On Thursday 29 January 2004 03:43 pm, JoeHill wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:40:03 +0000 > > Richard Urwin disseminated the following: > > > Let me count the ways... > > > > Wow. > > I think your letter of complaint would probably end up being about three > > times the size of the article. > > Got a reply, guy is obviously up against the wall on this one. My responses > to his unrepentant journalistic ineptitude are included: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:45:16 +1100 > > Garry BARKER disseminated the following: > > It is interesting that it has stirred considerable reaction from the > > Linux community which, to a man/woman among those who have emailed us, > > assert that not a single user/developer of Linux could possibly even > > imagine doing a DDoS attack on SCO. > > I made no such assertion. And if you are getting this kind of reaction, as > you say, maybe, just maybe, could it be because you made errors in your > reporting, errors that have an affect on the reputation of the Open Source > community? > > > Yet the international press is full of such speculation > > Exactly. *Speculation*. Your 'article' included this statement: > > "Hacker activists in the Linux software community have been blamed for > MyDoom-A" > > Blamed by whom? What sources are you basing this statement on? No one has > presented one bit of evidence that MyDoom is the product of some misguided > Linux fanatic. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary, as pointed > out in the Atlanta Journal article: > > "Experts say the creation of MyDoom was almost certainly funded by e-mail > spammers. The worm takes possession of a computer -- either at a home or > one used in business -- and turns the machine into a remotely controlled > robot programmed to send spam e-mail messages." > > > for the perhaps overly simple reason that MyDoom-A carries DDoS bomb > > aimed at SCO. > > *Perhaps* 'overly simple'? Don't underestimate the lack of depth in your > reporting, please. > > > Your example of "how journalism should work" is, of course, selected to > > suit your argument, and you are entitled to put such an example forward. > > You could also have quoted the Houston Chronicle, but not the New York > > Times or the Mercury News of San Jose, nor yet a number of internet > > security companies who were making the claim. > > I have yet to see *one* report from any outlet that portrays the MyDoom > situation in as simplistic, skewed, and shallow writing as is demonstrated > in your article. Not one I have seen has in any way directly linked the > MyDoom worm with indignant Linux hackers. If you would be so kind as to > provide actual links, or examples of these 'security companies who were > making the claim'. Come to think of it, that would have been a nice > addition to your article, not to mention a part of basic journalistic > practice. > > Here are some links I found which do not seem to focus on the 'speculation' > about the involvement of the Linux community at all, or which identify it > as such, merely speculation, not blame. > > http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17501941 > > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114460,00.asp > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/27/scitech/pcanswer/main596054.shtml Go get 'em Joe!
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
