Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Caldera IBM Operating Systems Software Unix News Your Rights Online

Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources 249

Posted by timothy from the truth-will-out dept.
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources More

Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources

Comments Filter:

  • It's SCO revisionist history (Score:5, Funny)

    by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:49AM (#10613475) Homepage
    Don't believe SCO's revionist history! Han Fired first, dammit.
    • I'm shocked.You mean a journalist would listen to someone who has an axe to grind, not check simple facts, and use forged documents to support its claim.? Someone call Mike Wallace. He needs to do a story on this !!

      • Re:It's SCO revisionist history (Score:4, Informative)

        by ZX81 ( 105194 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:01AM (#10614013) Homepage
        If you would like to contact Maureen O'Gara to let her know your thoughts you can do so at the following URL:

        http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=2390

    • Speaking of revisionist... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:46AM (#10614167) Journal
      Remember the *other* O'Gara story? About IBM's "discovery abuse"? Funny, that may well have been put out by SCO--see here [groklaw.net]. Groklaw refutes yet another wild story.

      As an aside, though, that sure looks like a direct quote of the article in the story above. I wish submitter had at least put it in quotes... *sigh* :]

  • Jeff Merkey's behind this. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:51AM (#10613479)
    Jeff Merkey has been involved in contacting media figures around OSS centric sites, and it's the information he's involved in spreading that's problematic.

    Like he's been known to do before, he spreads several versions of the "truth", often completely at odds with one another depending on which situation he's in at the moment. Having had to deal with him in the past, I can only say: He's going to get worse, and quickly. Never was a repository of 'just the fact ma'am' needed.

    The plan? to push management towards prosco.net as it will appear one HELL of a sane place compared to OSS news sites that insist on following Merkey's manipulations.

    • I'm not so sure... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:54AM (#10614220) Journal
      I don't dispute that the man seems to me like he has a screw loose (and that just from the posts I've seen by him--there are plenty of others who offer evidence that would tend to support the idea that he's clear out of his mind).

      Anyhow, if you read this Groklaw story [groklaw.net], you'll see that there may be a SCO lawyer connection here. That might be bad, because when they talked to O'Gara, they sure went on a lot about the privilege log and such concerning that privileged document SCO tried to read into the public record (which is *bad*). In other words, it *really* looks like SCO is leaking things it ought not to the media. Now, I can't prove any of that, but I would say that it's certainly beyond the appearance of impropriety to even discuss that with the media.

      As for Merkey, here, I doubt he was behind the O'Gara stories here--I suspect O'Gara and a source close to SCO were. Expect IBM to be on the ball here and to start seeing just *what* all SCO has told the media. Now then, you're probably right about him coming up with more wild stories (buying Linux for $50,000 and putting it under a BSD license to "save" it... after he removes all the "SCO-owned" bits).

      In other words, we can expect a LOT of crazy stuff before this story is over :] Damn, someone ought to make a movie out of it, though I guess it'd be hard to explain the importance of it to people who didn't follow this...
      • Damn, someone ought to make a movie out of it, though I guess it'd be hard to explain the importance of it to people who didn't follow this...
        A story in which a massive multinational corporation defends the right of the little guy with its lawyer hordes in a battle royale against creativity-killing, hard work-stealing greedy bastards from the most conservative of the United States!

        Yeah, that would suck.

  • Sources ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by noselasd ( 594905 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:54AM (#10613489)
    Indeed interresting.
    Now, where did the rumor that IBM said it couldn't find the sources come from ?

    • Re:Sources ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bwalling ( 195998 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:56AM (#10613491) Homepage
      In the world of Internet news, you don't need sources. You just need a handful of people eager to get in on the scoop, and whatever you say can proliferate quickly.
      • excepting the /. dedication to journalism of course, no fear of seeing anything unsubstantiated here.

      • Re:Sources ? (Score:5, Funny)

        by born_to_live_forever ( 228372 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:37AM (#10613581) Homepage

        Who needs sources, when you've biased reporting and scurrilous innuendo?

        Milo Bloom: Senator? This is Milo Bloom at the Beacon. Will you confirm that you sunk Jimmy Hoffa in your backyard pond?
        Senator Bedfellow: What? Of course not!
        Milo: Fine. I'll go with "Sen. Bedfellow denies that pond is where he sunk Hoffa."
        Bedfellow: That's not true!
        Milo: Okay. "Bedfellow did sink Hoffa in pond".
        Bedfellow: I don't know where Hoffa is!!
        Milo: "'I lost the body' says Bedfellow."

        • Re:Sources ? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Skater ( 41976 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @08:35AM (#10613732) Homepage Journal
          What's really sad is just how old that comic you're quoting is. It's from the mid 80's, I think. Sad that it would still apply (and a testament to Breathed's understanding of the world).

          RJ

          • Are you truly surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by born_to_live_forever ( 228372 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @08:53AM (#10613785) Homepage

            Are you truly surprised that it would still apply?

            This SCO story isn't just one instance of bogus journalism - it's a hypotypical example of the weaknesses of the journalistic profession as a whole (although I hesitate to lump that person in with the real professionals). This sort of thing isn't something that we're ever going to "get over", because it isn't just a "sign of the times". It's an endemic condition.

            There's always going to be a difference between conscientious professionals and sloppy hacks. In any profession, not just journalism.

            Caveat lector.

            • I the USA we place great understanding and value on the power of money.

              We understand it can motivate people into great things. Sometimes we forget the power of money, and forget to check where one's money is from.

              Usually the source of the revenue is who the person receiving it serves.

    • Re:Sources ? (Score:3, Informative)

      by schon ( 31600 )
      where did the rumor that IBM said it couldn't find the sources come from ?

      Ask and ye shall receive [groklaw.net]

  • looks and trustworthyness (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:56AM (#10613492)
    some people believe that o'gara is more believable because you know what she looks like. http://images.google.com/images?q=Maureen+O'Gara&h l=en&btnG=Google+Search/ [google.com]

    On the other hand, it's impossible to find out how PJ looks like. Or for that matter why she doesn't use dots in her initial. How could we believe her!!

  • pwn3d! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:02AM (#10613508) Homepage
    Clearcut case of failing journalistic integrity.

    Let LinuxWorld know [linuxworld.com] what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.

    Make it polite, short, and to the point.

    • Re:pwn3d! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 )
      It seems a lot of people have already contacted the LinuxWeek editors; they've posted a link [sys-con.com] on the front page to the story with the tagline

      Fed up with crap articles like this?

      Let the management know: lwmeditors@sys-con.com

      Way to get mileage out of tis bizarre mistake...

      • Re:pwn3d! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
        The tagline you are seeing is actually the latest feedback item posted on the article.

        Its currently showing:
        I call Shenanigans! (read more and respond... )

        On the LinuxWorld front page, and on the page you displayed.

        I bet the feedback display system works REALLY well for decent stories, but I think its backfiring here - or is it ALL done just for the page impressions....

        Their sites ARE overloaded with ads.

    • My letter (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mr.Ned ( 79679 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @09:26AM (#10613895)
      Hello LinuxWorld editors,

      I was very disappointed with the article "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code" (http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_p.htm) by Maureen O'Gara. I was offended by the demeaning tone of the article which shamelessly mixed personal opinion with reported fact. However, it has come to my attention that the article may not even have fact in it - another reputable news site, Groklaw, apparently had several people on hand at that particular hearing and not only reported that nothing Ms. O'Gara claims to have happend did, but also that Ms. O'Gara was never there. The full article is available here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023 153851359).

      I hope you investigate this matter to discover if Groklaw's claims are true. This is a serious breach of journalistic integrity that should not be ignored if LinuxWorld expects itself to be seen as a source of reliable news.

      Thanks,

      <me>

    • Target the sponsors (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wasted ( 94866 )
      Ladies and gentlemen,

      If you write to LinuxWorld, that letter confirms that they have readership and ad views, which is a good thing, and encourages that behavior.

      If you write to the sponsors and question their integrity for sponsoring such an article, THEY will contact LinuxWorld, and that will threaten LinuxWorld's income, which LinuxWorld will see as a bad thing. Hopefully this would discourage the behavior that you want discouraged.

    • Maureen has spammed me (over and over) (Score:5, Informative)

      by volkerdi ( 9854 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:13PM (#10614856)
      Let LinuxWorld know what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.

      Good idea. However, since sys-con (the company behind this) has supported Maureen's spamming operation, I can't say I think they all that much in the way of "integrity". Complaining to them about anything has been a waste of time for me.

      Allow me to explain. About two years ago I started getting "newsletters" from Maureen. To my knowledge, I never signed up for them or gave sys-con my primary email address. These were sent using a mailer by Lyris (according to their site "Lyris develops opt-in email marketing software"... oh, great), and were as spammy as can be. 10K to 20K of HTML marketing. Here's a partial sample:

      To: "linuxgram"
      From: "Linux Business Week"

      Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram
      Maureen is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the software have abandoned having press conferences ! ...
      Linuxgram is published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc.

      Send press releases to: news@g2news.com

      Subscription price per year: $195/?140 individual reader.

      Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Breaking News

      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-linuxgram-2307683E@mailbox.sys-con.com

      I will assure you that, for me, sending the blank unsubscription email was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I complained to every address I could think of @sys-con.com but the garbage continued to arrive. I finally had to resort to adding this block to sendmail:

      207.178.67.103 ERROR:"550 known spammers (sys-con) blocked by SPOO database"

      Suffice to say that I've (whenever possible) avoided doing business with sys-con ever since, and have lost most of the respect I might have had for them. So now they're spreading lies about the SCO case? Big surprise. Maybe there was some cash in it for them.

  • Good point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:08AM (#10613518)
    Groklaw seems rather peeved at SlashDot. Is it deserved? I'm not sure, but, it's worth thinking about.

    I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.

    • Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:15AM (#10613535)
      > "unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more
      > widespread readership than it otherwise would have received."

      If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.

      Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important, and as part of the self correcting nature of an unedited site, you get submissions like the one all the comments you're now reading are a response to.

      In other words, the O'Gara article came out, and slashdot linked to it. Then the groklaw correction came out, and slashdot linked to it too.

      • Re:Good point (Score:2, Insightful)

        by strider44 ( 650833 )
        I agree in a way. Slashdot has the right and in fact the job to link to the stories that concern nerds as well as the open source community.

        But really, come on! This one was just stupid. Slashdot do have the editorial as well, and some bloody common sense has to be used! Just take this exert:

        Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed al

        • Re:Good point (Score:5, Interesting)

          by igrp ( 732252 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @08:37AM (#10613738)
          God - really common sense has to occasionally be used. Though I'm not in favour of censorship, such a blatant and unrealistic article should have at least been delayed a day or so before release.

          Well, in my humble opinion, that's the real beauty. You not only get to make up your own mind. You get to read what others think about a statement, an assertion or a broader concept and make up your mind based on that.

          It's a two-way approach, if you will. Unlike a newspaper, not a single entity decides if a story is "true" (if there even is such a thing). Sure, the editors decide if it's newsworthy, ie. if it gets approved and if it makes the frontpage. But the determination if what the story is about is non-sense or not is left to the reader.

          And since Slashdot has such a wide-ranging readership, there are usually plenty of people to point out mistakes, misconceptions and straight-out lies and add insight to a story. That's actually why I keep coming here - because I'm interested in other people's views. I usually already have an opinion before I read the first comments (I actually do the articles, at least most of the time). But there's always a comment that makes me go "hmm, I never looked at it like that".

          That's what's so cool about having a global readership - diversity and perspective.

          • Re:Good point (Score:3, Interesting)

            by strider44 ( 650833 )
            The problem with the article is that it just has more openly glaring factual errors or misrepresentations than the "get the facts" campaign. I'm all for printing facts and letting the reader determine what's right or wrong. But really, half of the readers of slashdot just read the summaries. They don't read the comments or the articles. Look at the summary - it looks fine, told in the usual slashdot vogue. Click through to the story and you'll see crap, but half the readers won't be enlightened by the
      • Nobody comes here for just the stories
        Actually I know someone who does just that.

      • Re:Good point (Score:3, Interesting)

        by global_diffusion ( 540737 )
        If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.

        But you could also argue that since slashdot has become such a major player in internet news, that it should think about playing to higher journalistic standards. Kind of like how the news media is pressing Jon Stewart to ask more "hard-hitting" questions in his interviews [nytimes.com] after his cnn/crossfire comments.

        • Re:Good point (Score:3, Informative)

          by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
          "But you could also argue that since slashdot has become such a major player in internet news..."

          One part of my job is providing technical support to a (real world) newsroom. In the past four years I struggle to remember a single occasion they followed up on, or drew as a source, a story from Slashdot. Most don't know what Slashdot is. Stories from Fark on the other hand appear daily for filler.

          Slashdot is still first and foremost an online forum focusing mainly on computer technology. The 'editors' don't

      • It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.

        Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time. Thus, it's not just a link dump, and it does engage in a certain kind of rudimentary editor-work; it's just that "editor" is to "Slashdot" is as "artist" is to "stick-figure".

        I think I'll make that my new sig.

        • Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time.

          Maybe it's just me, but it feels more like script editing than news editing. The idea seems to be to provoke controversy, to provoke a lot of good commentary about the subject of the hour. Within a medium of links to old news Slashdot seems to have a degree of succes
      • If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.

        Read Section 2) Editorial Independence [slashdot.org] of this old article.

      • Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)

        by justins ( 80659 )

        If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.

        No. If that were the case the whole bit could be automated. It's not.

        Editors make decisions about what gets posted. They just happen to be very bad at it. But there is an editorial process, of sorts.

        Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important

        On the contrary, I'm sure there are

      • Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:37AM (#10614136)
        The problem is that, as I hypothesized the other day, O'Gara may just be trolling for ad impressions. If Slashdot dumps every trollish article printed by a marginal trade publication on their front page, it just rewards them for adopting the most confrontational approach and printing the most outlandish, non-fact based pieces imaginable. As often as not, the bosses seem to just look at the massive number of ad impressions these stories get and don't give a rat's ass that the attention is negative, not positive, in nature.


        Remember all the attention heaped on Rob Enderle by Slashdot? He brags about it. He thrives on it. Will it ultimately be good for his career? I don't know, but I prefer to take the "don't feed the trolls" approach.


        PJ (sure, she's a bit strange sometimes, but she seems like a smart woman) is right that the best way to punish people for writing this kind of fiction is to ignore it, not to give it maximal Slashvertizing.

    • Re:Good point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:19AM (#10613542) Journal
      I commented a while ago regarding the news source definition of /.

      Google ran a title from /. that misrepresented the very story they were aggregating. Thus /. dilluted the truth on this occassion to the detriment of the news reading folk.

      Now a link in the very same /. that proclaims this stupid story here [slashdot.org] points out that groklaw put things to right.

      However, groklaw v slashdot readship... so while I think this story is a bit redundant in news terms, it does go some way to patch up the and clearly show linuxworld.com to be a bunch of twerps.

      I say each sotry categorically states its news source(s) linking to a modded style news source rating (which moves up and down etc)

      Then msn.com/msnbc.com can royally go and fsck themselves in -1 universe.

      The story google picked up on was the Kodak / Sun claim case. I think google shouldn't link Slashdot stories - as they are not news sources, but commentary on news sources.

    • Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yep! PJ has a VERY important point. Slashdot has power and it uses that power like a MAC-10 with a rope around the trigger housing thrown into a room full of friends and enemies.

      Sooner or later, /. will lose the power to turn the public's attention to news that would otherwise languish in obscurity. In other words, /. has only a finite amount of power, power that will end. Afterward, people will look back on what /. accomplished and say "this part was all wanking" or "that part made a real difference"

    • Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frdmfghtr ( 603968 )
      I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.

      We've see this reaction before from a /. link, and I'm still confused. Isn't the whole point of publishing something on a website available to the public to get it read by said public? Don't you WANT people to read it?
      • There are good reasons for not giving it wide-spread attention.

        First is that the judge sealed the hearing transcript. Probably because one of the SCO lawyers tried to read sealed material into the record. Sealed material is not for the public eye. Helping to spread it could even be an offence, but IANAL.

        Second, links to stories that are debunked on Groklaw have a tendency to disappear, so the links could very well be dead soon.

        Groklaw is dedicated to accurate reporting. Providing links to bogus articles

      • Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mwa ( 26272 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:33AM (#10614121)
        We've see this reaction before from a /. link, and I'm still confused.

        I think you still are. PJ was not refering to /. linking to her site, she was refering to /. linking to the Linuxworld article thus boosting it's readership which she was not going to oblige.

        Somewhere in the Groklaw archives is a report on readership stat's for O'Gara. Her page hits are usually abissmally low. The only time they seem to hit the 10's of thousands are when /. links to them. So the theory that /. is helping to perpetual journalistic rot like this has some merit.

        OTOH, if /. is going to post about a story, I think they are under some obligation to link to it. In this particular case, Groklaw was specifically mentioned in a rather derogatory manner, so for it to not link back is fair because Groklaw has every right to defend itself against false and malicious charges without driving up the advertising dollars of those leveling the charges.

        Is your head safer now?

    • Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kaleco ( 801384 )
      Slashdot was justified in reporting the article. Slashdot, as a tech blog, was merely reporting that a claim had been made. If it ignored this claim, it could be accused of having an IBM bias.

      Slashdot does not claim to conduct primary journalism, it merely centralises interesting things that others have said. Which is fine by me.

    • I think it was deserving. Here's why: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @08:40AM (#10613748) Homepage
      "Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received."

      Here is what I think Slashdot did wrong yesterday when it first reported the O'Gara story. Remember, /. has great control over how a story is reported. It is NOT just putting up a link and that's it. A headline is created by /., and the editor posting the story has the ability to add editorial comments to what the submitter added. Finally, they usually get many simultaneous submissions, which means the one submission they picked is the one they think has the most interesting wording or the best links or something they feel makes it most post-worthy. With that in mind, let's see how /. handled this story yesterday:

      The submission came from Ghostx13, and here is what he or she wrote that caught /.'s eye: "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"

      OK, is this slanted? Yes. The loaded question at the end, the complete acceptance of the underlying Linuxworld story facts, all leads an air of acceptance of these facts. 'Does IBM have something to hide?" That's a laughable question given what the facts turned out to be, but it's a question that, left unchallenged, serves the wishes of SCO very well. That is precisely the sort of uneasy feeling they want us to have about IBM.

      Did CowboyNeal add any editorial comments to this? No, he did not. On the one hand, that's good because he didn't choose to add any slanted thoughts to the already slanted submission. On the other hand, he didn't issue any caution about the submission as /. sometimes does. That, in itself, is an editorial decision that amounts to him implying that the submission stands on its own. Because they chose that submission over any of the others, it implies they were satisfied with it as it was.

      Now here is the title that /. added to the story: "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code." Well, that is no longer true, is it, even if you read the O'Gara story at face value. So the headline refers to past circumstances that the actual submission contradicts. Again, an editorial slant that makes IBM look worse than the facts show.

      Finally, go back and look at the comments to that story and see how many people contradict the idea of the story, point out the true facts, etc. So yeah, I do think /. made an "unfortunate editorial decision" to the story. They didn't just give a link, but they made a series of editorial decisions that gave extra weight to that link, weight it did not deserve. Did CowboyNeal do this out of ignorance of the facts? Probably. He may not have had the time to research this. Was it deliberate, to stir up the readership and get lots of angry comments? I have no idea. But it wasn't a good editorial decision, IMO.

    • Re:Good point (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      this only makes Groklaw look like they are hiding something. truth does not emerge through the selectrive printing of prescreened propoganda, but through the widespread distribution of varied opinions and points of view, some of which are probably propoganda. The truth is further served by acive discussion on those opinions, a think for which /. is quite good.

      By whining that /. posted a unfavorable story, groklaw is establishing itself as exactly the fan stie other accuse it of being. There was likely

    • I'm sure (Score:5, Funny)

      by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:52AM (#10614202) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure the /. editorial staff will jump right on this. Not checking the background of a story could even lead to duplicative stories being posted. Heaven knows, /. would never do something like that.

  • O'Gara has an anti-Linix/anti-Open Source history (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ezraekman ( 650090 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:14AM (#10613529) Homepage
    Well, quickly browsing through other [sys-con.com] articles [linuxbusinessweek.com] she's written, a pro-microsoft/anti-linux bias can clearly be shown. This isn't the first time GrokLaw has reported on O'Gara. [groklaw.net] She also seems to go for more sensational headlines, in general. I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Here's my favorite [iwethey.org] quote:
    O'Gara's fondness for anonymous sources and unattributed quotes diminishes the corroborative value of the story.

    • Re:O'Gara has an anti-Linix/anti-Open Source histo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:47AM (#10614171)
      Yes, but most importantly, the article [linuxbusinessweek.com] you linked to makes it perfectly clear how she feels about the troll articles she's written. They get tons of editorial complaints, but the bosses love them because they get tons of ad impressions.


      Giving her articles front page placement on Slashdot is exactly what she intends. It get tens of thousands of ad impressions, her bosses think she's writing controversial, hard hitting opinion pieces, and everybody is happy except a bunch of fuming Slashdotters. This is EXACTLY like Rob Enderle - these people desperately want attention, and they don't care if it's negative.


      Please dear Slashdot editors, once it's been established that a particular writer is trolling for page views (i.e. they brag about how hated their articles are and exerpt Slashdot hate mail their publication has received) STOP giving them the front page placement they want, or you'll just encourage more of the same.

  • It seems even Maureen O'Gara thinks the article was not true:
    ( http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_f.htm [linuxworld.com])

    "Maureen O'Gara commented on 23 October 2004:

    * I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact.

    It was really hard to keep a straight face while writing it, and I was obviously hoping for the same reaction from my readers.

    Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read
  • Yesterday, I posted that O'gara has as much credibility as Didio in the original topic. I did so before reading the article.

    I formally retract that statement. As bad as Didio (and Enderle) are, Ms. O'Gara has sunk to a level beneath them. It looks like she is willing to tell outright lies without any effort to check facts. Rather than ignoring her stories, I will now read them so that I may keep up with the statements that IBM is likely to use in a lawsuit against her and her and anyone who prints her

    • Standard SCO tactic - carefully timed press release via shill to manipulate the stock.

      SCO vermin are either trying to make a quick buck through this, or they are trying to prevent a freefall of the stock once it slips below the $3/share mark.

      Over the past weeks I've always seen SCOX rebound in the last hour of trading every day I've checked. Far more often than other stocks I've followed, to the point of curiousness. Who on earth would be in a rush to buy SCOX at the end of the day? Regularly? And why? Hm

  • waffling (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:39AM (#10613589)
    In a statement released to the press today, O'Gara said, 'I actually voted for the AIX code, before I voted agaisnt it.'

  • Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Blymie ( 231220 ) * on Sunday October 24, 2004 @07:43AM (#10613599)
    Hold a moment here.

    Doesn't Linus _own_ the Linux trademark now? This being the case, is there not
    some form of direct action he could take, forcing anti-Linux websites from using
    the word "Linux" in their name?
    • Of course Linus owns Linux, so all works with that name appearing on them are derivative works of Linux and thus are also owned by Linus Torvalds. Linuxworld.com now owes Linus $699 per page view for distributing his intellectual property.
    • That would be a bit like admitting you are frightened of what they may say. Far better one should give them enough rope to hang themselves to vindicate your cause.
  • Thank goodness we have people like those involved in Groklaw who actually know their law and subject matter, and are able to correct this sort of misinformation.

    Companies like SCO depend on the poor skills (or the dishonest collusion) of "journalists" so that they can continue their skullduggery.

    Personally, I think SCO would do anything, even get a jornalist to lie for them, in the hope that they might just be bought out. SCO is a sinking ship full of desperate liars, but I think they're desperate to appe
  • The piece was intended as a satire that was mistakenly posted as a genuine news article. This whole thing may be just a weird mistake, but if so I would hope the editors at linuxworld put a disclaimer or retraction up ASAP, or they may be getting an unfriendly nastygram from IBM's lawyers. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that posting verifiably wrong information about somebody can get you into serious trouble.

    • I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)

      by Len ( 89493 )
      Someone posted a comment below the article under O'Gara's name claiming the article was meant as satire, but that comment is pretty obviously phony:
      Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read the M$ TCO one? It's a hoot!
      Note that you can post comments under any name on that page.
  • I went to the hearing, and all I got was this lousy staple remover [maihem.org]

  • Letter I sent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @09:07AM (#10613830)
    Here's the message I sent; cc's include O'Gara as well as the board of advisors of LinuxWorld's owning corp (Bruce Perens in on there... input Bruce?)
    To: info@sys-con.com
    CC: maureen@sys-con.com,samuel.greenblatt@ca.com,wim.c oekaerts@oracle.com,shandy@us.ibm.com,alan@sys-con .com,bruce@perens.com,simon@sphipps.com,gduval@man drakesoft.com

    Hello,

    Having read both Maureen's recent story

    <http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800.ht m>

    and this followup by GrokLaw

    <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?sto ry=20041023153851359>

    I can't help wondering where the truth lies. Was Ms. O'Gara in fact in attendance at the event on which she reported, contrary to the accounts of Groklaw? How does one explain the differences between what Ms. O'Gara wrote and what was reported by multiple Groklaw reporters? I'd hate to be left with the impression that something other than journalistic integrity drove LinuxWorld's reporting.

    - a concerned reader
  • So now that IBM has handed over millions of lines of code to SCO, and SCO's engineers have poured over it, will IBM be going after SCO for IP theft? What is to keep SCO from using IBM's IP from this revealed code? Even if the code is 'old', algorithms and processes don't necessarily age, and may very well still be applicable. How is this handled?
  • While it appears that the latest charges are nothing more than pro SCO FUD, I think their existence is not necessarily bad for IBM or PJ. IBM let Darl shoot SCO in the foot by making outrageous accusations and claims in the press. They have used his statements against him in court. Maureen will hang herself with her statements too.

    Maureen and SCO have a right to say whatever they want, even lies. They do however have to deal with consequences. This latest fiasco does illuminate some things about Mauree

  • A few months ago I read an article on slashdot about the creater of linuxworld advising against reading linuxworld now.

    He said that since linuxworld was taken over, it seems the entire purpose of linuxworld is advocate msft.

    Who took over at linuxworld? Any msft connection?
  • I think Maureen O'Gara, and LinuxWorld have an agenda. I also think msft is behind it.

    Yeah, I know, tinfoil hat and all. But, I've followed this scox-scam for a while now, and I've followed msft for even longer. There have been way more dirty tricks than I can even begin to remember.

    Again, JMHO.
  • This SCO case is turning into some kind of messianic saga, complete with apocrypha. Linus backs up, but does he save?
  • ... a slander lawsuit!

    Or am I being too optimistic?

  • delaying tactics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jjohn_h ( 674302 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:14AM (#10614304)
    Although Maureen O'Gara is creeping quite lowly, I wonder if she is worth much attention as a person. There are enough prostitute scribblers in the media and they are totally immune to any moral outrage.

    Instead, let us consider her role in SCO's delaying tactics. Last month, she was kind of announcing that SCO would charge IBM for fraud:

    http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384.htm

    And why? Because of a killer story unearthed from IBM e-mails SCO got during discovery. Well, if you have been following the SCO-IBM case from the beginning, you may recall that SCO charged IBM of fraud in the initial complaint of March 2003. They retracted the charge in the 2nd Amended Complaint of July 2003, which is the one currently valid. Just imagine, SCO would ask the judge for permission to revert to the initial fraud charge in a 3rd amendment. And they cannot simply amend the complaint, they need permission these days.

    One month has elapsed since Maureen's Sept. 18 exercise, SCO is not murmuring any longer of fraud charges, nor is Maureen. What can they do to keep the FUD simmering and delay the case to the end of time? A 3rd Amendment would help. Maureen proclaims it is already in place (in other words, accepted by the judge after consultation with IBM) and under seal. This time the reason is non-licensed code included in AIX. Needless to say, the issue is another rotting carcass of zero importance. For details, please do a search on Groklaw.

    At this point, let us refresh a few other details of the case. SCO succeeded in Summer 2003 pushing up the closure of discovery and the start of the hearings. But when Judge Kimball set November 2005 as new date for the hearings he also said very forcefully that there would be no further delays. However, a 3rd amendment would possibly make his position untenable both in respect of discovery and of hearings. If SCO gets a 3rd amendment, they will be able to request additional months for discovery and the case would skid to Spring 2006.

    Parallel to the 3rd amendment dreams, SCO is also trying hard to disrupt operations of the magistrate court managing their discovery shenanigans. First they introduced papers at the very last minute before a discovery hearing so IBM could not respond. The magistrate judge postponed. They took a dislike to her and tried to get Judge Kimball to convene an emergency meeting to bypass her. He refused. In the discovery hearing on October 19, they read from confidential material and it takes two interventions by the judge to stop them. One week after the hearing, Maureen O'Gara helps spread confidential details plus blatant lies purporting to be confidential material. This is an attempt to trap the judge in formal procedural errors - from which the desired delays may hopefully follow.

    Memo to los SCOjones: you will not get a 3rd amendment, not even if Maureen O'Gara and LinuxWorld present fresh fanciful reasons in November and December. The reality check is approaching, drop by drop. Next Spring one of the three pending Partial Summary Judgments requested by IBM will have been decided. It does not matter which one because that will be your end in any case.

  • "Presserat" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:38AM (#10614409) Homepage
    In the German speaking sticks of the globe there's an institution called "Presserat", which translates roughly to press council.

    It's not a government organisation, but rather a self control entity by the press.

    The idea is, that the public or victim of a press campaign can file a complaint and they will determine if the general agreed upon press ethics where violated by that media and/or journalist.

    Of course there are a lot of frivolous complaints around the lines "they shortened my letter to the editor" (which is perfectly fine as long the meaning is not distorted) or "this article hurt my feelings" (which a paper is not obliged to respect in the first place, you can stop reading it after all).

    What is a clear violation is to publish gross accusations (Politico Suchnsuch embezzled the church bingo fund and then fucked a pig) without confronting the victim with such allegations prior to publishing. A practical example was a paper being reprimanded for fotoshoping water stains to a blood red color, to make the site of a terror attack more ghoulish.

    Of course lying outright, possibly knowingly and heaven forbid! taking payola for such an outrage (alas I don't know if this was the case and would never accuse a fine member of the press of such an atrocity) is about as much violation of press ethics as humanly possible.

    Finding are published and the idea is that the media in question is publicly hung up high and dry and shamed into humility.

    It doesn't replace a libel court case, though but overall it seems to work pretty nicely.

  • Bad Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @03:20PM (#10615525) Journal
    Wouldn't an effective way to complain about poor journalism be to complain directly to the advertisers whose ads appear in association with the matierial?

    A simple statement of "As long as you continue to support the publication of (insert description here) such as in/at (insert example here) I will aviod the purchase of your products, and encourage my friends and workplace to do the same."

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close