, and by the way, the U.S. also prompted the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan by getting involved there first, contrary to the official propaganda at the time. Carter's National Security Advisor admitted as much [globalresearch.ca]...


            "We will gladly destroy the world should our will be challenged..." - tealover (187148)

            [ Reply to This | Parent | ]

        * 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

SCO's Website Down: It's Not A DDoS (Score:5, Informative)
by MuParadigm (687680) on 12:47 AM August 24th, 2003 (#6775388)

I posted this at Groklaw, and I'm reposting it here since it seems pretty relevant to the current thread:

I ran some traceroutes to see where the problem is, and the results are quite interesting.

First, let's start with www.canopy.com. I am listing the traceroute output from step 12, since that's just two steps before where things get revealing:

Tracing route to www.canopy.com [216.250.142.120] over a maximum of 30 hops:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
12 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms 66.62.3.56
13 74 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3]
15 77 ms 77 ms 77 ms vi-001.brdr01.den05.viawest.net [66.62.160.22]
16 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms gige-01-m00-00.crrt02.den05.viawest.net [64.78.230.210]
17 87 ms 87 ms 89 ms pos-03-01.crrt01.slc03.viawest.net [64.78.227.10]
18 89 ms 89 ms 89 ms c7pub-216-250-136-70.center7.com [216.250.136.70]
19 91 ms 88 ms 87 ms c7pub-216-250-142-126.center7.com [216.250.142.126]
20 88 ms 89 ms 90 ms c7pub-216-250-142-120.center7.com [216.250.142.120]

Trace complete.

Now, let's traceroute www.caldera.com

Tracing route to www.caldera.com [216.250.140.125] over a maximum of 30 hops:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
12 74 ms 77 ms 77 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193]
13 76 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 74 ms 74 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3]
15 * * * Request timed out.

And finally, www.sco.com:

Tracing route to www.sco.com [216.250.140.112] over a maximum of 30 hops:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
12 76 ms 77 ms 76 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193]
13 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 76 ms 75 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.67]
15 * * * Request timed out.

Canopy, Caldera, and SCO, all have addresses that are within the same class C addressing range, respectively: 216.250.140.120, 216.250.140.125, 216.250.140.112. While this makes it very possible that all three sites are served by the same machine, we can't prove that from this information. It is however, likely that they are served from the same router.

The next thing to note is that the route to SCO and Caldera both fail at the 14th step in the tracert. The last router that responds for each of them, at the 13th step, is den1-edge-01.tamerica.net (albeit from different ports). Canopy also passes through den1-edge-01.tamerica.net at the 13th step, but continues on to a router at viawest.com. From there, it passes through 2 more routers at ViaWest, and 3 routers at Center7.

ViaWest and Center7 are both Canopy companies.

On initial analysis, for any other company, a network manager/sys admin/networking consultant (such as me) would simply assume that SCO/Caldera was having a problem with its ISP. The weird thing, though, is the presence of Canopy's IP address right *between* SCO's and Caldera's addresses.

Assume that all 3 segments are served by the same router (no, we can't prove it from this data, but it's extremely likely). Canopy, in that case, should be experiencing problems too if the site were under a DOS attack.

In fact, anyone planning a DDOS attack would find it easier to just take out the whole address range, thereby including all 3 sites, rather than focus on just the SCO/Caldera sites -- and for technical reasons alone. Never mind that they would *want* to target Canopy as well.

Given all this, it is a pretty safe bet that SCO/Caldera has taken its websites down itself.

Why? To protect themselves from a DDOS attack? No. Any decent firewall could take care of that for them. That's why I suspected that it was not DoS attack: they've simply been down too long.

I don't know *why* they're still down. I wonder if they're about to collapse.

#

One thing you forget

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 09:24 PM
is that SCO's legal argument would destroy not just Free Software and Open Source Licences if it were upheld, it would destroy every single licence out there and that includes those issued by Microsoft and SCO.

Giving someone permission to make multiple copies of your copyrighted work is surprisingly common. When you write a book, you might take it to a publisher and give them permission to make copies in return for a royalty. That would be outlawed.

When Microsoft write software, they take it to the various hardware manufacturers and give them permission to copy it on to their hardware in exchange for a royalty. That would be outlawed as well.

I'm sure SCO has some sort of arrangement with distributers to duplicate and sell copies of SCO Unix for them. That would have to go as well.

#

Pull their licenses

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 09:49 PM
Quote from the GPL:


  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

A lawyer representing SCO has stated that they will argue that the GPL is invalid, which means they've publicly stated that they do not accept the license. With no license, they have no legal ability to distribute the Linux kernel, Samba, or any other binaries or source licensed under the GPL.

Another GPL quote:


  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.


SCO is guilty of both sublicensing the Linux kernel as well as knowingly distributing code they believe isn't licensed under the GPL in the Linux kernel.

SCO's ability to distribute any GPL code has been revoked under at least these two instances, and someone needs to send them a registered letter telling them so. For each GPL-licensed project that SCO distributes, the maintainers need to either (individually or as a group) send a letter notifiying SCO that their right to distribute GPL software has been terminated and further distribution is a violation of copyright law.

#

Or maybe don't pull their licenses

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 01:16 AM
I have wondered if part of SCO's plan is for SCO to intentionally violate the GPL, in order to force us to respond by taking SCO to court. They would obviously be hoping that, by spending enough money in court (and under the table), they could have the GPL ruled invalid.

The possibility of losing in court would not scare SCO's executives, since they have already demonstrated that they (whether for stock manipulation, or under orders from Microsoft) are quite willing to sacrifice SCO, its employees, and it minor shareholders, in order to damage Linux.

I am curious . . . what happens if we choose _not_ to respond with a GPL-violation suit? Does it weaken the GPL if we choose not to defend it in one instance, or is that just an issue with trademarks?

#

Re:Or maybe don't pull their licenses

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:36 AM
I think SCO is very afraid of having to go to court against anyone and actually have to prove their claims. Their IBM lawsuit is completely frivolous and without merit and full of claims that they know are false or weak. It's one huge bet-the-company bluff to make IBM settle out of court or buy them out. This is the reason for the obscene damage amounts requested in the lawsuit and their attacks in the media against IBM, Linux and the open source community.

Unfortunately for SCO, IBM called their bluff and now they know they're screwed, but they continue their desperate attacks in the hope that IBM will still settle. They also have to keep their stock price propped up so their executives can sell off their stock, either for their personal gain or to fund the lawsuits.

SCO has little chance of invalidating the GPL since it's been used by many people, including Caldera, for quite a few years. And if they were to win their preposterous argument about only one copy being allowed under copyright law overriding software licenses, it would turn the software industry upside down. No reasonable judge would hand down a decision that would be so extremely disruptive to entire industries.

And if the GPL were invalidated, SCO would be guilty of distributing software for many years without a valid license to do so, which would make them guilty of huge copyright infringement.

They don't really believe the GPL is invalid. No judge will believe that argument since they distributed software under the GPL for almost a decade as Caldera.

They want to kill it off because 1) it prevents them from being able to extort money from Linux kernel users, 2) Linux weakened demand for x86 Unix, like Unixware, and 3) McBride has a personal vendetta against the GPL because he believes it destroys intellectual property and prevents him from being able to send his kids to college and buy a second home.

Not responding to a GPL violation doesn't weaken the GPL in any way. However, it could weaken the ability of the Linux kernel copyright owners to enforce their rights. If they knowingly allow SCO to infringe for a significant period of time as they distribute non-GPL source code mixed into the kernel, sublicense portions of the kernel, or collect royalties (all forbidden by the GPL), the kernel copyright owners may forfeit their copyrights and have no way to stop them from infringing.

#

2 question for Eric

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 09:57 PM
Mr Raymond,
1) What do you think should be done if IBM and SCO settle out of court. Would you (-: and the Rebel Alliance<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) accept this even though this would NOT be a victory for either Linux or GPL?
2) Why are you, Perens, Thorvalds, RMS and others (FSF, GNU, RH, Mdk, Deb, etc.) not (to my knowledge) not pulling your forces together to attract more attention to this case. I realize that this is a big subject in the specialized media and that there are articles here and there about this in the "general" media outlets, but it seems to me that we are not *using* this *opportunity* to educate the general public about GNU/Linux and what opposes the "Alliance" against the "Empire".
Godspeed!

#

not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 10:16 PM
I personally think that the American legal system will untie the knot when SCO hangs itself. Besides that, they will most likely forbid the Open Source Movement, just for being un-american.

#

Re:not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 02:20 AM
Yeah, I think so too.

#

Re:not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 05:02 AM
The US has a legal system?

#

Re:not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 08:21 PM
Hi troll! I know that you eat flame from people like me, but how about something else?

It's some organically grown troll food! Bon Appetit!

#

dumb question

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 09:14 PM
No, thanks! Just like you wrote, I prefer eating flame from people like you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... whatever that means.

#

Re:not so sure

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 28, 2003 06:19 PM
Actully thats not really the case.

One of the most common criticism of the American legal system is that the man with the most money has the best chance of winning, and in this case, that helps IBM rather than SCO.

#

Can we monitor the attack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 10:27 PM
What proofs do we have that:

1. It is there an attack against SCO website?
I would rather suspect that SCO damage their own website only to claim it was attacked.
These guys have no respect for the truth, the law or the moral.

2. If there really is an attack against SCO website, can we figure out who is involved in?
It is not first time when SCO self-victimise itself just in order to be able to lie again.
It may be an attack set up by his allies, like these idiots who fund his campain. Now, they may set-up this attack to cast a shadow against Linux comunity.

Now, here is my analysis:

- Probability that SCO itself shut down his web site to
claim false damages is: 70%.

- Probability that SCO backing gang is are directly involved in attack against SCO website: 10%.
This will show that the attack mainly originated from a well known software company who share the same
anti Linux anti GPL feelings.

- Probability that SCO and/or his gang had employed some hackers to attack SCO website: 19.9999%
The money may be payed not directly by SCO but by one or more of his backers.

- Probability that some isolated persons from Linux comunity is at the origin of this attack: 0.0001%
If this is the case, the attack will stop after this latest letter from Raymond was posted on the web.

This analysis it is as good if not even better than
everything Gartner or Yankee Group will ever be able to perform, so SCO should post it on his web page.

#

Re:Can we monitor the attack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 11:54 PM
The trace route analysis by someone on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. suggests that one router in the path to their site isn't letting traffic through.

My top theories for the cause are:

1. They took the site down intentionally for a variety of reasons, such as migrating it off of Linux, removing evidence from the site that weakens their case, someone cracked their server, upgrading the server because of increased traffic to their site, etc.

2. An disgruntled employee, former employee or cracker sabotaged the settings in a router to cut off traffic to the site.

3. They are attempting to frame Linux users by pretnding that a DOS attack is being carried out against them so they can make accusations in the media against the evil Linux people for attacking them.

#

Re:Can we monitor the attack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 02:17 AM
BTW, a little lesson in statistics terminology.

Probability isn't measured in percent, but chance is. Probability is measured on a scale from 0 to 1, with 1 being 100% chance.

#

My thoughts...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 10:35 PM
I don't often comment on articles, here or elsewhere, but certainly this one issue (SCO) has retained my direct attention and interest, for I see it as a fundimental assault on software freedom.

On the question of this "DoS" attack theory, all that I have seen is that people have observed that their (SCO's) sites have gone dark, but no particular cause has been demonstrated or publically known. I suppose anytime a site goes dark, a DoS attack is suspected, but I recall reading at least one careful analysis that strongly suggests that there is no attack at all in progress, and that perhaps they have chosen to take down their own sites for reasons, I guess, that will become appearent Monday.

Personally, I very much doubt that anyone in our community would choose to do something like that, and I think it is a very bad mistake to imply that this has happened or to imply people in our community would think to do this without very specific knowledge of such. Certainly one criminal act (SCO) does not make it right for others to act badly.

When I say criminal act in regard to SCO, I am firmly convinced that the nature of the actions by SCO's officers and directors are both illegal and do constitute a public fraud. On this my expectation is that the criminal justice system, in it's many forms, will eventually offer resolution to this problem. Certainly, anything that could be done to speed up that process I would find desirable.

I had in fact been looking "forward" to receiving one of their extortion letters, as I had already researched issues with filing a fraud complaint with my state AG. This and other kinds of actions that bring this issue to the criminal justice system faster are what I happen to think would be most useful for people to work on accomplishing.

David Sugar
GNU Maintainer

#

all SCO all the time

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2003 11:40 PM
A certain attention to what the SCO weasels are up to is healthy, so their attacks can be parried in calm, professional (or satirical) fashion. So the "information minister" and OSI sites are good ideas. I think we may be into the overkill stage here, with articles and debates on SCO consuming about 1/3 of sites like this, and frequent calls to rally the troops. IANAD but I've heard of physical disorders caused by hyper-reactive immune system responses.

The chances of SCO winning anything are very remote, and they aren't going to be bought out (because the buyer would then be sued for SCO's illegal actions). A judge that didn't have to cheat to make it through law school can figure out that the SCO/Boies theory of derivative works is outlandish. Enterprise customers are moving forward with Linux deployments, and so are major hardware and software vendors. As for Wall Street, who cares what the speculators do with SCO's stock - it's all a big casino for those guys.

#

Re:all SCO all the time

Posted by: Geoff Lane on August 24, 2003 11:49 PM
all that need be done for evil to win is for good men (and women) to do nothing.

SCO must never be allowed to think that their argument is only with IBM. They are using direct attacks against Linux and other open projects as a weapon to aid their claims against IBM. IBM can look after itself; but we must never assume that IBMs interests always coincide with those of the rest of us.

#

Re:all SCO all the time

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 02:59 AM
<A HREF="http://www.thinkexist.com/English/Author/x/Author_1347_1.htm" TITLE="thinkexist.com">Here's</a thinkexist.com> the original quote about good men doing nothing. It's quite appropriate to the battle with SCO.

#

Movie Quote

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 12:24 AM
from "Saving Private Ryan" :

"Don't shoot! Let them burn!"

 

#

Likely not DOS attack. Relevent links

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 01:04 AM
<A HREF="http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/" TITLE="weblogs.com">Groklaw</a weblogs.com> traceroute analysis.

<A HREF="http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forums&file=viewtopic&topic=870&forum=37" TITLE="pclinuxonline.com">PCLinuxOnline</a pclinuxonline.com> forum anonymous poster claims to be employed by non-SCO company in Canopy building suggests lots of things going on behind the scenes. (Keep up the emails to Canopy companies, folks!)

My guess: Not a DOS attack. Either SCO has some legal reason where they need to alter what's there (like they did in Germany when they took their site down breifly to comply with a court order), or (dare I hope) there has been a DOJ raid. Maybe Canopy has realized the folly of the SCO plan, and is trying to minimize the damage to themselves and other companies under them.

It will be interesting to see what's there when it comes back.

#

Brown Stuff and Fans

Posted by: Charles Tryon on August 25, 2003 02:30 AM
I know there have been plenty of comments and speculation about apparently illegal actions on the part of SCO principals (artificial stock price inflation, dumping, insider trading, etc.), most of which sounded more like hot-headed armchair private-eye blowing off steam than real, hard facts, but wouldn't it be strange if some of it actually turned out to be true? Lord knows IBM has deep enough pockets that they could hire investigators to dig up enough dirt to initiate a DOJ raid, and SCO doesn't seem like it's very good at covering its tracks.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

#

Re:Brown Stuff and Fans

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 04:58 AM
Well, Raymond has been hinting that SCO has a "nasty surprise" coming their way. I can only think of two things that it could be. Criminal charges of some sort or a massive countersuit from key kernel hackers. Since SCO is already facing civil action from both RedHat and IBM, I have to wonder how much difference another countersuit makes. Could some quality time with Bubba be in the works for McBride and Sontag?

#

PCLinuxOnline Posts (old??)

Posted by: Charles Tryon on August 25, 2003 02:54 AM
The posts you linked to sounded recent, but when I looked at the dates, I discovered these posts were from back around 8/3 (three weeks ago?). If that's right, then the actions predicted there certainly didn't come true. I still think there may be something big happening in SCO and Canopy HQ, but it doesn't sound related to these posts.

(Either that, or I'm missing something...)

#

Re:PCLinuxOnline Posts (old??)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 03:26 AM
The posts you linked to sounded recent, but when I looked at the dates, I discovered these posts were from back around 8/3 (three weeks ago?). If that's right, then the actions predicted there certainly didn't come true. I still think there may be something big happening in SCO and Canopy HQ, but it doesn't sound related to these posts.

Thanks for the heads-up. While the groklaw link points to today's entries (24 AUG 2003), a closer look at the PCLinuxOnline link shows that the post there was indeed from 03 AUG 2003. My eye had caught the August 24, 2003 at the top of the page and I missed the date of the actual post.

So yes, the link to the "insider" was a little old, and likely not related to the current unavailability of the SCO website.

#

Re:Likely not DOS attack. Relevent links

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 04:09 AM
Looks like I was wrong. As others have posted by now, there is evidence that SCO is being DOS'd.

#

Re:Likely not DOS attack.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 10:24 AM
More likely has to do with the IQ of their IT people. Can you put your thumb and forefinger about an inch apart, boys and girls, and say, "SOBIG.F?"

#

I Have A Feeling SCO...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 01:42 AM
Will wise-up and start keeping their mouth shut. And that is going to be too bad. But then again, how will their stock increase.

#

SCO stock rating goes south

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 01:57 AM
According to <A HREF="http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/srs/srsmain.asp?Symbol=SCOX" TITLE="msn.com">MSN</a msn.com>, SCO's stock ratings are toast. Watch for the stock price landslide on Monday!

#

Re:SCO stock rating goes south

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 03:21 AM
Someone should warn the investors.

http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?bid=102582&mi<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> =19482260

#

The courts are not an impartial forum.

Posted by: Alec Destry on August 25, 2003 03:27 AM
Mr Raymond, you stated in part: "We have other tools that are more powerful. We have an astonishingly strong set of facts on our side. SCO has been caught in multiple lies, wholesale IP violations, and defamatory statements. The way to destroy them is with legal weapons."

Beware that the courts are the real "Emperor Palpatine" behind "Darl Vader" and that Microsoft is just a front for them. The only hope of making these biased courts approach the impartial forum that they are supposed to be is to confront them with the legal evidence that proves them to be the biased forum that I say that they are. You can find that legal evidence <A HREF="http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm" TITLE="absolute.net">here.</a absolute.net>

If this mess ever does go to court, that legal evidence will need to be immediately pushed into the court record.

#

Evidence of DDOS on Usenet

Posted by: David Gerard on August 25, 2003 04:05 AM
From <A HREF="http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bi9h2d%247dj%241%40lerami.lerctr.org" TITLE="google.com">Google</a google.com>:

<tt>From: ler@lerctr.org (Larry Rosenman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: sco.com and caldera.com are down
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:05:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <bi9h2d$7dj$1@lerami.lerctr.org>

In article <8ffgkvg0j5fv19gt0bencgbvcf70vqpvtv@4ax.com&gt<nobr>;<wbr></nobr> ,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon wrote:
>
>>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
>
>Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
>I find that the www.sco.com server and one of the nameservers are
>down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
>(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
>servers that are up).
>
>Both www.sco.com and www.caldera.com are on some kind of load
>balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.
I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.

When the attack stops, they'll lift the block
at InterNAP.

LER

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749</tt>

#

Re:Evidence of DDOS on Usenet

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 04:51 AM
It could be that SCO shut down its own website fearing that researchers find vital info to win this case against SCO (not that any of it is needed, but it would still help, like finding GNU Linux on SCO's ftp site for example)

#

Well, the puppets part is atleast true.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 04:51 AM
The community is IBM's puppets, it's free labour for IBM.

#

Graphs of the SCO outage are on Netcraft site

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 05:42 AM

Crappy Yoda imitation...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 06:19 AM
and win we shall! Do, or do not. There is no try!

*crackle of lightsword ready for some serious warfare*

#

Fiction from the Yahoo! message board

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 06:24 AM
At least we can hope it ends up not being fiction:

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&acti<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 2239

NewsFLASH UC Berkeley to Sue SCO!
by: pirnping_isreal (34/M/Washington, DC)

The state of California is going to sue SCO for a breach of terms of the BSD settelement. As owners of that particular unix source, SCO is bound by the settelement AT&T reached with UC Berkeley in 1993.

SCO has breached the settlement with their actions, and will have an injunction slapped on it soon - they are bound to follow the settlement - the judge can and will impose stiff penalties on SCO.

In the spirit of Ledite, The above is fiction. But it may yet happen.

#

The longest ever DDOS atack or....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 06:44 AM
.... did someone just DOSed themselves by shutting down their own servers. Come one, it's been quite some time since this "attack" started and the servers being still down? Do they have monkeys for sysadmins?

#

Re:The longest ever DDOS atack or....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 08:45 AM
Maybe they're finally complying with the order of the German court to stop their false public claims about Linux IP.

#

Well, let them Eric.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 08:51 AM
We are all having great fun with their stupidity but you are again at your old self - ANYTHING for publicity. DDos attacks, DrDOS attacks and what's not to see your name in the media. And the media serves not you and me Eric. Can you, please, get normal for few days?

#

Re:Well, let them Eric.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 09:16 AM
Well, I haven't heard either him or Bruce say "Hasta la vista, McBride!" yet.

#

ERIC's insane...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:19 PM
What's about that Starwars-crap?

Are all Americans "Neo-TheOne-Matrix-Yoda"-puppies?
That's totally childish and inappropriate given the matter here...

all the military crap-comments like:

"has gone to war..."
"hung itself"
"assault"

are MORE THAN STUPID!

Even if your opponent is irrational, you have to keep your own emotions under control and don't start to talk and act like some comical hereo...

Before identifying me as an another "intruder/traitor":
I LOVE Linux and really believe in what Linus/Stallman and all the millions out there have done so far, but for sake of the credibility and influence the whole community is gaining, everyone please behave like grown-ups EVEN IF SCO-Scum don't!

#

PS.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:26 PM
Remember: There are already enough "Dancing Monkeyboys" and "Wanna-be-James-Bonds" out there...to the disadvantage of "their" side...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

Re:ERIC's insane...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 03:00 AM
Maybe he just wants to be sure that he doesn't sound like an IBM puppet. Like he said in his earlier statement, could you see IBM giving clearance to a press release like that?

If he's willing to sacrafice a little credibility for the cause, so be it. Overall I like what the guy is up to. Their legal response will likely be void of Star Wars references, so I'm sure we'll be just fine. He will prove himself to be credible, which is easy in his case since the facts are entirely on his side. Most of the rest of the industry supports ESR right now (besides MS, who have plenty of reason to dislike him already).

SCO is going to be blasted into oblivian, hopefully sooner rather than later. Even the Death Star couldn't save them now.

#

Re:ERIC's insane...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 04:26 AM
"If he's willing to sacrafice a little credibility..."

Doesn't he realize, he is sacrificing the credibilty of the whole community?!!!

"Most of the rest of the industry supports ESR right now..."

This sounds as stupid as SCOs "We speak for the silent majority standing behind us"!

Wake up! If you think the "good guys" always win:
THIS AIN'T HOLLYWOOD!

#

Re:ERIC's insane...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 05:24 AM
I agree he needs to dial this back, he's on a serious adrenalin kick... this is exactly the kind of mud-wrestling match McBride has been trying to suck IBM into from Day One, where facts are trumped by showmanship and emotions. It also provides the mainstream business press with the kind of colorful imagery they like to use in place of worthwhile analysis ("While SCO executives fume over alleged copyright infringement, Eric Raymond has been exorting a ragtag army of open source developers with lines right out of Star Wars movies...")

#

I agree....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:22 PM
but geezus he has an ego! Nonetheless I end up agreeing with the guy far more often then not.

#

Re:I agree....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 07:31 PM
Yep, I personally think Eric is a good guy.
But EGO ALWAYS stands in the way of some greater cause...

#

Re:I agree....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 09:42 PM
It's funny when you realize that both companies and individual leaders tend to have their own agendas in addition to defending open source. There's nothing really wrong with that, especially if it's part of what motivates them, but you have to keep this in the back of your mind.

#

ESR: Please turn in your contact

Posted by: johnarras on August 25, 2003 08:53 PM
Please give the name or email of your contact to the police and tell the police that this person has information about the DOS attack. Otherwise, it looks like you're protecting the person that did this.

I don't know what you're thinking atm, but if you're thinking that protecting your contact will make you more trusted, and it will help you trust within the FLOSS movement, well it won't. It will look to me like you're trying to protect your status as a "trusted" person at the expense of the whole FLOSS movement.

I expect that if you don't help the police and offer to do it before SCO gets its hands on this story, SCO will have a field day...no a field year with the PR they get by saying that one of the leaders of FLOSS protects people who take down their website. That's why you need to turn this person in. And now before SCO can pre-empt you. The outside world must not see FLOSS leaders protecting others when they engage in illegal activities. That would be an example of the very kind of "coordination" that SCO is bitching about.

(And remember, your contact already knew about the DoS and didn't go to the police (or maybe they have now), so he/she is no innocent either, and I see no problem with turning him/her in. "You can't cheat and honest man.", but he/she isn't.)

John Arras

#

Re:ESR: Please turn in your contact

Posted by: steffl on August 26, 2003 03:39 AM
what makes you think that ESR knows the person? He wrote that he got a phonecall... so there might be nothing to tell to police...

#

Mind your language!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 09:29 PM
"Newvertheless [sic]...we must *never* make this mistake again..."

First, stop using the word "we" when describing illegal and/or antisocial activities and the people who commit them!

The activist in question does not represent the legitimate open source community regardless of who they are, regardless of their "pedigree" and regardless of who they claim to represent.

Unfortunately, it's the new American way to let extremists dictate the agenda and to imply that innocent people support the acts of criminals. Stop acting out your Star Wars fantasies and start disowning the idiots and mercenaries for whom the meyhem and "anarchy" is the only reason they're along for the ride!

#

I disagree...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 10:53 PM
I disagree; when he says "we" he's accurately portraying the Open Source community and Linux supporters as a cohesive group. And though, like you said, this individual does not represent community as a whole, the community *is* responsible for its members.
I'm close to thinking that you're mislabeling this hacker as one of the "idiots and mercenaries for whome the meyhem and 'anarchy' is the only reason they're along for the ride." I'm not proud of this person, but let's not disgrace or shun them; it sounds as if they acted on their passionate belief that a sort of revenge was needed against SCO. If we support this person's vigor and dedication to the Linux community (if not their means), we may just yet allow them to come forward and take responsibilty.
I suggest to you, sir (and anyone else either not believing that one of 'us' could do this or wanting to disown those less ethical than yourself), that you realize there will always be a few bad apples among us. The *correct* course of action is to attempt to lead those people by example.

#

Conspiracy?

Posted by: Charles Tryon on August 25, 2003 09:44 PM
Ignoring for one moment ESR's comment about laying off the conspiracy theories, I'm still not entirely convinced that this whole mess wasn't started by SCO itself, in order to make the FOSS community look bad. I hope there are a people all over this thing trying to trace it back to its origin, just to make sure it wasn't an "inside job."

Geeze... I can't wait for the SCO Information Minister to start spouting on this one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

#

To SCO with love from a bunch of dweebs

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 10:41 PM
Uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Mr. Raymond. Have you considered that maybe _NOT_ coming across as a bunch of pimply faced 13 year olds at a D&D all-nighter eccstatically discussing the next Star Trek convention would also help the cause? People might take you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ya' know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... more seriously, if they weren't picturing you as General Akbar shouting commands at people who think you look like a giant squid. Thank you.

#

Re:To SCO with love from a bunch of dweebs

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 01:31 AM
It's Admiral Ackbar. But you make a valid point.

#

Re:To SCO with love from a bunch of dweebs

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 11:54 AM
Thanks - my mistake.

#

ESR did the right thing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 08:42 PM
He said he made (what I consider a reasonable) assumption that there was a script kiddie behind this. He was worried about losing credibility, so he made the Star-Warsish claim to get the person on his side -- he made what the person was doing sound exciting, but at the moment not the best move.

ESR isn't just trying to work the press directly to help out Linux, same as SCO's folks are doing in trying to screw Linux over, but he's also trying to manage people on the Linux side that are hurting his PR campaign. I'd say he's doing a pretty fucking competent job. How many folks in the software world, no matter how prestigious, can manage to arrange to have an annonymous DDoS attack stopped?

So before we get into claims of "Eric's fucking up", please consider what *actually* happened here, eh?

#

Re:ESR did the right thing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 12:32 AM
If this were a satirical editorial then I would definitely have taken the cheezy Star Wars references with tongue-in-cheek. This, however, is a response to accusations made in mainstream press by the CEO of a company. Regardless of how ridiculous the accusations are or how insipid the CEO comes off looking, the response should be measured and professional. Eric communicated well the importance of maintaining integrity, and I applaud him for that. But if he is going to _assume_ the mantle of "Leader" in this fracas, he needs to _look_ like a leader to the mainstream press. I would say that Eric already has the respect of most of the opensource group - he doesn't need to resort to ill-placed popculture references to win over more fans.

#

SEC Involvement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 25, 2003 11:29 PM
While I am a huge consoracy theorist, I also beleive in Occum's Razor - "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

MS involment is not to be studied. It does not need to be. There is sufficient gains to be had for SCO to do this of their own accord, that is stock involvement. De-listing SCO was a real threat to them, now that threat is gone. I do not know how the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) can sit idly by while SCO artificially inflates its value. Had they not had these gains, or the gains not been as sigifigant, then yes, I'd assume they would be a patsy for MS.

How can the SEC stand by and let this go on? Please don't tell me that they can only work after the fact- after a decade of long court cases, will they be able to enjoin SCO's wreckless behavior and ludicrous claims.

#

Re:SEC Involvement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 01:08 AM
Look at this people,
<A HREF="http://ichart.yahoo.com/z?s=scox&a=v&p=s&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l" TITLE="yahoo.com"> Stock chart</a yahoo.com>

The calm before the storm, right up to the press announcement 0 (or close to) from April to the middle of may, then the shit hits the fan, and shares are selling like crazy. This is very obviously insider lack-of-trading (because of the initial lull) and then all hell breaks loose.

And its right there for everyone to see.

#

SCO's Already Won

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 12:47 AM
One result of SCO's actions was a 10-fold increase in it's stock value. SCO's management cash in by selling millions of dollars in stock. The company's board of directors is paid only in stock.

The company also quickly issued another $3 million in stock which it used to acquire Vultus. Vultus was majority-owned by The Canopy Group, which also owns SCO. The stock was cashed out with most of the money going to The Canopy Group.

#

Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 02:58 AM


"The confrontation between SCO and the open-source community has now escalated to open war."

What the HELL are you talking about???

"...we all know who's lurking like Emperor Palpatine behind Darl Vader..."

Now didn't you just dashed Darl for being overly suspicious?
This sounds so much more crap with the use of "StarWars-Fantasy-Dreamworld-Language"

"The timing, the scuttlebutt on Slashdot and elsewhere, and the contents of my mailbox all suggest strongly that the DOS attack was triggered by Darl McBride's slanderous interview[2] accusing the community of being IBM's sock puppets, and my response[3] to it."

How can you be so DUMB and DUMBER to charge yourself as part of this?!

ARE YOU SMOKING SOMETHING OF THE SAME SHIT???

If Darl did make this up, this would have been an outragous claim, but now he's got that delivered right to his foot...talk about stupidity!

But I guess I knowe the reason, why you rushed out twice to make this assumption...

It has to do, what you wrote earlier in your personal "Open Letter to DarlMcBride" and the military-style words you used:

"...marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you"

"The time it takes a lackey to check with HQ for orders is time an ally can spend thinking up ways to make your life complicated that HQ would be too nervous to use..."

"you'd better climb down off your high horse before we shoot that sucker entirely out from under you"
+
"and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next"

Is there any more to say???

ERIC:
I hope you be silent for as long as this matter is resolved, unless you have valuable technical things to contribute, otherwise I think it's bacome clear by now that if you start to play the game BY THEIR RULES (making claims, threats, corrections to former statements (=updates)), you find yourself on the losing side real soon.

JFSebastian.
(remove "-nospam" to email me)

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 10:56 AM
> "The confrontation between SCO and the open-source community has now escalated to open war."

> What the HELL are you talking about???

At first SCO only accused IBM of violating a contract.

But since then:

- SCO has accused Linux developers of stealing.
- SCO has vowed to have the GPL invalidated.
- SCO has threatened all Linux users.
- SCO has tried to extract money from Linux users.
- SCO has started telling obvious lies to the press.
- After SCO has been shown to be lying, SCO repeats the lies.

It sure looks to me like SCO is waging war on Linux.

So what rock have you been living under?

> "...we all know who's lurking like Emperor Palpatine behind Darl Vader..."

> Now didn't you just dashed Darl for being overly suspicious? This sounds so much more crap with the use of "StarWars-Fantasy-Dreamworld-Language"

First, as various documents and court cases have shown, Microsoft has:
- Tried to "kill Java by growing the polluted Java market."
- Tried to defraud users by "keeping quiet" about the lock-in features in J++.
- Paid ISPs to stop supporting Netscape.
- Threatened to cancel Office for the Mac to force Apple to stop supporting Netscape.
- Defrauded DR-DOS users by adding a fake error message to Windows.
- Sabotaged DR-DOS by adding secret calls to Windows 95.
- Planned to destroy (decommoditize) Internet standards in order to stop Linux.
- Paid Washington think-tank groups to pretend to support Microsoft.
- Paid people to post lies on Internet forums.
- And so on.

Second, Microsoft paid SCO $millions, purportedly for a license to SCO's IP. Note that this payment was premature, since SCO has not yet proven their case. Note, also, that this was totally uncharacteristic for Microsoft -- in every previous IP claim (by Apple, Borland, Wordperfect, and so on), Microsoft has fought tooth and nail, dragging the case out in court for years.

In light of that history, only a fool would not suspect Microsoft of being behind SCO.

Are you saying that you do not suspect Microsoft of being behind SCO?

> "The timing, the scuttlebutt on Slashdot and elsewhere, and the contents of my mailbox all suggest strongly that the DOS attack was triggered by Darl McBride's slanderous interview[2] accusing the community of being IBM's sock puppets, and my response[3] to it."

> How can you be so DUMB and DUMBER to charge yourself as part of this?!

As I understand it, Eric Raymond received one or more an anonymous e-mails, in which the sender claimed to be carrying out a DDOS attack on SCO, and stated that ESR's article had so inspired them.

Thus, for everyone's sake, Eric had to tell those people to stop, without knowing who they are, and he had to tell everyone that a DOS attack is _not_ acceptable behaviour, and will not help Linux's case.

And his second article did just that.

So what would you have suggested that Eric should do? Keep quiet? Lie about it?

You pretend to be part of the Open Source community, but if that were true, then you would understand how much value we put on telling the truth.

Eric did exactly the right thing. You, on the other hand, sound like a Microsoft troll.

> "...marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you"

> "The time it takes a lackey to check with HQ for orders is time an ally can spend thinking up ways to make your life complicated that HQ would be too nervous to use..."

Those were sarcastic and/or facetious statements that Eric made while ridiculing one of SCO's claims. I don't know what point you think you can make out of them.

> "you'd better climb down off your high horse before we shoot that sucker entirely out from under you"

> "and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next"

Those are also semi-facetious statements, designed partly to inspire and improve the morale of the troops.

As to the threats, given SCO's recent behaviour, they are appropriate -- they would appear to be the only language that SCO might understand short of duking it out in court.

If you don't agree, then I have an assignment for you . . . go to Google and look up "Germany Big Lie" (pertaining to SCO's claims) and "Chamberlain appeasement" (pertaining to how _not_ to respond).

We have grown tired of the pussyfooting, and a few strong statements are not going to hurt our side. If anything, they will bring notice, and serve to counteract SCO's lies.

> Is there any more to say???

Yes. I hope Eric gives your letter the attention it deserves, and ignores it.

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 03:10 PM
So you justify all those wording
"...to improve the morale of the troops."

I'm neither belonging to that kind of a fascistoid troop, nor does it raise the morale of any troops unless those are a bunch of non-brainers who couldn't think for themselves.

IF you think M$ is behind this because they've done a lot of bad things in the past:

Do you also believe it's highly likely then IBM is behind all this? THEY have done bad things all over the place in the past and maybe realized it's better to use their "cloaking shield" now to fool you to trust them before they take control over Linux...

As with SCO:
Nothings proven until its proven and making claims on Fear, Doubt , Uncertainty is not going to help on either side!

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 01:04 AM
> So you justify all those wording "...to improve the morale of the troops."

My post was so long that it requires an extra click to see it.

And out of all that, you grabbed one little phrase.

And even that phrase was taken out of the context of its own sentence, and the paragraph before it. You left out all the parts about Eric's comments being sarcastic and facetious, and so on.

Your response is dishonest, and therefore valueless, just like your original post.

> IF you think M$ is behind this because they've done a lot of bad things in the past:
> Do you also believe it's highly likely then IBM is behind all this? THEY have done bad things all over the place in the past and maybe realized it's better to use their "cloaking shield" now to fool you to trust them before they take control over Linux...

IBM has gone through a complete leadership change.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is still run by Gates and Ballmer, the same men responsible for all the lies, fraud, sabotage, and extortion that Microsoft has done in the past.

Therefore, your point is contrary to obvious facts, but I'm sure you already knew that.

> As with SCO:
> Nothings proven until its proven and making claims on Fear, Doubt , Uncertainty is not going to help on either side!

Absolute rubbish!

Microsoft "wins" by telling lies. It's how they beat DR-DOS, and it's how they beat OS/2.

But Linux has succeeded in overcoming Microsoft's (and now SCO's) lies, because we have been willing to stand up, point to the lies, and call them lies.

Do you think we are going to stop now, just because some astroturfer says so? Forget it! We're not going to make the mistake of pulling our punches, the way IBM did.

You're not posting here because Eric is a problem for Open Source. He's not.

On the contrary, you're here to try to discredit Eric, specifically because Eric is an effective spokesperson for Open Source. He was effective when he spoke about the Halloween document, and his strong response to SCO is effective now.

SCO's strategy has nothing to do with truth, or winning in court. Instead, SCO is practising the Big Lie, which means to repeat an obvious lie often enough, and boldly enough, that people start to believe it.

Pussyfooting won't stop the Big Lie. Winning in court won't stop the Big Lie. But a loud, bold, confident response, as supplied by Eric, can go a long way toward stopping the Big Lie.

Eric's strong response can catch people's attention, and cause them to open their eyes, and see through SCO's (and probably Microsoft's) lies. And that's why you want him to stop.

Note to Eric:

They're just trying to wear you down. Don't listen to them. Keep doing what you're doing.

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 28, 2003 03:32 AM
"And that's why you want him to stop."

Nope.
Sorry to say, but the world isn't just black and white...

To correct things:
I like most of what Eric has done so far (Halloween), but this doesn't mean that in this situation, the bad worded "Open letter" and the two following written statements were doing anything but good.

This won't certainly stop SCO from what they are doing, but eventually he did them a favor...

If you wanna know, what really can hurt those SCO-scum and stop their negative fud dead end track, maybe just wait some more...

jfsebastian

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 03:15 AM
"As I understand it, Eric Raymond received one or more an anonymous e-mails, in which the sender claimed to be carrying out a DDOS attack on SCO, and stated that ESR's article had so inspired them.

"Thus, for everyone's sake, Eric had to tell those people to stop, without knowing who they are, and he had to tell everyone that a DOS attack is _not_ acceptable behaviour, and will not help Linux's case.

"And his second article did just that.

"So what would you have suggested that Eric should do? Keep quiet? Lie about it?

"You pretend to be part of the Open Source community, but if that were true, then you would understand how much value we put on telling the truth.

"Eric did exactly the right thing. You, on the other hand, sound like a Microsoft troll."

You're missing an important part, I have to say on purpose.

After receiving offers or claims of launching a ddos, the right thing to do is to clearly publicly state that that is wrong. There what Raymond did was exactly correct.

After receiving a communication from a "cut-out" going public saying that the attack has been confirmed to be from a "senior" member of the Linux community was breathtakingly, unbelievably stupid. The result by now is hundreds of stories in the mainstream press accusing the Linux community of doing this with no evidence from SCO or anyone. This simply would not be a story without Eric Raymond.

After getting a contact from a "cutout" Raymond should have sent a message back through the same channel to stop and contacted law enforcement. If that person is guilty and really a member of the Linux community he will be dealt with on the basis of real evidence, not Eric Raymond trying to feel like he's involved in some deep CIA espionage drama.

This was really pathetic on Raymond's part and it has partially undone an incredibly good newsweek for Linux.

Go to google news and type SCO and you'll see the incredible amount of damage he's done.

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 03:40 AM
Just to add to my last post,

After he made his blunder of turning an anti-Linux rumor into a fact in the eyes of the press, Raymond is doing the right thing to some degree. He's staying available and getting quotes put into the articles about how this is not appropriate or acceptable behavior.

It's easy to criticize another person's mistakes in hindsight. But there are some things he should be doing differently right now.

1. if he doesn't know the identity it's impossible for him to know whether or not his contact is a "senior" linux community member or whether or not he did it. His refusal/failure to admit he doesn't know for sure is another blunder that I believe is caused by his desire for attention at the expense of the reputation of Linux.

2. If he does know for sure he should give law enforcement all the information he has and state publicly that he has done so. Saying something is not acceptable and acting like it is not acceptable are two different things.

#

Re:Open Letter to Eric S. Raymond

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 07:45 AM
> After receiving a communication from a "cut-out" going public saying that the attack has been confirmed to be from a "senior" member of the Linux community was breathtakingly, unbelievably stupid.

I have read and re-read ESR's update a dozen times, trying to figure out where you got the idea that he said it was a "senior" member of the Linux community. You even put quotes around the word "senior", which suggests that he used that very word.

But Eric said nothing of the sort.

In one sentence, Eric says the person appears to be an "experienced Internet engineer". And elsewhere he says that the person appears to be "one of us" meaning, from the context of Eric's previous sentence, a person with a "connection to the open-source community".

Neither of those imply a "senior" person within the community. It could just be some student who has no more involvement than having submitted a patch.

The only one who is saying that it is a "senior" person is you. So either you can't read, or you are purposely making stuff up in an attempt to discredit Eric Raymond.

#

www.sco.com back

Posted by: Geoff Lane on August 26, 2003 03:22 AM
It came back a short while ago. Nothing to indicate what caused the down time. Still running Linux/Apache.

The home page now has a link to Tarantella (the remains of the original SCO) which is a bit curious.

#

Re:www.sco.com back

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 11:01 AM
They'll probably add all the page requests to their "PR" as proof of their relevance.

"Look at everybody trying to join our new licensing program."

#

Hackers cut off SCO Web site

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 06:25 AM
Hackers cut off SCO Web site

http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-5067743.html?tag=<nobr>f<wbr></nobr> d_top

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030825/1353000763_1.htm<nobr>l<wbr></nobr>

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1002_3-5067<nobr>7<wbr></nobr> 43.html

#

Want to take action (and maybe make money)?

Posted by: PhilipPeake on August 26, 2003 07:33 AM
Rather than valdalism, consider using thir own stock against them:

One thing that can bring a stock price down with a crunch is the markets seeing a steep increase in the number of shorted shares.

So, if you believe that there is nothing to their arguments, gp to your stock broker and short a few SCOX shares -- it doesn't have to be a large number if enough people do it. Doing this will add to the downwards pressure on their stock, and, if this turns out the way it looks, you could even make some money.

#

Really let down

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 12:53 PM
If I Google the news using "SCO", I get nothing but pages and pages of articles, from all over the world, in the general press and the trade press, all headlined "SCO attacked" or words to that effect. All of them state that the "attack" came from "open source partisans" or "a senior open source advocate."

What is the source of this news? It is Eric S. Raymond.

Darl McBride has not achieved in six weeks what Eric S. Raymond has done in one day. God forbid the open source community should get any more "help" from Eric S. Raymond with this SCO case.

Eric, this is not your game. SHUT. UP.

At least three people who called SCO Monday morning to ask about the web site were told that it had been taken down for maintenance and would be back up shortly. Sure enough, it was. And when it came back, the web site had been re-done with a new artistic look.

But thanks to the helpful and courageous Eric S. Raymond, tens of millions of people have been told through magazines and newspapers that open source advocates attacked SCO. Arrrrggghhhhh.

#

Re:Really let down

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 11:12 PM

With regard to the site "[being] taken down for maintenance," I highly doubt that SCO was telling the truth. As a web developer, taking down your *entire* network (which hosts multiple sites, BTW, not just sco.com) is not only naive design practice, it's a terrible business move. Denying potential users from accessing the site costs upwards of thousands of dollars a day, something that even SCO cannot afford.


*Any* new site design (functional or aestetic) is created on test servers long before even *thinking* about uploading any changes to the actual site. Think of the hundreds of thousands of coporate sites out there: ibm.com, microsoft.com, yahoo.com, cnet.com... The designs of these sites have changed many times over the course of their stint on the world wide web. And yet, *none* of them have *ever* been down for 'maintenance.'


The reason *you* came up with that is because you chose to believe SCO's official statement to inquiring callers. SCO *had* to say that (or something along those lines). It's rather unprofessional (and is against a company's best interests) to say "We're experiencing difficulties because a hacker took down our corporate site and is costing us untold amounts of money."


Before you start making personal attacks against Mr. Raymond (or anyone for that matter), try to quench your desire for fueling the flames of rumor.


Oh, and attempting to sound intelligent doesn't hurt either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

Professionalism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 01:49 PM
I'd been keeping an open mind about this debate, but these actions convince me that one of the worst things I could do would be to implement Linux in any organisation. The level of unprofessionalism shown by a member of the open source community, with much support from other members, is astonishing. The last thing I need is to have someone screw with my network just because they've been reprimanded or fired. No thanks, don't need the trouble, can do without the Linux children anywhere near my company.

#

Re:Professionalism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 28, 2003 10:41 AM
Dreaming are we?

#

Re:Professionalism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 10, 2003 11:17 PM
For what it's worth, I've been given orders from my management to get rid of any and all Linux servers in our organization, replacing them with FreeBSD and/or OpenBSD boxen.

But, then, with idiots like these open-source zealots (ESR, anyone?) HANDING THEIR HEADS ON PLATTERS to Darl McBride and SCO and giving them free publicity that PROVES what immature idiots the open-source partisans truly are... I guess this is just an example of their getting what they deserve.

-P

#

SCO zombie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 02:23 PM
This DDoS used quite wide zombie army. Is there some evidence of compromised systems?

BTW, does somebody know why Darl uses Zombie II as template in his SCOsource_Briefing_II.2.ppt?

#

THE AGE

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 02:47 PM
There's <A HREF="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663769161.html" TITLE="theage.com.au">article on THE AGE here</a theage.com.au> with a reciprocal link to this story.

--

  <A HREF="http://www.mutley.uklinux.net/" TITLE="uklinux.net">www.mutley.uklinux.net</a uklinux.net>
Baby Ruby says <A HREF="http://www.mutley.uklinux.net/Ruby/Grandma%20&%20Noisey%20Ruby.html" TITLE="uklinux.net">"bwarghhhhh!"</a uklinux.net>

#

May the Farce Be With You

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 26, 2003 03:23 PM
I don't buy this crap that "Luke Skywalker" doesn't know who the dos attacker is, or else he wouldn't state for a fact that an attack has actually occured.
I hope Luke enjoys a nice adolescent saber dance with the FBI. Maybe then his Obi Wan Attourney will finally compell him to shut his teenage mouth.

#

Hey, Moron

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 12:20 AM
If you had half a brain, then you would realize that if Eric knew who the attacker was, then he wouldn't have had to write an article to tell the attacker to stop. Now scurry on back to Redmond and tell Mr. Gates to send someone more intelligent next time.

#

SCO denies any attack!

Posted by: David Gerard on August 26, 2003 08:18 PM
See Groklaw: <A HREF="http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/25.html" TITLE="weblogs.com">SCO Customer Support Says Server Down for "Upgrade or Update or Something"</a weblogs.com>

If ESR has positive confirmation, why would SCO deny the attack afterwards?

(cc'd to ESR's mailbox)

#

CIOL, India

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 02:56 PM
There's <A HREF="http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103082606.asp" TITLE="ciol.com">article on CIOL, India, here</a ciol.com> with another reciprocal link to this story.

--

  <A HREF="http://www.mutley.uklinux.net/" TITLE="uklinux.net">www.mutley.uklinux.net</a uklinux.net>
Baby Ruby says <A HREF="http://www.mutley.uklinux.net/Ruby/Grandma%20&%20Noisey%20Ruby.html" TITLE="uklinux.net">"bwarghhhhh!"</a uklinux.net>

#

Evidence rebuttal incomprehensible

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 28, 2003 09:50 AM
Eric,

I read your article analysing the "evidence" aimed to be understandable by journalists. I'm 18 years into an IT career, including quite a bit of programming - my impression from a brief reading is that if you think this is understandable by journalists, lawyers, judges and juries, I think you're being overly optimistic, and you probably need help in preparing a more understandable rebuttal.

This is very, very challenging for anyone to understand well enough to make a judgement based on provable facts.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya