| |||||||||||
The IT media needs SCO's web site.The IT media needs SCO's web site.Posted Dec 10, 2003 21:06 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)Parent article: SCO press release on DDOS attack
A denial of service attack on its web site is the best thing that can happen to The SCO Group. The facts that substantiate the falsehood of SCO's legal claims are on the SCO web site. The information technology media need to be able to get to it. For example, the web site showed the departure without replacement of SCO's Senior Vice President, Engineering and Global Services, Opinder Bawa -- who was later found to have sold all his stock in the company. On the web site, SCO refers to the announcement that Hewlett-Packard has indemnified its Linux customers -- and HP's due diligence is the best evidence yet that SCO has no case. With access to both Unix and Linux source code, HP would have been in a position to find any infringement, and apparently found none. SCO has even paid a 10,000 Euro fine because of deceptive statements on the site. Attacking the web site can only add another 10,000 Euros to SCO's bottom line, or prevent the authorities in Australia and other jurisdictions from taking action in response to SCO threats that are illegal there. In a press release regarding the latest DoS attack, spokesperson Blake Stowell characterized The SCO Group as a "legitimate business." Like most observers familiar with the company, I disagree with this assertion. But every day that the SCO web site stays up is another step toward putting SCO out of its misery, and ours. Don Marti
(Log in to post comments)
The IT media needs SCO's web site. Posted Dec 10, 2003 21:22 UTC (Wed) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] Seconded.However, not for the reason that it is convenient to have SCO around. That is invaluable as pointed out, but beside the point here. It must be clear that the Linux community are not the criminals in this game. Anyone that helps SCO portray us as such needs to be stopped. As fast as possible. Whoever did this is providing SCO with the most valuable assistance possible. I refuse to be bunched together with that kind of people later on.
The IT media needs SCO's web site. Posted Dec 10, 2003 22:27 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] I am with you here.The purpose of this kind of attack is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. We all know who patented FUD as a business method.
The IT media needs SCO's web site. Posted Dec 10, 2003 22:54 UTC (Wed) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link] Ironically I believe it was IBM...The term FUD was coined by a former employee Gene Amdahl about IBMs marketing tactics. Businesses can't be trusted. Always
FUD: a living definition Posted Dec 11, 2003 19:59 UTC (Thu) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] True.It bears noting, though, that ESR has found it necessary to acknowledge a hierarchy of evil in updating the definition of FUD maintained in the Jargon Files.
The IT media needs SCO's web site. Posted Dec 10, 2003 23:25 UTC (Wed) by krash (subscriber, #2689) [Link] Nice press release of your own there Don.:) Unfortunately we can't help it if the damn lawyers are too stupid to know how to keep a Web server running or if they just decide to turn it off for effect. ;)kr
The IT media needs SCO's web site. Posted Dec 11, 2003 9:57 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] SCO has even paid a 10,000 Euro fine because of deceptive statements on the site.Not quite. Linuxtag in Germany complained to german court that SCO was repeatedly making claims harmful to their bussiness, yet seemed unwilling or unable to back them up with any evidence. The court ordered SCO to either show evidence that the claims where (likely to be) true, or else, stop making them. SCO choose, of their own volition, to not even attempt to document the claims, but instead to remove all of them from all german communications, including their website www.sco.de Later, someone discovered that they'd done a poor job of scrubbing the website clean, a few pages with negative claims about Linux remained. It was for this breach of the courts order they where fined 10000 €. So you're sorta rigth. The claims *are* deceptive. And they *where* fined for still having them there. But they where'nt fined 'cos the claims where deceptive (nor has the court recognized them as such) They where fined because the claims where still there, and the evidence absent, after a court ordered them to put up or shut up. What buggers me is that something similar cannot be done in the US. It'd be a enormous improvement if SCO would be ordered to stop making ridiculous claims until such time as they are atleast willing to attempt to substantiate them.
|
|||||||||||