The FUD Is Mighty Thick Today (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Not quite

Posted Mar 1, 2004 21:55 UTC (Mon) by BruceRamsay (subscriber, #2068) [Link]

Note that linuxinsider.com is part of ectnews.com, not etcnews.com.

Clearwater, FL

Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:04 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

IIRC, Clearwater is the home of the Church of Scientology, which has substantially taken over municipal government. Has SCO been turned out by the Utah establishment and been obliged to draw upon shadier resources?

Registering a fake magazine is bound to backfire quickly, as it demonstrates not just a difference of opinion, but actual malice. Evidently they're only concerned now about really short-term results.

Clearwater, FL

Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:23 UTC (Mon) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]

I don't think it's a fake magazine; the Wayback Machine shows plausible-looking articles back to 2000.

Fake magazine? Don't believe so.

Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:56 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

No idea on the scientology thing, tho I don't believe they'd be likely to use
the "Christian" label so I'm skeptical. (That sounds more like the Christian
Scientists, entirely different.) However..

I remember seeing stories from Linux Insider for some time, possibly back
three years or more, to when I was researching switching to Linux. It has
seemed to be business oriented, targeted more at CxOs and down to middle
management types rather than at techi types, with stories carrying its
branding typically focusing on cost of ownership, etc. They haven't been
extremely positive on Linux, but they haven't been entirely negative either,
and their stories DO serve to give Linux important mindshare amongst
managerial types that otherwise until recently anyway might not have ever
heard about Linux otherwise.

That's if I am remembering the correct name, but I'm fairly sure I am..

As for the article.. it brings up some good points. Yes, I expect PJ is fully
legit and the allegations are simply FUD, but.. 10 miles from IBM DOES
deserve to be pointed out, considering the first case of the lot was SCO vs.
IBM.

As for the coverage I'm ever-so grateful PJ and Groklaw do, I believe it's an
important contribution to the publicity surrounding the case, and serves as a
strong voice for an open community that didn't really HAVE such a voice
until Groklaw came on the scene. Never-the-less, I always keep in mind that
there are two sides to the story and SCO obviously has a different viewpoint.

Do I believe in the Linux side? Of course I do. Do I expect it to win? Of
course I do? Am I rather mystified by SCO's actions and do I have trouble
understanding their viewpoint as a Linux techi? Definitely so! Am I VERY
glad PJ and Groklaw are there to present our side publicly as we were having
trouble presenting it, even to the point where most of US were ignorant of
the case to a large extent? Absolutely! However, that doesn't change the
fact that despite the cheerleading from my emotional side, my logical side
continues to point out that there *IS* another side to the story, one I
understand even less than the Linux side, because it's even MORE difficult to
"grok".

While I don't like the way this particular article from the "Linux Insider"
ends, without some more neutral summary, and without ANY evident
attempt to contact PJ for HER side, in fact, it DOES remain at least /sort/ of
neutral, in that it presents a bit of view and some quotes from either side, and
is quite careful to identify the quotes it makes and let them stand on their
own, making no specific judgement either way.

It's actually good, I think, to read the viewpoint of the other side on this.
Further, we now know Groklaw is causing SCO some definite pain, as they
are doing the only thing it seems they know how to do in that case, attack.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all if SCO attempted to press the license
issue or something somewhere and had Groklaw quoted to them. Let me ask
those here, then, if you were SCO and had Groklaw quoted at you, what
would YOUR response be? If anything, I'm surprised this didn't come
sooner!

Duncan

10 miles from IBM

Posted Mar 1, 2004 23:17 UTC (Mon) by carey (guest, #19902) [Link]

If you check PJ's response on Groklaw, you'll see that she has a Post Office Box 10 miles from IBM, but lives elsewhere. She seems a bit upset with the journalist who originally published that location after she asked him not to.

It wasn't just that Daniel Lyons published...

Posted Mar 2, 2004 0:30 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

...but that he'd published after tacitly agreeing not to.

That seems to be moderately typical of Lyons' style. Didio would be amusing if she wasn't so sad (she seems to have wandered into lace-up-jacket-and-soft-walls territory nowadays), and Enderle comes across in private correspondence as just an amoral jerk.

These three are special because they haven't pulled their heads in after having the sky fall on them. There are dozens more who made ill-informed statements but zipped their lips when they realised they'd been suckered by TSG's smokescreen.

Have I complimented them all, or are there more than three rings in TSG's media-flack circus now?

Fake magazine? Don't believe so.

Posted Mar 1, 2004 23:30 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

But she explained that she doesn't actually live there. She set up that
PO box so that strangers wouldn't know where she lives. And, as she was
afraid might happen, an unscrupulous journalist published her address after
she specifically asked that it not be published.

The FUD Is Mighty Thick Today (Groklaw)

Posted Mar 2, 2004 8:34 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

If you can't argue the message, try shooting the messenger.

I don't believe for a second that PJ is anyone different than who she claims to be. But I also don't see the relevance of statements like "I believe IBM looms large behind Pamela Jones".

Thing is, Groklaw, more than anything else, publishes *fact*. Now, if there are errors in those, anyone are free to point them out, and that would be more than welcome. I read Groklaw because it contains stuff like "Here is a copy of IBMs complaint". If that is, indeed, a verbatim copy of IBMs complaint (and I've never heard anyone claim that the actual information on Groklaw isn't factually correct), then the site serves it's purpose for me.

Fact is, anyone reading up purely on FACTS in the SCO case will get a very dim view of SCO and their chanses in court. There are just so many facts that when taken together, the picture is too obvious to ignore.

I don't care who reports it, aslong as it's true. If Darl himself reports that they have filed such and such document, it'd be a perfectly usable resource for me, provided it was actually *true* that they *did* that.

The FUD Is Mighty Thick Today (Groklaw)

Posted Mar 2, 2004 14:27 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Now, many of you are getting a real good taste of what happened to the drug-law reformers in the 1970's.

What are the results?

Well, someone very close to me was found waving automobiles off the road last year, as a result of trying to follow his "doctor"'s instructions for using prescription drugs. No abouse involved. Just following instructions. The drug companies are charging more and more money for substances that could be helpful to people, were they sold at prices that people could afford.

Does the above paragraph seem like a paradox or contradiction to you? If so, you should consider educating yourself about the history of this, and the politics.

It is no surprise to me at all that PJ is being smeared in this manner; expect her to be Public Enemy #1 some day (at least, in the ****-sucking press.

Honest reporting, on any subject, is not popular enough in these times. I know, from long, bitter experience.

What I'm hoping is that some of our younger readers, who have more time left than I do, can do something to change this, and make the changes stick. Freedom of the press does not equal freedom to lie, nor does it equal freedom to break promises.