Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily)
For anybody who has wanted to see Rob Enderle explain himself with regard
to SCO, TG Daily has that explanation at great length. "I thought
I'd run into the cover up of the century. I was even told, as the senior
research fellow, I was not allowed to talk about Linux anymore and I was
lectured by the Head of Research on how I should have written the column
who, upon actually reading it, agreed I had done everything he had just
lectured me to do. He concluded that he must be thinking of another column
I had written (this was my first column and there was no 'other'
column). I saw this as a clear ethics problem and resigned the next day,
focused like a laser on the Linux supporters I then viewed as
criminals. And if they were criminals, than SCO must be the victim, right?
Well, that was my thought back then."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 18:39 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Why the hell do you post a link to this trash.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:05 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Hmm...how about because:
Sorry if it bothered you.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 24, 2007 20:09 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Jonathan, I don't really think you need to explain yourself. It's a Linux-related news story and belongs here.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 24, 2007 20:51 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Oh, man, it was totally worth reading it for this comment (unfortunately, there's no way to link to user comments because they use some sort of javascripty nastiness, but it's credited to "hank"): Life is about choices. Rob's latest choice? Justify every action and transfer the blame. Is Rob a bad guy? I doubt it. Will I listen to Rob in the future? Only if I can confirm that no one is being mean to him. As he points out, if he gets rattled, his decision-making ability goes to pot.
I don't blame Enderle Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:58 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] I really don't blame Enderle for advocating on behalf of his clients. It's what all marketing people do. The problem is lazy reporters who don't disclose his business relationships with the companies they write about when quoting him, or lazy editors who don't run the "Mr. Enderle is a consultant whose clients include..." blurb on pieces that he writes for them.If one of your authors or sources has a business relationship with a company covered in the story, always mention it. More: What the IT Media learned from the SCO mess (or should have)
I don't blame Enderle Posted Sep 25, 2007 10:16 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I really don't blame Enderle for advocating on behalf of his clients. It's what all marketing people do. You mean insulting large groups of people and not being open about background and motive are common practice in marketing, and therefore to be tolerated? Mmmh. The man is a clown and a disgrace to his profession.
I don't blame Enderle Posted Sep 25, 2007 10:32 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] And any reporter or editor who can spell "Google" should be able to find that out, and either attribute anything from him correctly or not use it.
did those so-called "threats" against Enderle come from the SCOG? Posted Sep 25, 2007 5:34 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] Note that Enderle's logic fails yet another time, in a crutial way: has he done due diligence to establish that indeed it was a member of the Linux community who "threatened" him online? How does he know that it was not in fact SCOG supporters who threatened him, to make the "Linux community" look "criminal"? Now that he has apparently acknowledged that SCOG has lied to him, wouldnt it be the logical conclusion to attribute those threats to the same entity that deceived him once already - namely SCOG and its supporters? If he cannot prove it, shouldnt he write another mea culpa article and apologize for calling the Linux community criminals? Enderle's so-called "apology" raises more questions than it answers.
It wouldn't be surprising. Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:05 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Indeed. The dork confesses that he is easy to manipulate; trying to blame others for his shortcomings is really pathetic.At least Lyons had the decency of offering a frank apology.
It wouldn't be surprising. Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:37 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Both Lyons and Enderle suffer(ed) from the same problem: their knowledge of the FLOSS community is pitifully weak. Their only knowledge of the IT industry is the big shots. Their fondness for the movers and shakers has blinded them.
When SCO first announced Linux had stolen code, it was obvious to most of us that they were bare faced liars. It should have been a clue to these pundits when SCO refused to show the millions of lines of code, and when SCO did show a few samples and were exposed as liars for the rest of the world to see, these pundits still had no clue.
Why these clowns were blind is obvious: they were shills for the industry big shots. I don't mean in the direct pay of Microsoft, but they were beholden to the big shots for their scoops and "insight" and had long since lost any ability to think independently or dig for news on their own. Compare them to Cringely, who is not always right, but at least has half a brain and is not afraid to use it to speculate intelligently.
These pundits should be put out to pasture. They have passed the point of having any utility.
Feedback loop Posted Sep 26, 2007 11:13 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] There is a feedback loop, though. ("Lyons effect"?) Make a mistake about Linux, and potty-mouth trolls call you mean names. Then you say Linux users are potty-mouth trolls who call people mean names, and more potty-mouth trolls call you more mean names. Pretty soon the only people who are willing to talk to you are potty-mouth trolls, and the only thing they're willing to tell you is that you're some mean name.
Frank apology Posted Sep 25, 2007 21:36 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Actually, Lyons did not offer a frank apology.First, he didn't offer an apology. The closest he came was "mea culpa", which means "I made a mistake", or "it was my fault". Without the actual apology, it amounts to, "I was wrong, suck it." Second, what he did write wasn't frank. It differed from Enderle's screed in being smooth, which enabled him to distract us from the real issue, which is that he's a lazy and incompetent reporter who is frequently wrong for simple, correctable reasons he'd like us not to dwell on.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 25, 2007 7:09 UTC (Tue) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link] I must admit I too had the same initial, visceral response wondering why bother giving this guy a forum, however, on just a bit of reflection it switched to: "why not?".
My interest was very limited, since I ceased reading his "response" almost immediately when it became clear it was no more than self justification.
My interest in Enderle, may have been based upon a mistaken impression that he once made offer to buy a version of Linux free of GPL for $50,000 USD. My memory, too had this person assert the purchase offer was both legitimate and reasonable to obtain an unencumbered copy of Linux. I had hoped to read how anyone could have so little comprehension to not realize the transaction was virtually impossible and the price offered was a pittance. Or better, an admission the whole offer was a cover for some other thrust. I concluded a truthful explanation was unlikely, hence, I stopped reading.
I wish to point out, that those with greater reading skills than I brought forth some interesting material about his justifications and his basic insecurities particularly regarding women. Moreover, his very corporate mentality (at its worst) told a lot about his underlying person. Thus, I thank those that read the piece in its entirety and shared their insights.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to read it myself.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 25, 2007 7:50 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] For whatever it's worth, you were thinking of Jeff Merkey, who, to put it nicely, is quite a character — the Linux offer being only one example.
Why the hell I posted a link to that trash Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:04 UTC (Tue) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link] Read a bit of the Wikipedia piece, I think your assessment is correct. This guy out does Enderle, moreover unlike the aforementioned, he might possess some technical competence.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:09 UTC (Mon) by sumC (subscriber, #1262) [Link] Because it has to do with the SCO case that LWN has followed in the past and Rob Enderle was one of the two top SCO supporters(Dan Lyons being the other). I think it's interesting to see him trying to explain himself.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:38 UTC (Mon) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] This guy seems pathological. He is first and foremost concerned with what positions he has held in the industry. Your a big shot, we get it buddy.
The lowly entry level women who apparently sniffed out SCO lies instantly would not go and see the "evidence" because SCO required the signing of what they were calling an NDA but was really a gag order.
His description of "winning" the argument against Linux in the Enterprise is just bizzar. This was 2003. Guess he considers being wrong "winning".
I find it odd also that the first three people he either questions the judgment of or "defeats" in argument are women.
The "I had done nothing wrong" statement sort of rhymes with "I am not a crook". He claims he saw copied code and reported on it. The problem for him is that the code he saw was not "copied" in the sense that the people who he called thieves "did nothing wrong" in copying it.
That he accuses other people of not "fact checking" is just priceless. As are his mechanations around Groklaw. He accuses Groklaw of being misleading, unlike apparently his own insightful analysis which has survived the test of time.
Enough of this guy. It is really a shame such arrogance is rewarded.
Kind Regards
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 6:32 UTC (Tue) by briangmaddox (subscriber, #39279) [Link] Because, in his own words, Rob explains why no one in their right mind should ever listen to him. He shows himself to be bitter and one to never let the facts get in the way. He shows how he's more about being full of himself than trying to find out the truth.
Sadly, I'm sure people will still listen to him since he's an "analyst".
Of a piece Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:10 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] This rambling, disingenuous self-justification is of a piece with everything we have seen from this sad man. I feel good knowing that Groklaw helped to expose his incompetence and intellectual dishonesty. He doesn't even know how to write a convincing mea culpa. Dan Lyons was able to skew his own story in his favor while distracting readers from the reasons what led him to be so wrong, so frequently. Enderle can't help scattering his tired accusations again, even taking special opportunity to bad-mouth his (much smarter!) former colleagues.It's hard to imagine what sort of work he could do now. Even MS seems to have caught on to his true value, early on.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:10 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] It's a very difficult read as it's poorly written and says essentially nothing. What struck me most was that Mr Enderle doesn't take any responsibility. Even the preface by Wolfgang Gruener admits he hasn't read Enderle's keynote or any reactions to it. Despite admitting he's completely ignorant about Enderle's words or the reaction to them, he decides to post Enderle's words with the following message:But I somewhat followed the outrage rather inappropriate reactions from some members of the Linux community.Enderle's words are prefaced by people that don't pay attention. He speaks to people that don't pay attention, for causes he knows nothing about. Yet he's still employed, gets guest spots on National Public Radio shows, and gets to tell "his side of the story" however incoherently he wishes.
Libel? Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:13 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The article repeatedly claims that Groklaw was intentionally misleading people, and that people associated with the site committed a number of other offenses. IANAL, but this looks defamatory to me. He's not just claiming that Groklaw was wrong or biased, but that it was intentionally engaging in immoral or possibly illegal conduct.Seems to me that PJ might have a legal case against this jerk.
Libel? Posted Sep 25, 2007 4:28 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The DDoS attacks he accuses Groklaw readers of, for instance, were shown within days to be the work of spammers and extortionists (as usual), but he somehow seems to have failed to notice.
Libel? Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:41 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Well, legal case to be made or not, the fact is pursuing such a case wouldrequire making public certain details PJ has so far (understandably) chosen to keep private. I don't see her choice changing. It's not like anything he can say is going to make a difference anyway. Whatever reputational damage he might have been able to do (with anyone that listens to him) is already done, so IMO, PJ might as well just continue as she is.
Meanwhile... his article didn't seem quite as bad to me as many seem to be
While I'm not going to be trusting any recommendations he makes right
Duncan
Rob's problem Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:32 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > there were the Linux loyalists who pushed me onto SCO’s side as well.
I was under the impression that journalists were supposed to report on what _actually_ happened. The facts and all that. Who cares who's feeding you what nonsense - just find out for yourself.
But then again, why spoil a good story with unpleasant facts... ;-)
Rob's problem Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:42 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Oh, sorry - Rob's an analyst - didn't take that into account ;-)
Steel Cage Match Posted Sep 24, 2007 19:44 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] WWW (no C at the end) presents Rob Enderle vs. Douglas Feith, battling it out for the belt and the title of "Dumbest f&!%ing guy on the planet".
Steel Cage Match Posted Sep 24, 2007 20:06 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
Oops, I meant WWF (it's been a long time).
Steel Cage Match Posted Sep 25, 2007 11:17 UTC (Tue) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] It certainly has, if you didn't know it is actually called the "WWE" (they lost the WWF name to the world wildlife fund). :)
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 20:14 UTC (Mon) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] This was years ago, so my memory is a little foggy, but wasn't there something about SCO showing journalists kernel code which SCO claimed infringed their copyright? I remember there being some NDA, but the journalists who saw the code claimed that it was definitive evidence. I'm curious if the NDA has expired, and whether we can see what this evidence looked like. Or has it already been revealed?
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 21:00 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] I doubt it; certainly no one has come forward.
But yes, this NDA is almost certainly why the junior analyst Enderle mentions said she wasn't able to talk to SCO -- she wasn't able to talk to them on reasonable, sane grounds. Enderle didn't care about that, drank the kool-aid, and then apparently has a personality such that he can't admit mistakes and so had to keep chugging even long after it was clear the stuff was acid-laced.
Under NDA Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:18 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] At the time, Ian Lance Taylor signed the NDA, and saw the code, and it was just the public-domain stuff.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 21:16 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] There was an NDA to see the "violating code". Reading between the lines Enderle talks about that here:
I suspect that if LWN were to track down this "near entry level" analyst (and it took me five minutes of Googling to figure whom that is likely to be) we would find that she would not sign the NDA since it would restrict the analyst firm's ability to give advice to its customers. It has long been suspected that the code shown to the analysts that did sign the NDA was same as presented in obscured form at SCO Forum 2003. An analysis of that code showed is was (1) the Berkeley Packet Filter code with the UCB copyright and BSD license removed and (2) a small amount of System V code in ate_utils.c, contributed by SGI. An analysis of the kernel code by SGI for other infringing code found one other small fragment, which was promptly removed. It was later discovered that the removed code was part of the Ancient UNIX release and thus no copyright infringement occurred. Rob's article goes some way to confirming that suspicion:
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 21:22 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] The important part is: although he may have had to wait "until years later" to find out that the allegedly-bad code was in the public domain, the rest of us knew the truth within days of having a hint of what they were actually shown directly.
Stacey Quantdt today Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:37 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The "junior analyst" has moved away from Forrester's sadly tainted name: "Stacey Quandt is a Senior Business Analyst and Open Source Practice Leader with the Robert Frances Group where she covers key market trends important to IT vendors and corporate users of Linux and open source technologies."
Stacey Quantdt today Posted Sep 25, 2007 1:52 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] This woman has guts: she opposed a vicepresident (who is a complete idiot) and stood her ground. And she was right. It is enough to give you some faith in analysts, in spite of all the efforts of said vicepresident.
Clearly the Linux community needs to ... Posted Sep 25, 2007 16:10 UTC (Tue) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] ... send threats, flowers, or whatever else is necessary to induce Ms. Quandt to write a "How I didn't get snowed by SCO" article. "See, I told you so" may be juvenile, but damned if it ain't justified and/or immensely satisfying in this case. ris could pick it up and post it to LWN's women-in-tech dept., futher dropping Jon's subscribership levels ;-)
Stacey Quandt (the "near entry level" analyst) and the NDA Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:20 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] I suspect that if LWN were to track down this "near entry level" analyst (and it took me five minutes of Googling to figure whom that is likely to be) we would find that she would not sign the NDA since it would restrict the analyst firm's ability to give advice to its customers. Presuming it was indeed Stacey Quandt (and that seems to be very likely), she's already said this, as quoted in this ComputerWorld article: But Giga Information Group Inc. analyst Stacey Quandt said she has discussed SCO's offer with her legal counsel, and if she signs an NDA, it may hinder her ability to write about it. She could get subpoenaed as well. Quandt called the offer a PR stunt.And if you think about that for a moment, it goes a step further -- presumably, the "legal counsel" she mentions was Giga Information Group's own lawyers, which Enderle then apparently decided to ignore. Total speculation: she told the company lawyers what he said, and they also cautioned him. Or, as Enderle says in the article: "[she] then did everything in her power to keep me from meeting with them". Well, Rob, she tried to save you, but some thanks she gets.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 26, 2007 19:33 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, and we're pretty sure it was the same information as they presented "encrypted" at a conference. Nice for us, it seems they thought that switching the font to "symbol" was a secure way to hide the actual code.
There was a lot of discussion about the examples at the time, but from memory they broke into three pieces:
1) standard macro defintions like errno.h and signal.h
2) the BPF code
3) a short kernel-space implementation of malloc for SGI's Altix platform
All in all is was a tiny amount of code, and it demonstrated SCO's ineptitude (and possibly intentional deception) more than anything else.
The fact that the analysts kept clinging to SCO's claims (which continued to expand) after this debunking is what really raised red flags, at least in my mind. I now instantly notice when an analyst is quoted, which is far too often, and how they never say anything very insightful. In short, I learned to not assume that people reporting the news have done their homework, and to not rule out the possibility that they have an undisclosed relationship with what they are reporting on.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:03 UTC (Mon) by jpick (subscriber, #29470) [Link] The true mark of a lazy tech journalist is to include a quote from Rob Enderle.
At least it makes it easy to decide what not to read.
SCO and the Three Stooges Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:04 UTC (Mon) by esr (guest, #14345) [Link] <p>Anyone with an interest in this thread might be at least entertained by my piece <a href="http://www.opensource.org/node/197">SCO and the Three Stooges</a>.</p>
SCO and the Three Stooges Posted Sep 25, 2007 11:46 UTC (Tue) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] Hey Eric, the stooges have apparently been procreating down under:
There is little doubt the open-source software movement has anti-capitalist elements. It even has a manifesto, the well-known tract The Cathedral and the Bazaar, written by the movement's very own Karl Marx, Eric Raymond (find it at catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar).
SCO and the Three Stooges Posted Sep 25, 2007 13:24 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Wow. That *has* to be a troll. I can think of fewer more effective ways ofgetting a detonating ESR than to compare him to Marx :)
SCO and the Three Stooges Posted Sep 25, 2007 12:29 UTC (Tue) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] If I were writing that article I would have noted that the timing of both Lyons and Enderle's articles seemed to most closely follow SCO's Chapter 11 filing rather than Novell's courtroom victory or the many legal rulings from Judge Kimball indicating that SCO didn't have a real case against Linux (only charges of IBM's alleged abuse of the Monterey Project really remain to that lawsuit). That timing says a lot to me about both of them and how much they care about truth vs. money flow.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:08 UTC (Mon) by chrism (subscriber, #4713) [Link] His explanation is totally incoherent. "How many of you know who Milgram is?" Very high school.
Milgram Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:47 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] We all know who Milgram was, even if we don't recognize the name. He's the guy who set up research subjects, Americans, to believe they were torturing other subjects, and showed that many would happily torture to the point of death if they were told to. (At the time many believed only Germans would do so.) The research has since been demonstrated again and again in Iraq, Guantanamo, and other places, with despicable implications about the majority of Americans.
Enderle seems to be trying to say he's not responsible for anything he did because he was just doing what he though was his job.
misunerstood Posted Sep 24, 2007 23:53 UTC (Mon) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] I think his point rather is that he was persecuted by Groklawers' emails; that the emailers formed themselves into a pack and sicked themselves on him. Indeed, I am sure this was true - if you look at the email vitriol between friends in the community imagine what it would be by immatures toward perceived enemies.
Whereas Linus and others might have helped cool the ardor, that he was in real danger of being shot is pure hubris.
What strikes me first is how important his introducer and he thinks they are - how vacuous and how arrogant.
second, for someone to have sacrificed truth because 1) it makes for a good argument or 2) because someone sent you hate mail, is simply someone with a very low regard for truth.
yes, it takes work to be a better person. so what.
Personally I hope he finds peace on this issue, but imho I don't think he'll find it in the direction he's heading
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 24, 2007 23:40 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I don't have the link handy, but there was a bulletin board discussion where you can actually see Rob make his decision to side with SCO. It was sort of a big flame fest about Rob getting fired from IBM and other rudeness (Enderle says he wasn't fired). At the end, he was like "Screw it. I support SCO now because of you people."
He really doesn't seem to get how dishonest that is. Either SCO is right or SCO is wrong, it doesn't matter if people are rude on the internet.
It's the same thing with the trollish pro con articles. That boosts traffic in the short term but it's not honest and it hurts your reputation in the long run.
And using a keynote just to bait people? Very mature.
I do think that people were too mean to Enderle, Lyons and especially Didio. They're all humans.
Too mean? Posted Sep 25, 2007 11:49 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Too mean? They are supposed to be professionals. They are paid to get their facts right, and to stitch the facts into coherent stories. They took the money, but didn't bother to get the facts, and they made up stories inconsistent even with the facts they had. None of them has even the least plausible excuse for their extremes of incompetence. All that can be said in their favor is that they didn't lie us into a war, like Judy and company at the New York Times, but there's no reason to think they wouldn't have done, if asked to.
"Especially Didio"? Why does she get a pass?
These people are not just incompetents and liars. Anybody can be that. They made their living at being incompetents and liars. If anything, they experienced much less meanness than they earned: all are still employed, right?
Too mean? Posted Sep 26, 2007 14:13 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Yeah, too mean.
Rob was writing pro-SCO articles because he was pissed at the geeks. It's lame but I mostly pity rather than hate him.
Life is too short for the hate.
Too mean? Posted Oct 5, 2007 19:14 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] No.
Rob was not only writing pro-SCO articles. He libelled PJ from Groklaw, and spread lies about her. In fact, in this very article he does it again (``intentionally misleading'' etc.) He wrote flames, with hate-filled rabidness, not pro-something articles.
Please note: I don't think that PJ is the unbiased saint that she likes to present herself. But she is surely not intentionally misleading anybody. Her bias is very clear to everybody who can read, and she presents the facts that are the base for her opinions. One can disagree with her, because one draws other conclusions from these facts; but one cannot say that she is dishonest, as Rob Enderle does. (In fact, I disagree with lots what she posts beyond her legal analysis of the SCO story.)
And yet, Rob Enderle was still not able to admit that he was plain wrong. Go back and reread TFA.
No, treatment of Rob Enderle's rubbish is not too mean, it's OK.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 0:14 UTC (Tue) by BryceK (subscriber, #2886) [Link] My take: Once it became clear to Mr. Enderle that the FOSS community, unlike a corporation, would respond to liable with a mere hail of digital rotten fruit instead of a lawsuit, Mr. Enderle concluded that he could profit as a stooge for SCO.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 2:51 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Reading the article, Enderle's ubris is astonishing. He seems to think of himself as THE opinion maker, and can't stand losing an argument to amateurs like Groklaw or any other person with less seniority.
He states he initially got on SCO's side by chance, and stayed there just because he was incensed by others not playing by the rules (the rules having nothing to do with serious journalistic investigation, but about having connections and carefully choosing what statements to relay so you can pretend to be truthful and honest while making a partisan point).
Linux supporters are "criminals" because they didn't play this elaborate dance. They were crude, they had actual beliefs, they didn't limit themselves to press conference material, they ignored small inaccuracies and focused on the actual point, etc They disregarded Enderle's twisted analyst ethics, made a fool of him and still won the opinion battle.
Life is tough. Next time limit yourself to subjects where language skills matter more than truth, and the only victims are greedy corporations no one likes too much.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 12:31 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Also there such a huge missing part in the article I didn't notice it at first.
Enderle has not a single word in this long piece for his readers. Lots of words about market players, editors, analysts, Linux meanies, his own importance, but about the sheep who believed him? Nothing.
He's not just any journalist. He's supposed to give valuable advice to people. He's not writing for entertainment, or hunting scoops, but advising people. And here we see those people count for nothing in his mind.
He reminds me of the late middle-age knights that cared only about the artificial rules of their tourneys, and had completely forgotten they were supposed to protect people and win actual battles.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 4:47 UTC (Tue) by dune73 (subscriber, #17225) [Link] Thanks for linking this story, Jonathan.
So everybody agrees, that Rob Enderle is just covering his ass instead of stripping fully naked in order to apologize in front of people who threatened to kill him?
I think his piece is not entirely well written, but this sounds like a human being who is torn in between ethical principles and personal involvement. He did not manage to free himself back then and he is obviously still no able to look on the story in an unbiased manner. But at least he is able to think about this fact and explains his personal problems with situations as this.
I came to see that it is extremely difficult to stand up and state that the people who treat you nice are assholes and that the people who treat you like an asshole are actually nice. It takes a very clear sight and a big deal of detachment. Most people do not even get to see the gap. Let alone let go of their friends.
So if you are able to state, that you have always upheld truth and morale against your friends and in favor of people who hated you. Then you are free to cast the first stone. Otherwise, I think you should not judge Rob Enderle.
regs,
dune73
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 7:18 UTC (Tue) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link] > So everybody agrees, that Rob Enderle is just covering his ass instead of> stripping fully naked in order to apologize in front of people who > threatened to kill him?
Right.
> I think his piece is not entirely well written, but this sounds like a
You're making the rather large assumption that what he writes and what he thinks / feels are at least somewhat related.
> I came to see that it is extremely difficult to stand up and state that the
It's not difficult if you're lying. (and, ostensibly, lying comes as easily to you as it seems to come to Rob)
> So if you are able to state, that you have always upheld truth and morale
Judge him? No.
Exact redress for the measurable harm Mr. Enderle has done each and every person invested in anything linux-related? Sure.
Ensure that evaluations of Mr. Enderle's accuracy as an industry analyst accurately reflect his years of gross misjudgement? You bet.
Ridicule him and call him silly names? It's called socialization. :)
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 14:02 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] If I was breaking and entering with an intent to steal, and some meanperson shoved the nasty end of a shotgun in my back, I may find that I don't particularly like them.
These people were conspiring to steal the work of other people. Plain and
Enderle deserves the reputation he gained. He was a fool, a pompous fool,
Derek
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 7:30 UTC (Tue) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] In my opinion, too many comments here dwell on Enderle's assessment of his own importance. I think this misses the mark.
Clearing away the rhetoric, in this piece you can see Mr. Enderle frankly admit that he lost his objectivity, and doesn't regret having done so. People were mean to him, so it was excusable.
In a better world, such an unrepentant lack of objectivity would be a serious impediment to the career of a journalist or analyst.
Fortunately for Mr. Enderle, big technology corporations are unlikely to run out openings in public relations before he runs out of days until retirement.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 7:52 UTC (Tue) by swiftone (guest, #17420) [Link] Mr. Enderle frankly admit that he lost his objectivity, and doesn't regret having done so. People were mean to him, so it was excusableAs a person? Yes. Though the lack of regret seriously tempers any sympathy. As a journalist who is paid for (theoretical) objectivity? No. Not to excuse the threats he may have received, but if he reacts to flames with bias and taunts, he's in the wrong industry. Those that trolled him provided as much unbiased and factually based information as he was (and by this essay, is) providing others. That he uses this non-mea-culpa to lash out at others that don't deserve it (the "analyst" that "didn't have the writing skills" and apparently "did all she could" to avoid meeting with SCO, NDA not mentioned) without taking personal responsibility for not performing fact checking only cements the impression. In a better world, such an unrepentant lack of objectivity would be a serious impediment to the career of a journalist or analyst. Better worlds don't happen on their own.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 8:54 UTC (Tue) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] Regarding excusability, that was an inference I was drawing from Enderle's article.
Whether Enderle should actually *be* excused is an important question only for him, those in his personal life, and those who contribute to his livelihood.
Whether I, or most people in the Free Software community, grant or withhold our sympathy is, I suspect, irrelevant, because he does not appear to be seeking it.
Absolution requires penitence.
I'm not really sure how the community could have handled Mr. Enderle better. He dwells on death threats at great length, which he should if they really happened, but as others have noted, these are serious crimes, and Mr. Enderle has offered little information about his effort to assist the authorities in pursuing them.
If Enderle is concocting these threats as a smokescreen, he does a disservice to those journalists in the Middle East and elsewhere who really do have to deal with such things -- and often in environments where the civil authorities cannot or will not do much about them.
Microsoft's shill Posted Sep 25, 2007 9:16 UTC (Tue) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] " It’s been ironic that, while Microsoft is one of my clients, the company also is the only client that asked me to not have anything to do with the SCO topic."
It is ironic indeed to admit that Microsoft does dictate to the so
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 11:00 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link] Stupid question: Who the hell is Rob Enderle.
Or in other words, please, next time tell in the intro what it is about, or provide a tiny bit of background info. That makes it much easier to judge if the actual link goes to something interesting or not.
And no, "senior research fellow" apparently doesn't mean anything.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 14:14 UTC (Tue) by amikins (subscriber, #451) [Link] Industry tech writer who has historically taken the side of SCO. There's something like a feud between him and Groklaw. Not terribly relevant if you're not concerned about Groklaw or the IBM/SCO and Novell/SCO lawsuits.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 16:00 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link] Well, I did follow the SCO saga via Growlaw, but still had no clue who he was. I still don't see how he's relevant though, or do people really take him seriously? That'd be scary.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 15:45 UTC (Tue) by raf (guest, #35151) [Link] I saw an Enderle article here on LWN last year and wondered the same thing, so I poked around the web and wrote the Wikipedia article he's now so bitter about (I didn't contribute the "Fiona" factoid though).
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Sep 25, 2007 13:15 UTC (Tue) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] For me, the one nugget of newness in Rob Enderle's relentlessly self-serving version of history was the revelation of why he came to say the things he did. It seems that the reason he accepted anything SCO said with a childlike faith, and continued to carry their water long after Merriam-Webster had started carrying Darl's photo next to the definition of "liar", was that he was tricked into it ... by people who frightened him. Who knew we had such power?Hey, Enderle ... BOO!
Crazy conspiracy of the day Posted Sep 25, 2007 15:56 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] As Ingo very astutely said above, we cannot even assume that it was anyone having anything to do with Free software that scared our hero; after all it was just a bunch of anonymous internet threats and scare mails, wasn't it? Knowing his childish character, all SCO had to do was to hire someone to engage him in a public forum posing as a fanatic. They could be sure that the poor fool would join the other side out of spite.For all we know, it could have been Darl McBride himself. Or it could have been Steve Ballmer that convinced McBride to do the trick. Or (in a strange twist) maybe Stallman tricked Ballmer into convincing McBride to pose as a Free software fanatic, knowing that in the end Linux (the kernel) and Free software in general would come out fortified. It is hard to be sure of anything these days, with the internet and all.
Crazy conspiracy of the day Posted Sep 25, 2007 17:11 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I think that last option requires too much twisty-mindedness of RMS ;)
Rob Enderle and Treacherous Computing Posted Sep 25, 2007 16:34 UTC (Tue) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link] Well, I just noticed Rob Enderle is part of the Treacherous Computing advisory council. Notice he is touted as part of a team of "International Security Experts":
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/press/TCG_Releases/...
Once a shill always a shill?
SCO and the failure of analyst firms Posted Sep 25, 2007 19:45 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Let's say you are a paying punter of these analyst firms: the customer they are meant to be serving. Did you get reasonable advice from any of them concerning the SCO-IBM litigation? Reasonable advice is essential: the contingent liability is a SCOsource license of US$699 per 1 CPU chassis; the liability attached to IBM AIX machines is greater. My answer is no. Gartner said in June 2003: "Although Gartner has reservations on the merits of [SCO's claims], don't take them lightly" and advised "Minimize Linux in complex, mission-critical systems until the merits of SCO's claims or any resulting judgments become clear". This is arse covering by Gartner, not the insightful advice you are paying for. Gartner's later advice was no more helpful, note the "If you find SCO's case compelling" which moves the effort of information discovery and risks of its evaluation back to the client (again, isn't that what I'm paying you for?):
In Oct 2003 George Weiss of Gartner was interviewed, calling Linux shops with no plans to pay SCO not "sufficiently concerned":
That a spectacularly poor call. That 84% of CIOs were following what proved to be the optimal strategy, not wasting their time on unfounded litigation. And so it goes on with essentially the same advice for three years until this September:
Those "few" presumably would include customers who followed Gartner's advice. Now I'm just picking on one well-known firm here. But I could go through all of the major firms and show that they mis-called the result, ignoring early indications that SCO were full of hot air such as SGI's trawl through the Linux kernel and the bizarre SCO Forum 2003 "evidence". A few boutique firms called it right. How did they do that? In general, they ignored the PR from both sides, considered the actual claims and evaluated them against the code. Those big firm analysts go to too many vendor long lunches and believe too much of what they hear there -- they don't get their hands dirty and are too easily snowed. Now maybe what the analysts thought privately and what they said publicly differed. That could only be the result of a simple lack of courage. Customers are paying for analysts' best advice. If analysts are not able to provide their best advice they should not take your money nor offer other advice. Of course, all this assumes that the CIO is the real client of these firms, not vendors paying for reports to use as a sophisticated form of advertising. The analyst firms say that the CIO's interests are dearest to their hearts. The analyst firms' performance in serving the CIO's interests in the most prominent IT litigation in years says otherwise.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: Bashing Groklaw Posted Sep 27, 2007 11:10 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] This is not the first time I've seen Groklaw bashing. In every instance, no actual evidence is provided.
SCO, Linux and Rob Enderle: A Conclusion (TG Daily) Posted Oct 5, 2007 4:14 UTC (Fri) by dan_b (guest, #22105) [Link] Compare and contrast:
"I use [Wikipedia] as an example of why you can't trust Open
and
"[SCO] showed me what they claimed was copied code. As it turned
Sounds like it's not just "Open Source" that requires fact
|
|||||||||||