<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF 
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
>

  <channel rdf:about="http://lwn.net/headlines/46229/">
    <title>LWN: Comments on "ESR: Let SCO hang itself"</title>
    <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46229/</link>
    <description>
This is a special feed containing comments posted
to the individual LWN article titled &quot;ESR: Let SCO hang itself&quot;.

    </description>

    <syn:updatePeriod>hourly</syn:updatePeriod>
    <syn:updateFrequency>2</syn:updateFrequency>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46368/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46365/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46347/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46335/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46325/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46294/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46278/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46272/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46260/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46256/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46253/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46246/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46245/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46243/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/46235/rss" />
      
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>

  </channel>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46368/rss">
      <title>ESR: Let SCO hang itself</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46368/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T18:05:25+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>wwns</dc:creator>
      <description>
      I assume that SCO was just cleaning various useful things from their web servers this weekend.  With all the anti SCO evidence they had on their site I would not be surprised.  My thoughts on the controversy and the outcome can
be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wwns.com/wwns/staff/david/sco-linux_controversy.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;
 After that there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wwns.com/wwns/scoinquiry.html&quot;&gt;test&lt;/a&gt; :-).  I hope others find in worthwhile.

Dave
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46365/rss">
      <title>ESR: Let SCO hang itself</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46365/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T17:40:44+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>strombrg</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Rumor has it that SCO has an ftp server up that's vulnerable to a remote-root exploit.&lt;p&gt;If someone cracks it, SCO will be able to say &amp;quot;Look at those mean linux people attacking us again!&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Look how insecure linux is.  You wouldn't have this problem if you bought our products...&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Further, rumor has it that someone has been trying to alert SCO to this problem, and SCO has been deftly ignoring it.&lt;p&gt;The question then is, &amp;quot;Has SCO intentionally left that vulnerability, so they can spread FUD with righteous indignation?&amp;quot;  Seems like maybe they want us to hang ourselves.&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in some more information on this, check out an archive of the full-disclosure mailing list.&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46347/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46347/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T16:38:24+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>jeff@uclinux.org</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Silence is golden... facts speak for themselves.  Eric doesn't speak for &amp;quot;the community&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Eric is however a part of &amp;quot;the community&amp;quot; that often speaks.&lt;p&gt;Jeff.
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46335/rss">
      <title>Scox &quot;upgrading&quot; service from Linux to &quot;real&quot; UNIX</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46335/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T16:23:12+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>walterbyrd</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Apparently it was embarassing to scox to run their own web servers on mandrake linux. Scox is trying to switch over to unix, and having some trouble.&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46325/rss">
      <title>Eric's source</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46325/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T15:01:21+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>dwalters</dc:creator>
      <description>
      With friends like this, who needs enemies!&lt;p&gt;I trust Eric will do the right thing and co-operate with the authorities in telling them everything he knows about this &amp;quot;associate&amp;quot; of the attacker.&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46294/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46294/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T11:45:32+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>WRatzka</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Sorry, but the link between the DOS attack and the Linux community would have &lt;br&gt;been made anyway.&lt;br&gt;So it is important to emphasize, that such actions are not condoned by the&lt;br&gt;community.&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46278/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46278/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T09:42:06+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>antonio</dc:creator>
      <description>
      I don't think Eric's letter was a good idea. Can you imagine the headlines that SCO and other Open Source opponents can make out of this? &lt;br&gt;There was no need to establish in public a connection between our community and the DOS attack.&lt;p&gt;Eric, please think twice before speaking for us (or ask somebody for advice before doing it)
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46272/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46272/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T05:14:26+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>bojan</dc:creator>
      <description>
      &amp;gt; So, unless ESR knows something we don't (I certainly hope he doesn't), it would be better if he didn't come out with things like this.&lt;p&gt;Apparently he does know more:&lt;p&gt;http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46260/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46260/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-25T00:12:07+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>namaseit</dc:creator>
      <description>
      I have actually seen this happen before earlier this week. Exact same thing happened to &lt;br&gt;homelan.com &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;It wasnt a DOS attack. Just a drop off. 
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46256/rss">
      <title>FYI: traceroute from down under</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46256/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T21:53:35+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>bojan</dc:creator>
      <description>
       9  137.39.31.190  182.438 ms  179.052 ms  179.155 ms&lt;br&gt;10  152.63.0.114  176.487 ms 152.63.0.150  179.120 ms  178.973 ms&lt;br&gt;11  152.63.1.26  218.494 ms 152.63.2.37  200.979 ms  203.032 ms&lt;br&gt;12  152.63.123.221  226.429 ms 152.63.89.233  218.978 ms  219.149 ms&lt;br&gt;13  152.63.72.77  218.351 ms  219.054 ms 152.63.72.81  217.111 ms&lt;br&gt;14  157.130.162.54  210.334 ms  211.010 ms  212.945 ms&lt;br&gt;15  * * *&lt;p&gt;This is where it ends. You can also read about this here: http://news.netcraft.com/. It isn't clear at this point that this is a DOS attack. So, unless ESR knows something we don't (I certainly hope he doesn't), it would be better if he didn't come out with things like this.
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46253/rss">
      <title>Not clearly DDOS</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46253/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T19:59:53+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>ccchips</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Nonetheless, it's good to see that there are people who will stand up for proper behavior.&lt;p&gt;It's not so much that somebody involved with Linux did it, as that we won't tolerate such behavior.
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46246/rss">
      <title>Re: Not clearly DDOS</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46246/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T18:13:07+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>fLameDogg</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Or SCO is doing it to themselves, with hopes of giving the OSS/FS community a black eye.&lt;p&gt;Okay, maybe that's a little off the deep end...
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46245/rss">
      <title>Not clearly DDOS</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46245/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T17:30:12+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>rst</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Further analysis by folks in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://radiocomments.userland.com/comments?u=120124&amp;p=247&quot;&gt;comment thread&lt;/a&gt; on 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/&quot;&gt;GrokLaw&lt;/a&gt; suggests that this is more likely some sort
of routing anomaly than anything else.  Eric may well be jumping the gun here...
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46243/rss">
      <title>ESR: Let SCO hang itself</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46243/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T17:13:36+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>proski</dc:creator>
      <description>
      It's an insult for LWN readers to imply that those responsible for the DoS attack read LWN.  Try posting on Slashdot, it may be more effective :-)
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/46235/rss">
      <title>ESR: Let SCO hang itself</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/46235/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2003-08-24T16:00:06+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>dwalters</dc:creator>
      <description>
      I still can't reach sco.com (Sunday 16:00 GMT), so it looks like the DOS attack (if indeed that's what's responsible for the outage) is still going on.&lt;p&gt;Come on guys. We're better than this! This isn't the way to win this fight!&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>

