About this Author
Dana Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
About this Site
Moore’s Law defines the history of technology. It held that the number of circuits etched on a given piece of silicon could double every 18 months as far as its author, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, could see. Moore’s Law has spawned constant revolutions since then, not just in computing but in communications, in science, in a host of areas. Moore’s Law applies to radios, and to optical fiber, but there are some areas where it doesn’t apply. In this blog we’ll take a daily look at new implications of Moore’s Law in real time, as it rolls forward to create our future.
Media Bloggers
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Moore's Lore

« Blogonomics | Main | Last Friend Gone »

May 12, 2005

Tragic End to Jones-O'Gara Feud

Email This Entry

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn

The feud between Maureen O'Gara of Linux Business Week (left) and Pamela Jones of Groklaw has ended with O'Gara's professional destruction.

Days after SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed "Jones is not who she claims she is," O'Gara weighed in with a long, highly-researched piece filled with intimate personal details of Jones' life. It did not, however, substantiate McBride's charge. Pamela Jones is precisely who she claims to be, a paralegal turned journalist, a meticulous researcher, and an ethical human being. (No link to the story -- the reason will soon become clear.)

Jones responded with a Groklaw post accusing O'Gara of stalking her and trying to intimidate her into silence. Jones' supporters in the open source community responded to that with a letter-writing campaign and, one editor claimed, a denial-of-service attack against the company that posted O'Gara's work, Sys-Con Media.

james turner.JPGSys-Con then responded with what might be called a Blankenhorn manuever. Senior editor James Turner (right) described it on his blog:

First off, you all should know that the entire Sys-Con set of sites has been under multiple Denial of Service Attacks since the beginning of the week, basically making the place unusuable. So if the editorial staff (and especially Sys-Con management) seems a little distracted, there's a good reason.

There's been a bit more clarification on exactly what the future will look like here. From this day forward, there will be no more new material published by Maureen O'Gara. All links from the LinuxWorld site to Maureen O'Gara's work have been eliminated. All of Maureen's SCO coverage has been removed (in fact, except to the degree that we as the editorial staff choose to cover it, all SCO coverage period has been removed.)

So you'll continue to see the MoG byline showing up, especially on Linux Business Week, for a while. It will slowly dillute out as no new material is added, until it disappears entirely. This should make those of you who objected to her deletion en masse happy.

As far as apologies go, there's only so much that can be done from this end. The editorial staff of the magazine is certainly sorry that it happened, but we're not sorry for any action on our part. Other parties (most notably Ms O'Gara, who has a lot of 'splaining to do) must search their own souls and make their own decisions in this matter. I would say this though: actions speak louder than words.

Not only did they sever ties with O'Gara, they tried to erase all her stories. (That doesn't work kids. Take my word for it.)

It's a sad end to a sad story. It was nearly inevitable that, with the emotions and personal invective that surrounded SCO vs. IBM (which was, at the end of the day, a lawsuit and a business story) someone would go too far. Frankly my money was not on O'Gara.

But let me add this. My address and phone number are public. They're easily accessible. Always have been. Maybe that should not be the case, because there are crazy people out there, but I figure as a journalist I should live with as much transparency as I can.

I respect Pamela Jones' privacy in this matter. I understand she steps on lots of toes, deals with some fanatics, and prefers relative anonymity. Maybe, in her shoes, I would do the same.

But I haven't yet, and hope I never have to.

This is just business, folks.

Comments (52) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Journalism | Linux


1. saltydogmn on May 12, 2005 10:31 AM writes...

It's NOT just business, though. That's the whole problem. It's about a convicted monopolist trying every dirty trick in the book, to slow down the only competition it can't buy out. We are not going to allow them to get away with it. Period.

Permalink to Comment

2. John McPhee on May 12, 2005 10:37 AM writes...

Yours is the first story that explicitly calls attention to Darl's part in this. I really think the relationship between SCOG & Maureen O'Gara needs to be explored.

We know from several scoops she's had (The Val Kreidel death, for instance) that Ms O'Gara has extensive (or at least well-informed) contacts at SCOG and/or Novell.

AFAICT Maureen has been led down a garden path by SCOG. I, personally, would love to know the extent to which SCOG lawyers & SCOG personnel offloaded onerous work onto Maureen, so they (SCOG personnel & counsel) could not be held accountable.

1. SCOG apparently leaked a sealed court document to Maureen. IBM's recently - unsealed filings seem to be building a case for sanctions against SCOG lawyers for trying to release these sealed materials on three separate occasions. SCOG definitely appear to have used Maureen as a tool here.

2. SCOG and the attorneys from CompuWare apparently worked together to hoodwink Maureen about the one year late discovery by IBM of code in Perth, Australia in the CompuWare case. Maureen's spin was that IBM was unfairly abusing the court, abusing CompuWare and abusing SCOG using the same tactics, and if IBM were not being unfair, SCOG could win with discovery that IBM was withholding from SCOG.

You had to read carefully because aside from all that spin, Maureen also wrote "CompuWare has moved the court to exclude the new evidence."

So how does that work? CompuWare would "win", and SCOG is in the same situation (SCOG could "win big") if not for IBM's unfairness in producing discovery, yet CompuWare wants the court to exclude the discovery ...

It also turned out that one of CompuWare's lawyers had been writing anti-Linux, pro-SCO articles ("Linux users may be liable ....") without letting it be known that he was representing someone against IBM.

3. And then the latest episode. Darl McBride lets Maureen know SCOG's hired a PI & found "something" damaging against PJ. Maureen goes all out & finds nothing damaging. Yet for some reason Maureen persists.

Maybe a case of Maureen being unable to admit gullibility, of Maureen being unable to admit that Darl led her astray several times in the past, and following through to the end on what Maureen saw as a "good lead?".

After all, the CEO of a public company has just told the world that they investigated PJ & the world will be shocked at the findings ...

Anyway, as I wrote at the beginning of this post, I would love to eventually find out what the deal was between Blake Stowell, Darl McBride, Ralph Yarro & Maureen O'Gara.

Permalink to Comment

3. Chris Higgins on May 12, 2005 10:45 AM writes...

> It's a sad end to a sad story.

Yup... I wholeheartedly agree.... and I suspect that there will be loads more sadness before the entire tale unwinds.

> This is just business, folks.
Yeah - but SCO made it personal - they called me a thief (amongst other things). I have no business relationship with SCO. I am not a thief...

It should have been just business for Maureen as well, but personalities clashed and it became personal. It's unfortunate - but it happened.

It's also possible to reverse - people need to be honest to themselves, and then act based on that honesty. ( which is another reason why this part of the whole debacle isn't business any more )

It is a new world - with different rules.. but it's still the same old world. Newspaper writers in local towns take care not to piss off the locals too much - because they will all come banging on the editors door. In this new world, the locals are not just in your local town any more. We are all over the world - and we'll come banging on your editor's door if you annoy us.

Most of the time the editor will tell us to 'get lost' because the writer was perfectly within their rights to saw what they said... but sometimes we are right, and the writer is in the wrong - and then the editor must act.

Same old world, wonderful new world.

Permalink to Comment

4. anonymous on May 12, 2005 10:47 AM writes...

> This is just business, folks.

Except of cause if you are Val Kreidel or Robert Penrose. In which case it become tragically personal.

It is telling you feel that her new found 'persona non grata' status is 'tragic', what do you consider the supossed "suicide" of two people ?

Permalink to Comment

5. I R A Darth Aggie on May 12, 2005 10:47 AM writes...

>> It's a sad end to a sad story.

You're only assuming it's over. MOG (and G2) have their own websites and you shouldn't be surprised to see a followup on the first "story".

Since today is Yogi Berra's birthday, I'll remark that "it ain't over until it's over".

>> This is just business, folks.

No, it's been personal for a long time. When Laura Didio compared Linux users to car bombers, I've taken it personally.

Then there's this gem from you:

>> Jones' supporters in the open source community responded to that with...and, one editor claimed, a denial-of-service attack against the company that posted O'Gara's work

That's a poorly written line. James Turner said that they'd been suffering from a DDoS. He said nothing about the source of the attack(s). Unless you have additional information? do you know who is behind that attack?

Permalink to Comment

6. tech.nix.yoda on May 12, 2005 10:47 AM writes...

Even if it is business, she should have known not to cross the line like that. Anyone with half a brain could have figured that out. She was handed infor from SCO, ran with it thinking she would be the hero of the day, and turned into a flamming wookie.

SCO burned one of their biggest fans, who is left to talk to their side of the story?

Oh, and if buisiness includes a group of guy I know personally trying to steal my work, excuse me if I get a bit worked over that. Just personal, ya' know?

Permalink to Comment

7. Dr. Dennis M. Richards on May 12, 2005 10:49 AM writes...

It is said that Sys-Con Media still has yet to publically apologize to PJ. How the executives of Sys-Con approved the conduct of O'Gara for sometime now is beyond me. What MoG did was nothing short of cyber-stalking, clearly unprofessional and unethical.

I enjoy Groklaw and have been an active participant. I work for a law firm here in Knoxville, TN as Director of Research & Technology so I deal with many of the issues involved in the SCO v. the world cases. I know the new SCO software. It is not on my list of choices, it simply is too expensive for software that does not meet my professional needs.

PJ has done nothing but try to edit a very good blog site. She has been a wonder at holding Groklaw together as it has grown. I have emailed with PJ a few times and I find her a wonderful person. Do I care that she lives in a modest apartment that needs decorating, no...I have the same living situation, but in Knoxville, TN. Do I care that PJ is a Jehova Witness, no in the least. I am a Unitarian; you try being a Unitarian in the land of the hard-core Baptists, and I consider Religion a personal matter unless you try to control my religious beliefs. Do I care that PJ is 62, nope. {MoG, if you are reading, I am going to be 52 in two weeks, I like the new Mustangs, they make a great birthday gift. Oh, that's right you have had your "income" reduced.) I do not care if PJ is a Martian with green skin, and large purple dots, she runs a quality blog!

As to MoG's implications that all of us that are "regulars" on Groklaw, I am still waiting for the big checks from IBM. I am expecting them the same day I hit the Powerball jack pot! I work for a small law firm, make a modest salary, and live mosestly. To my knowledge in the over 100 years the firm has existed, they hsve not represeted IBM or any affliation. The other bloggers, that I have met, from Groklaw, are pretty much the same. Sorry, MoG you barked up the wrong tree. There is nothing wrong with living modestly.

Attacking PJ was wrong. She has done nothing more than run a quality blog site. The problem is that the folks at SCO and Ms O'Gara, do not like the nature of the blog. The blog is primarily focused on the issues of SCO versus the world litigation. The problem is that SCO keep re-writing its history and twisting court filings in unusual fashion. That causes them pain when the bloggers on Groklaw find the problems that SCO has. One must question why MoG has such a hatred for PJ, Groklaw, and even Linux. Why is this woman writing about Linux and Open Source issues when all she does is bash them. That question needs exploration. PJ is a star in the blog world, and deserve such. MoG is her own worst enemy.


Permalink to Comment

8. CD Baric on May 12, 2005 10:55 AM writes...

Why do you call it tragic?

Maureen O'Gara hasn't provided balanced coverage of the SCO vs World cases since the beginning. On a number of occasions, O'Gara has authored articles that have turned out to be nothing more than pure fabrication.

O'Gara's bias against the open source community was one thing but the factual errors and negative speculation passing as editorial comment made her subject to considerable blog and message board reaction - some of it pretty brutal.

Even O'Gara's byline feedback message boards were filled with critical comment.

PJ used to give O'Gara quite a bit of slack, stating she knew O'Gara to be a professional, perhaps taken in by SCO executives. After O'Gara continued her biased reporting and disinformation, PJ would then point our the factual errors and comment on what motives could explain the anti open-source agenda..

The final blow to O'Gara's reputation was when her own legal attempt to unseal documents in the SCO vs IBM case FAILED on all acounts. Even her erstwhile allies, SCO, left her holding the bag by failing to support her motion.

O'Gara's vicious, rambling and occasionally disjointed screed 'outing' Pamela Jones was the final act of desperation. O'Gara had stalked PJ, publishing her address and phone number, mocked her religious affiliation and even harrassed her aged mother until the police were called.

O'Gara will not be missed nor will her error filled and trashy harangues.



Permalink to Comment

9. anonymous on May 12, 2005 10:56 AM writes...

> This is just business, folks.

Except of cause if you are Val Kreidel or Robert Penrose. In which case it become tragically personal.

It is telling you feel that her new found 'persona non grata' status is 'tragic', what do you consider the supossed "suicide" of two people ?

Permalink to Comment

10. Brian Thomas on May 12, 2005 10:57 AM writes...

First, let me say that I have enjoyed - and still enjoy - your writing. I think it reflects not only a good depth of understanding of your (usual) topics and a mature and fair attitude. I'm afraid that's all too rare.

But (and you knew this was coming, didn't you) I'd like to take you gently to task over the PJ/Mo'G affair.

Probably it's just your journalistic instincts, or maybe even your editors' need for a story line, but your title was not only a heart-stopper, but really inappropriate. No, I'm not glad about the whole thing, but "tragic" is not a word that I would use, as a matter of integrity. I believe you are right that overall, the situation is tragic, but the ending is not.

Particularly in the light of some of the innuendo about various anonymous persons' ominous predictions of her suicide, and the fact that there have already been two suicides by people actually involved in this debacle, "tragic end" suggested that one or the other had indeed died, by her hand or another's. This led me to fear the worst - either that Maureen had done what people in her position have done, or that Pamela had been murdered (she has at least publicly stated that she would NOT have considered suicide).

Further, it is more than mere schadenfreude to be gratified by the response of the publisher; for me at least it was an encouraging sign that someone still has some backbone (if that's what it was, rather than simply bowing to greater financial pressure represented by the angered response). o'Gara's fate was determined by her own choice, and I am grateful to see that she has reaped her just reward. She alone destroyed her career, by abandoning journalistic integrity and even common decency. I would far rather she chose to change, but she didn't, instead going even farther than before.

You yourself should be glad of the outcome, given her determination to continue in this way. While it may cause you to fear for your livelihood, all I can say is: it should! Far too many wield great power without accountability - at least to just and proper principles.

A bigger criticism is left over from the last time you covered this subject, revived by your characterization of this business as a "feud" (you called it a "catfight" before). I think this is an unjustifiable, even unjust, characterization. Having read both parties' writings, I can say unequivocally that Ms. Jones was in no way involved in a "fight" of any kind, but simply calling o'Gara to account for her salacious, false and misleading writings. For this she got the bile of Ms. o'Gara, with the same sort of slanderous innuendo - and, so far as we know, lies - directed at herself.

I didn't write before because on reading your earlier article fully I found your attitude more equitable and fair than the headline suggested. But this time the headline was at least a bit over the top.

Permalink to Comment

11. _Arthur on May 12, 2005 10:58 AM writes...

Highly researched ???

Mrs. O'Gara is not even sure she found the right Pamela Jones home !

That piece of mogwash is peppered with innuendo, defamation and gratuitous slurs. She half-accuse PJ of Identity Theft, for no discernable reason.

The SCO clan (McBride, DiDio, Enderle) has bitterly complained having received crank phone calls, doubtless an invasion of privacy. They retaliate by publishing maybe-PJ's home address, and of her putative family members too, for good measure. That's not mere lashing out: that is deliberate intimidation.

You should join the outcry, instead of lending your support to abusive "journalistic" practices.

Permalink to Comment

12. Peter A. Van Tassell (AKA inode_buddha) on May 12, 2005 11:02 AM writes...

My own phone number and geographical location are public, for those who wish to do the digging. Not that I advise doing so.

No, this is NOT just business as usual. My software freedoms (and responsibilities) are no more "for sale" than your freedom of speech (and responsibilities) is "for sale".

There are those who (as individual or group) either cannot or will not know the difference, whatever their reasons may be; and bitter experience shows that these are most often the first to try and charge fees for said freedoms, IMHO.

Permalink to Comment

13. Anon on May 12, 2005 11:22 AM writes...

In her shoes you might do what the same? The last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me.

Permalink to Comment

14. . on May 12, 2005 12:07 PM writes...

cdbaric, your reputation precedes you. *now* how much is trust worth?

Permalink to Comment

15. Jeff on May 12, 2005 12:31 PM writes...

You know, the funny thing is that here we are 5/12, and linuxworld is still linking to PJ article, they have posted new MoG articles, and sys-con has made no official announcement.

I think the only annoucement has been on the editor's blog. I think there is a bait and switch going on and MoG is continuing to publish on sys-con.

Permalink to Comment

16. Ralph Siegler on May 12, 2005 12:45 PM writes...

Dana, fine and well that your phone number and address are out in the open. But would you be happy with someone putting your mother and childrens address/phone in an article about you as O'Gara did? Would you be happy with someone implying your age, monetary means and religion had a direct bearing on the quality and credibility of your work? You are siding with tabloid trash type of journalism. What O'gara did was predatory stalking with intent to intimidate. Shame on you for saying "it's just business", that's what the mafia used to say when they evil.

Permalink to Comment

17. cat_herder_5263 on May 12, 2005 12:50 PM writes...

"Tragic End to Jones-O'Gara Feud" is such a melodramatic title.

I don't think this is the last we'll hear of this "feud". I believe Ms O'Gara to be a spiteful, vindictive person who carries grudges for a long time and who refuses to give the other party the last word. If she can wrangle it, she will get her backers in Lindon to put a pro-O'Gara spin to it that makes Ms O'Gara look like the victim.

We already know Dan Lyons is writing an article on the subject. Thanks to Turner's blog we know what questions Lyons asked and what Turner's responses were. Some of us remember Mr Lyons from the hatchet job he did on some of the regulars on the Yahoo! SCOX message board. Those he interviewed were blindsided by Mr Lyons' quotes out of context and anti-Linux spin.

The carefully burnished propaganda Mr Lyons can turn out that makes Ms O'Gara's work look amateurish. I wonder how he will treat the subject.


Permalink to Comment

18. pj on May 12, 2005 12:52 PM writes...

Mr. Turner has stated both publicly and in a private email to me that the attacks on Sys-Con began over the weekend. O'Gara's piece appeared on Friday, May 6.

Groklaw's article was on the following Monday, May 9, long after the attacks allegedly began, according to Mr. Turner's testimony. I believe I can, and should, state that Groklaw's readers would never be involved in any illegal activity. It's a legal news site, after all. Some things are just obvious.

Rather, my original hypothesis, left as a comment on Groklaw, was that the O'Gara piece was deliberately offensive, in order to try to evoke an attack, so as to be able to label the community as extremists.

If I might point out the obvious, if there is an attack, they can't know from whom it came at this point. No, instead, speculation about who is behind it, if it is actually an attack, is printed as if it were a fact, just like when SCO was attacked, and they too tried to blame it on the Linux community only to find out later that it was Windows-using mobsters in Eastern Europe, or so security researchers later publicly stated.

Permalink to Comment

19. Wang-Lo on May 12, 2005 02:39 PM writes...

I cannot agree with your characterization of the recent news about O'Gara as 'tragic'. If the general public had uncomplainingly allowed her to continue publishing such slime, that would have been 'tragic'.


Permalink to Comment

20. Nate on May 12, 2005 03:30 PM writes...

Mr. Blankenhorn, I must respectfully say that I believe your article does not take this matter as seriously as it should, and the title of piece is, frankly, bewildering to me. Applying the word "tragic" to the consequences of O'Gara's actions is a plain misuse if the term, as is your description of her latest piece as "highly researched". O'Gara has done nothing here, and little before, that requires a great amount of research. She brings neither technical skill, nor creativity, nor ethical considerations to her job as a journalist. She has conducted herself in this way for a long time, and the only thing tragic about this affair is that she was not fired earlier.

All that was just to express my frustration at your missappropriation of a couple of terms. More important to me is your casual treatment of the story that did finally get O'Gara's fired. Her lack of professionalism is one thing; there are plenty of mediocre journalists at work, and O'Gara is merely one of them. But her latest piece is something quite different, and quite worse. I want to believe that ANY journalist with a solid respect for his profession would be utterly disgusted with it. Your editorial here not only conveys a lack of disgust, but a sort of pithy empathy with her plight.

Permalink to Comment

21. Matthew on May 12, 2005 03:37 PM writes...

You are clearly proud of your contact information being publicly available. How would you feel about someone with a decently sized readership publishing photos of your home, photos of your mothers home and your mother's address, as well as the address of one of your children?

How would you feel if your credibility was questioned on the basis of your age, religion and city of residency?

Those are the very things that Maureen O'Gara did. She slandered an entire religion and made it clear she didn't think a 61 year old had any business being involved.

The article is still up on Maureen O'Gara's site, and a quick reading will reveal it to be not the "researched" article you claim, but an entry from the notebook of a stalker.

This is not a case of a journalist being censored for writing something that people. This is about a hostile incompetent who never researched her articles stalking someone.

I would hope that you, as a journalist, have higher ethical standards than Maureen O'Gara, as well as some of the mental stability she lacks. I would hope that you would never stalk a woman and publish personal details about her family and residence and claim it's "news".

Permalink to Comment

22. Dana Blankenhorn on May 12, 2005 04:03 PM writes...

C'mon, guys and girls, just four more flames and we'll tie Glenn Reynolds for the longest discussion thread (so far) on Mooreslore.

You can do it! (And frankly I'm enjoying the comments here a lot more than on that other thread. They're longer, for one thing.)

Permalink to Comment

23. Brad Hutchings on May 12, 2005 04:12 PM writes...

I was just thinking... PJ brings this on herself with her naivité about her side's intentions, and then I read her comment above!

I believe I can, and should, state that Groklaw's readers would never be involved in any illegal activity.

It's the same schtick she's had from the beginning, that no Linux developer would ever have done anything inappropriate with SCO code because the Linux community is so ethical and pure and little old PJ just can't believe that any of them would so much as talk back to their mothers. And yeah, MoG got a little bit out of proportion and will probably take a good professional whack for her latest article, BUT...

PJ's basic schtick is why some of the easily observed facts of her life are relevant. They are context. Her research may be detailed beyond what anyone else in the world would ever dive into. But she may also be walking around with giant blinders on that predispose her to want to find facts exclusively favoring one side (which, coincidentally, is what she does). I want to understand that naivité, and knowing that she is essentially a 61-year old shut-in with religious beliefs that dictate there is no heaven until all the non-believers are dead tells me a lot. As I say to the Jehova's Witnesses who come knocking on my door... "I really enjoy sin, and you look really warm in your suit out there. Can I offer you a Diet Coke?".

The messenger matters, folks. When you pick really weird folks as your leaders, it says a lot about you. Trust me, I'm an Apple enthusiast ;-).

Permalink to Comment

24. Brad Hutchings on May 12, 2005 04:24 PM writes...

Dana, you are hilarious. I'm glad you've finally figured out that "if it bleeds it leads" works for blogs too. Another great story that is sure to up your comment total is the Cnet article on whiney KHTML developers upset because Apple forked their codebase. You'd think as long winded as the LGPL is, it would have something that keeps for-profit entities that adopt LGPL code from just releasing code like their supposed to and otherwise hijacking the direction of the project from the saintly volunteers who created it in the first place. Heh. Personally, I think Apple should have to ask the saintly volunteers who wrote KHTML for approval for every line of code they wish to add and change. Not.

Permalink to Comment

25. cat_herder_5263 on May 12, 2005 04:36 PM writes...

Hey hey hey!

Things are heating up. Brad Hutchings is launching ad-hominem attacks. It's all downhill from this point.


Permalink to Comment

26. DavidC on May 12, 2005 04:44 PM writes...

>> Jones' supporters in the open source community responded to that with...and, one editor claimed, a denial-of-service attack against the company that posted O'Gara's work

Excuse ... where exactly is this proof?

Oh ... it's like the proof that SCOX gave a couple years back when their site was attacked ... sure it was the FOSS community ... only to find out it was a virus that also targeted Microsoft and a few other big sites.

Consider yourself chastised ... for that as well as the title and other triffles. Get your facts straight and loose the bias towards O'Gara ... it's misplaced.

Permalink to Comment

27. Brad Hutchings on May 12, 2005 05:32 PM writes...

OK, cat_herder, maybe I should apologize for whatever ad hominem attack I made and Dana could delete all of my comments here and throughout Moore's Lore. Basically just erase that I ever existed. After all, it is completely wrong to try to understand PJ's motivations, as SCO is evil and a tool of convicted monopolist Microsoft in trying to make Microsoft illegal, right?

Actually, cat_herder, I think you could read something else interesting into MoG's column... Not that PJ is on the fringes of the tinfoil hat crowd... that's too easy. But that she and her son have done a fair job of monetizing their Grok* franchise, and maybe the "open source people are so ethical" schtick I refer to above isn't naivité, but just schtick. Would you feel played? Curious.

Permalink to Comment

28. mikeca on May 12, 2005 05:33 PM writes...

You have chosen to make your phone numbers public. Pamela Jones has chosen not to make hers public, perhaps with good reason. Several individuals have threatened Pamela Jones on the Yahoo SCO message board, including 2 or 3 recent posters who said they expected Pamela Jones to commit suicide soon. Some people involved in the legal struggles around the SCO case have recently committed suicide, so that certainly sounds like a threat.

I see nothing wrong with Maureen O’Gara investigating Pamela Jones to determine if there is any truth to the SCO accusation about her. The problem is that O’Gara found nothing that was newsworthy about PJ, and published a childish and unprofessional article anyway that contained personnel information that should never have been made public. I find it shocking that a so called professional journalist would write an article like that.

As someone else already pointed out, if PJ had posted Darl McBride's home address and phone number, and the address of Darl McBride’s mother on her web site, SCO would be up in arms and attacking her and the whole Linux community for invading his privacy.

Permalink to Comment

29. CD Baric on May 12, 2005 06:04 PM writes...

Dana Blankenhorn "just four more flames".

I truly hope you do not view the comments to your article to be 'flames'! Quite the contrary, most appear critical without in any way being abusive. As a matter of fact, most of the comments are quite respectful of you and your writing.

O'Gara is a tragic figure only inasmuch as she is a victim of her own making. She has nobody to blame but herself.

I personally do not believe she was in the employ of any outside agent but she may have been cultivating some powerful allies for future considerations.

Have a nice evening Dana.


Permalink to Comment

30. stephen judd on May 12, 2005 08:21 PM writes...

Of course, the sine qua non of a real tragedy is that the hero - or heroine - has a fatal flaw that brings disaster upon themselves. Tragic is therefore a very apt word.

Permalink to Comment

31. cat_herder_5263 on May 12, 2005 08:44 PM writes...

Brad, you don't have to apologize for anything. "You are what you is, and that's all it is" - Frank Zappa.

You apparently are one of PJ's detractors, and if that's your agenda, I hope you're happy with it. I visit GrokLaw because it has links to all the documents in the SCOX vs World+Dog cases. I seldom read the articles, but I often scan the headlines. I almost never read the comments because there are too many fawning toadies.

----------------[ quote ]----------------
maybe I should apologize for whatever ad hominem attack I made and Dana could delete all of my comments here and throughout Moore's Lore. Basically just erase that I ever existed. After all, it is completely wrong to try to understand PJ's motivations, as SCO is evil and a tool of convicted monopolist Microsoft in trying to make Microsoft illegal, right?
--------------[ end quote ]--------------

Where in the world did THAT come from? You sounded pretty rational in your previous messages. I think it's foolish for anyone to try to second guess another's motivations. The best one can do is observe and try to predict how the other party will act in a given situation.

Getting completely off topic, I think that Microsoft and Sun Microsystems paid excessive fees for "SCO Source licenses" that they didn't really need. I believe there is compelling evidence that Microsoft or its minions helped arrange the Baystar PIPE deal. That revenue helped the former Linux distributor Caldera (now known as SCO) carry on their lawsuits.

The fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist is a total non-sequitur.

Getting back to the subject of Maureen O'Gara's article "exposing" PJ: Did you approve of the article? Do you believe Ms O'Gara acted responsibly?


Permalink to Comment

32. Brad Hutchings on May 12, 2005 10:09 PM writes...


"THAT" as you call it was just a sarcastic remark. I feel like Dennis Miller now, needing to explain the joke but really disappointed that the audience can't do a little work. You may think it foolish to guess another's motivations, but that is the pretty much the essence of what most of us spend most of our lives doing vis a vis other people, because that's what helps us understand and interact with them.

I don't think a lot of you get MoG. If you ever watch her SysCon video shows, she's pretty funny. Definitely opinionated, documentedly opposed to the GPL, etc... but she's pretty funny. I think that article is a result of trying to get an interview with PJ and not believing the circus going on in PJ's tent. To me, the article reads more as a comedy of the absurd than a hit piece on PJ. But at the end, she is piercing in the accusation that PJ has a financial angle in this game. It surprises me so much that nobody in the PJ Love Fest corner notices that. It also surprises me that the outrage seems to be over violating PJ's privacy rather than laughing at her, which is what I think MoG is really doing.

Permalink to Comment

33. Brad Hutchings on May 12, 2005 10:45 PM writes...

Why no uproar over this article? This was the precursor to the one we're discussing now. In it, Ms. O'Gara pretty much suggests that GrokLaw is an astroturphing effort. Don't you find that pretty hilarious Dana given your views about TechCentralStation?

Groklaw people, what do you really think now? Do you think that PJ is as MoG has suggested, a 61-year-old shut-in Jehova's Witness tinfoil hat type? And that she's been terribly violated by MoG's latest column? Or would you rather believe that she's a fictional prop, maybe a composite figure like Deep Throat? By which one would you feel more defrauded, or isn't it fraud because the cause is so important? I think MoG has been telescoping her next punch. You may think that by protesting to SysCon, you have succeeded in silencing her, but I don't think she's spit out the punchline yet. And the punchline might be so compelling that protestations from GrokLaw won't keep it from being presented and discussed.

Permalink to Comment

34. stephen judd on May 12, 2005 11:09 PM writes...

Do you think that PJ is as MoG has suggested, a 61-year-old shut-in Jehova's Witness tinfoil hat type? And that she's been terribly violated by MoG's latest column? Or would you rather believe that she's a fictional prop...

If she really is a shut-in tinfoil hat wearer, that makes her achievement all the more remarkable. However, that doesn't justify pasting her personal details all over the web. If on the other hand PJ is a front, then what O'Gara has done is harass an innocent old lady with the misfortune to be called Pamela Jones. Either way, O'Hara does not come out of this well.

O'Gara is pursuing a vendetta here. Whence the name-calling? Shabby? Harridan? Serial killer?(from your link)

As to whether I would feel defrauded if PJ were a front for some unknown party: yeah, I'd be let down. However, Groklaw would be not one whit less valuable. Much if not most of the research and analysis not done by PJ, but by Groklaw's readers. All of it is subject to what you might call collective peer review. It still stands irrespective of PJ.

Permalink to Comment

35. TomCS on May 12, 2005 11:28 PM writes...

Brad Hutchings aka Darl?

I don't care who or what PJ is, whether he/she/it/they is/are IBM legal, or the ultimate silver surfer. But Groklaw is one of the few sites which show what the web can offer above trolling and personal abuse, or the rabid promotion of extreme political views, frequently incited by the lead bloggers driven by the need to generate traffic: the lead postings are detailed, and supported by original sources, and threads are rational, moderate in tone and usually grammatical, and appear to attract comment from people with something to say and a basis from which to say it.

The MoG approach (in both the latest articles) is neither acceptable blogging (unless these are the standards of the community) nor, more to the point, acceptable journalism. Her fate is tragic only in the strict sense: madness/hubris leading to personal disaster, possibly driven by the Gods, and thus personally excusable, but no cause for sorrow. Remember that the Greek tragedians wrote in a religious context and were delivering ethical and moral, not emotional lessons. Her fate is a object lesson to others.

Permalink to Comment

36. cat_herder_5263 on May 13, 2005 06:26 AM writes...

Brad - you don't have to explain your sarcasm to me. It's painfully obvioius. Those same tactics were my MO about a decade ago. Get over yourself. Life will be a lot more fun.

The other O'Gara article is another fine example of her irresponsible megalomanic ravings. Do you enjoy astroturfing for a 56-year old shrew? Do you advertise on SYS-CON?

That's another example of your avoiding the simple question of whether the subject O'Gara piece was irresponsible.

Let me introduce you to Mr CD Baric in this thread. He's an avowed GrokLaw sycophant who refuses to give an opponent the last word. He has an ego and combative spirit that match yours, and he won't try to keep you on topic.

Have fun. I'm outta here.


Permalink to Comment

37. Brad Hutchings on May 13, 2005 07:19 AM writes...


My money is still on SCO efforts yielding some significant result in the IBM case. If it were such a slam dunk against SCO as the open source community thinks it is, it would have been tossed by now. Also, getting back to my original observation about PJ's "open source people are all so good and ethical" schtick... I have had experiences with open source people that were nastier and less ethical on their part (including a successful effort to tamper with a licensing agreement between two companies where no open source software was involved), that I know this just is not true. Put bluntly, your sh*t stinks too, and I'd bet it stinks a little in the IBM case.

So you asked... was MoG out of line with either article. Nope. Has her career ended with the latest one? Not by a long shot. Will her next article in this hilarious series grace the web pages of SysCon? Count on it. Because the next one will be relevant and controversial, giving us all something to talk about.

Permalink to Comment

38. CD Baric on May 13, 2005 07:46 AM writes...

cat_herder: >>He's an avowed GrokLaw sycophant

Not true. I am a supporter of Groklaw and PJ that has stuck to his position when the tide of approval has ebbed and flowed.

Perhaps you would care to cite where I have avowed to any such behaviour?


I didn't think so.

Your accusations roll off your tongue much more easily than it is for you to substantiate.

>>I almost never read the [Groklaw] comments because there are too many fawning toadies.

Whereas you prefer the Yahoo! message board because it is so loaded with intelligent debate and mind expanding dialogue.

There are some amazing posts on the Grolaw comment board by intelligent, educated and informed individuals. Of course they don't have BIFF, FCS and brenda but I guess that is their loss... No?

Oh, that was sarcasm in case you didn't get that.

>>He has an ego and combative spirit...

That doesn't sound like the temperament of a sycophant - I don't think you know what that word means.

Perhaps you meant to say I don't take any crap... including kitty crap.


I will note that a good deal of your posts here were all about YOU - by far your favorite subject in this thread.

Perhaps if YOU weren't so full of yourself, you would notice that the majority of the Groklaw comments are on topic and significant - there are just not enough posts about YOU.

A much higher signal to noise ratio than Yahoo! by an embarrassing proportion.

>>who refuses to give an opponent the last word.

You know, that sounds much more like your behaviour, in this thread at least. Lets see if you can walk away from this thread?



Permalink to Comment

39. MOG Fan on May 13, 2005 10:47 AM writes...

The day MOG was fired Groklaw suffered a kind of DDOS too, it is called 'the Slashdot effect'. Yet, no one said it was made by MOG (though in a sense it was).

Permalink to Comment

40. Nate on May 13, 2005 02:27 PM writes...


Your approach is characteristic of those, on both sides, who have some kind of emotional attachment to this issue, but are unable to marshal logical arguments to support their opinions. People like this (like you) on the SCO side are focused on PJ herself (shoot the messenger!), and seek to derive conclusions about the issue at large from her personal characteristics. Forgive me if I misjudge you, but from what you've written in this thread, I see little effort to debate substantial issues. Here are some choice quotes:

"It's the same schtick she's had from the beginning, that no Linux developer would ever have done anything inappropriate with SCO code because the Linux community is so ethical and pure..."

This is a straw man. Even a cursory glance at the material on Groklaw would tell you that this is NOT the basis of her argument. It matters not that IBM is/not ethical. PJ's legal analysis comprises the bulk of her comments. She has opinions on the ethical behavior of Linux contributors, and this ends up being the straw man attacked by those, like you perhaps, who cannot debate the community on the actual issues.

"... maybe the "open source people are so ethical" schtick I refer to above isn't naivité, but just schtick. Would you feel played?"

Again, maybe it is, and again, it doesn't matter. I, and anyone who contributes to open source projects, have our own experiences and opinions on the behavior of our colleagues. I don't care what PJ's opinion is; I participate in Groklaw because it provides the most thorough analysis of the proceeding that is available to me. The legal analysis on the site open to everyone's scrutiny, and it stands on its own.

"I don't think a lot of you get MoG. If you ever watch her SysCon video shows, she's pretty funny."

What? Are you serious? Is that seriously something that would change your opinion on what she did? This an especially interesting statement considering that a little later you write this:

"The messenger matters, folks. When you pick really weird folks as your leaders, it says a lot about you."

The messenger does not matter. This is so obvious, so true, that I feel condescending in explaining it. The messenger does not matter. The verity of a message stands on it's own, regardless of who says it. It's humorous to me to me that you actually believe this, and I think that you might, and that you have maybe even formed some opinions on this case around your perception of PJ as "weird" and O'Gara as "funny".

I feel compelled to reiterate that I don't care how weird the person named "Pamela Jones" may be. Her legal analysis is open to criticism from you and me alike. I have found it it to be reliable, and I gather that her opponents (Brad) have as well, because they (Brad) are mostly only able to debate her character.

"My money is still on SCO efforts yielding some significant result in the IBM case. If it were such a slam dunk against SCO as the open source community thinks it is, it would have been tossed by now."

I wouldn't really expect you to offer any logical argument to back up this statement, both because this thread is not really about the case itself, and because I suspect that you don't possess such an argument. IANAL, but your assertion that the case must have some merit or else it would have been dismissed already seems simple-minded. Just out of curiosity, I would love to hear any actual reasons for your confidence in SCO.

Permalink to Comment

41. Brad Hutchings on May 13, 2005 03:50 PM writes...


Forest through the trees, pal. Predisposition matters, because it explains her stake in the battle. She often says she got into this because she tried Linux and the open source community was sooooo helpful to her, that she couldn't believe they were anything but choir boys. I'm not exaggerating. Her story is that corny. My money is on this being a pandering tactic, but if it isn't, it certainly predisposes her to see everything SCO does as wrong, everything IBM does as right. And surprise, that's how everything she writes turns out!

Here's why the messenger matters. There are at least 3 theories on the table about PJ. The obvious one that everyone is reacting to here is that she's a shut-in crank and her predisposition isn't schtick, but reality. In that case, she obviously lacks experience with the Linux community before Spring 2003. So she has no examples to draw on of how open sourcers have, for religious reasons, economic gain, or other reasons, on occasion, flat-out interfered with business relationships between consenting parties. I have seen this happen first hand with a very prominent software platform in the mid 90s. I have also seen it happen at the micro scale in emerging developer communities. It works like this... Commercial developer develops and ships a product that people like. Some people are too cheap to buy it. They announce a competing open source version, promise the moon, admonish commercial developer for charging money, then don't deliver! This leaves a lake of FUD with people wondering why they should pay commercial developer for product if a free version is coming soon. If a business did that, it would be textbook tortuous interference. All sorts of people and mentalities are attracted to open source, and I'm not saying they are all like this. But I can confidently say, based on more than 10 years of interaction with various open source communities that they are not all saints. Need a current example? Look at how IBM has been trying to hardball Sun into open sourcing Java. They just purchased Gluecode, whose employees have close ties to Apache, which (light bulb moment) just announced it was going to do its own open source Java VM. Kinda sucks to be Sun, having developed and popularized Java and seeing IBM want to pick its pockets via open source. And from that kind of thing, I can conclude that (this theory of) PJ is too sheltered to even know what to dig into.

Theory two of PJ: she isn't as innocent as she portrays or might appear to be from MoG's latest column, and is in it with her son to monetize this Grok* franchise. I really don't buy this "innocent l'il old me" schtick. Paranoid introverts don't become Martin Luther King when handed a keyboard, and certainly don't keep it up for two years. I ask again, would you feel played?

Theory three of PJ: Pseudonym. Considering that GrokLaw has a significant influence on the perceived value of SCOX, would it be important to potential investors to know who PJ really is? What if it is a group of IBM lawyers, basically trying their case in a public forum? What if it's SCO lawyers, creating a strawman? What if it's someone trying to manipulate SCOX stock price? I ask again, would you feel played?

The messenger does matter. Transparency matters. Jim Kramer would have no cred if he played stocks he discussed, and has explicit rules about that. Cavuto requires his guests to disclose whether or not they hold stocks they discuss. PJ has influence and no transparency at this point. Darl, by contrast, has important parts of his CV online. If the Groklaw community doesn't demand that PJ come clean now, that community deserves what it gets later when more truth is known.

Permalink to Comment

42. Nate on May 13, 2005 08:02 PM writes...

Brad, your lengthy response completely proves my point about you, and I know that I have not misjudged you. None of your response argues the merits of SCO's legal case; you continue to pretend that the important things to argue about involve the behavior of the people now covering the story. You have obviously had some unpleasant experiences that have left you with bitterness regarding OSS in general, and I am not arguing that point with you. You similarly have a lot of suspicion and even disdain built up toward PJ, and I am not trying to tell you anything about PJ. What I am trying to tell you is that neither of these things has any bearing upon the legal proceedings at SCO vs. IBM, nor do they justify O'Gara' shoddy journalism.

You spent half of your response relating to me your horrible experiences with open source contributors. What can I say, that sucks; now please connect the dots between your personal experience and the mechanics of Project Monterey's shutdown (for example). Please show me why YOU think that Caldera's public pronouncements about the lack of demand for Monterey on Power, or their apparently contract-breaching development cutbacks, did not contsitute a shutdown in their own right. And please explain to me your view of IBM legal obligations to Caldera at that point, and support it with anecdotes from your professional walk.

You don't have to respond to that, for all the reasons I listed in my first response. What I'm trying to do is illustrate the point that you and I are arguing about two different things, and your argument is about something that ulimately will not matter, and is presently something that only you, MO'G, and Darl care about (I am exagerating, yes). The lawsuits will end, and PJ and O'Gara might fade back out of the limelight, and what will remain to tell of their efforts is the body of analysis and discussion on Groklaw versus O'Gara's tabloid style spin on news that is either useless (like reporting on her own efforts to unseal court documents that no one cares about) or laughably false (like her claim in January that the Linux kernal was going to be rewritten to remove IP infractions).

Let me word it in another way: PJ is only one of a number of people actively following, researching, and analysing this case. Those on the good side (every schwartz has two sides) are in the majority, and in the midst of some admitted differences have all come to the conclusion that SCO's case is bull-shitte. If one of these players turns out to be motivated by something other than the pure thirst for truth, will I feel played? If one of them is found to be on IBM's payroll (I chuckle as I write this), will I feel betrayed? Only if the information that person has disseminated about SCO-on-IBM turns out to be false. Find me something that PJ has written about this case that you take issue with. Not some opinion she has offered on her open source teddybear friends, something specifically about this case. Again, if you want to argue about the ethics of the OSS community, you are probably in the wrong place here (I don't know, maybe someone else will take you up on it. Anyone?)

Jim Cramer makes a poor analogy, because he is in the position to influence the behavior of the market with his public pronouncements. Not even the harriest SCO fanatic would claim that PJ is in dangering of influencing the court. PJ's pronouncements are relegated to pure observation and comment, and once again, the most critical thing to remember is this:

*Every* bit of research and analysis on Groklaw is open to scrutiny from all, and it is all being constantly tested. THIS is where the transparency is valuable, not in the personal lives of the analysts.

I don't really care if O'Gara is on the payroll at SCO; she is a poor journalist either way, and her "analysis" will be just as useless if it turns out that her motivations are impure. Groklaw is frequented by the giants of the industry, like Dennis Ritchie, who add their knowledge and opinion to completely public, completely accessible account of the legal case at hand. If Dennis, or PJ, or Darl or O'Gara turn out to be really bad people, the things they have written and said will have been tested in public just the same, and the merits of their analysis of this situation will probably not stand or fall based on their motives.

Forest for the trees? Really?

Permalink to Comment

43. Brad Hutchings on May 13, 2005 11:43 PM writes...

Um Nate... This blog post had nothing to do with the merits of the SCO case. Further, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. The examples of open sourcer misbehavior that I cited were to support the point that all open sourcers are not choir boys. I don't have a vendetta. I even have a product that has source code available and have contributed to several open source products in the past. PJ's basic premise is that FOSS people are so ethical, IBM could not have done anything wrong. To me that sounds either naive or like pure pandering. I truly suspect the latter, and so the reason "she" would do that becomes important to me. It is important to a lot of people observing Groklaw's undeniable influence on SCO's ongoing business.

It might just be that every last thing PJ writes may indeed be a fact. Let's grant that. Where her motivation comes in is then in choosing what to write. It's in honestly asking if SCO has a bone to pick, rather than just assuming because FOSS folks are ethical choir boys that SCO doesn't. I can appreciate how if you're caught in the echo chamber, this concept is beyond your comprehension.

PJ's ellusiveness gives us nothing else to go on. MoG had to start somewhere to gain some understanding of where PJ could really be coming from, because PJs story doesn't pass the smell test. Oh, BTW, you guys think you got rid of MoG? Not.

Permalink to Comment

44. Steven Fisher on May 14, 2005 12:16 AM writes...

"It was nearly inevitable that, with the emotions and personal invective that surrounded SCO vs. IBM (which was, at the end of the day, a lawsuit and a business story) someone would go too far. Frankly my money was not on O'Gara."

Out of curiosity, where would you have put your money?

Permalink to Comment

45. Nate on May 14, 2005 01:37 PM writes...

No, you're right, this particular thread is not about the SCO case. My dander was all got by your "my money is still on SCO" statement, and my point was to illustrate to you that criticism of SCO and their anitcs is much bigger than any individual, and will proceed with the same exercise of logic regardless of the personal motives of any individual. As for the rest, allow me another critique:

When you write

"Where her motivation comes in is then in choosing what to write."

You are implying that there is something missing from the discussion on Groklaw, that PJ's bias could cause her to be selective in her publishing, so to speak, in order to tilt the discussion in IBM's favor. So let me make this challenge as direct as possible:

State for us your evidence that PJ's bias has affected her LEGAL analysis on Groklaw; give me an example of something, anything, of a technical nature pertaining to the SCO case, that you feel may have been left out of the discussion on that site.

So far you have been able able to offer no better reasoning for your assertions than "PJ said the all open sourcers are ethical and that's bullcrap". And your defense of MOG is equally lacking in evidence. Show me an example of her work on the SCO case that brings anything of worth to the discussion. Anything.

It is notable that you have so far dodged my requests for some evidence to back up your assertions about PJ and your defence of O'Gara, and instead merely repeated earlier accusations.

Permalink to Comment

46. Richard Steven Hack on May 14, 2005 06:53 PM writes...

It's not "just business" - unless you consider fraud and frivolous lawsuits "just business" (which I suppose in this country it is - and perhaps in much of the world.)

What's interesting to me about this case is:

1) someone pointed out on another site the following:

Fact: Maureen's listed as publisher for her "news" site

Fact: is registered to G2 Computer Intelligence.

Fact: The registered agent of G2 is James V. O'Gara.

Fact: James V. O'Gara was a plaintiff's attorney in the case Addamax vs. OSF, DEC, and HP, in which G2 was also a claimant. A case which was Addamax lost. From the ruling:

"Addamax is alleging that the entire OSF concept is an illegal joint venture designed to influence the market for operating systems technology."

So, Maureen is the publisher for a company that already had a lawsuit attempting to destroy the GPL. A relative, also with a stake in that company served as plaintiff's attorney.

2) I am also interested in why Sys-Con was running ads from OSS companies such as SugarCRM on LBN when SugarCRM was NOT AWARE (until I told them) that their ads were running on LBN (their contract was for LinuxWorld alone), let alone running next to anti-OSS articles by MoG.

Maybe a little semi-fraudulent inflating of site hits to justify ad rates to OSS advertisers?

Or perhaps it enabled them to run OSS advertisers ads next to anti-OSS articles FOR A REASON (while still getting ad revenue from the same OSS advertisers)?

3) It's interesting to me that the following events have occurred:

a) Microsoft refers SCO to funding source.
b) O'Gara and Laura DiDio both write articles supporting SCO's side of the story.
c) Darl McBride blames the OSS community for DoS attacks.
d) Laura DiDio attacks OSS supporters as nutjobs calling her in the middle of the night.
d) Darl McBride attacks PJ, saying she's "not who she seems to be."
e) MoG runs off like a good little beagle to dig up personal details on PJ.
f) MoG's outlet CEO - Sys-Con - claims nothing wrong with digging up irrelevant personal details and blames OSS supporters for "DoS" attack.
g) Forbes reporter calls Turner asking biased questions against PJ. Turner puts his responses online to prevent misquotes.

Does this scenario look like an painted picture of an orchestrated attack on OSS to you?

Who do we know has the funds and contacts to pull something like this off?

Permalink to Comment

47. XenonOfArcticus on May 15, 2005 01:49 AM writes...

>"Addamax is alleging that the entire OSF concept is an illegal joint venture designed to influence the market for operating systems technology."
>So, Maureen is the publisher for a company that already had a lawsuit attempting to destroy the GPL. A relative, also with a stake in that company served as plaintiff's attorney.

Not that I support MOG here, but you have your facts confused. OSF != FSF. OSF was a group involving DEC, HP, Apollo, IBM and perhaps some others that made a Unix standard known as OSF/1. To contrast, FSF (Free Software Foundation) is the organization behind the GPL.

Permalink to Comment

48. Anon Coward on May 15, 2005 09:01 AM writes...

But she may also be walking around with giant blinders on that predispose her to want to find facts exclusively favoring one side (which, coincidentally, is what she does).


Brad, PJ publishes the facts. That there are 0 pro-SCO/M$ facts is more an indictment of their "case" than it is of PJ's objectivity.

Permalink to Comment

49. anon coward on May 15, 2005 09:08 AM writes...

My money is still on SCO efforts yielding some significant result in the IBM case.


I'll take that bet. email me at, and let's set it up.

Unless of course, that was more of your hypersubtle "sarcasm".

Permalink to Comment

50. secret admirer on May 16, 2005 04:06 AM writes...

Ah Dana, I think you've discovered one of the dirty little secrets of Groklaw; it has an unusually high number of obsessive weirdos! Look at the comments on this thread. This is beyond basic interest. These people are almost religious in their zeal.

Permalink to Comment

51. bobby on May 16, 2005 01:02 PM writes...

secret admirer on May 16, 2005 04:06 AM writes...

"Ah Dana, I think you've discovered one of the dirty little secrets of Groklaw; it has an unusually high number of obsessive weirdos! .."

A clean admission, actually.. Groklaw has an unusually high number of contributors/readers..
Could this be because an unusually high number of people have been disenfranchised by the 'proprietary' (read, "Mine & I don't share!") model??
Yep, quite a few of us are tired of taking it up the ___ all the time. SCO (& MS) have pushed to far..
"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."

MOG et al, was the 'crossing of the line'..

many have seen the benefits of the FLOSS model.. All are welcome to join (we are NOT exclusionary (only the 'religious' are that)(;-)) But, (MS be informed) We will NOT cross over to 'your' (read, 'the proprietary') side.

weird(os).. Middle English werde, fate, having power to control fate..

yup!. that's us!

Permalink to Comment

52. Nate on May 16, 2005 01:29 PM writes...

I originally put this post in the PARTI Hearty thread, but I really want it to be recorded as part of the discussion on THIS thread. Dana, I apologize for the redundant post:


The invective directed at you, inflamatory and off-subject though some of may be, is to some extent a natural reaction to your unwillingness, or inability, to debate logically and intelligently about this subject. These threads have attracted some people whose emotional ties to this subject seem to interfere with their ability to argue logically, and you certainly appear to be one of them. You claim not to have a vendetta against open source, and that may be fair; that's not necessarily the word I would have used to describe it, but your rather snide tone ("10 Reasons to Stick Geeks in Closets and Lock the Friggin Door"), and your unpleasant experiences with OSSers (which you have related to us at a somewhat confusing length), certainly lead us to suspect your objectivity.

Before you protest, observe the following:
You have been repeatedly challenged to produce something, ANYTHING, of a technical nature on Groklaw, the veracity of which you dispute. This could be an omission, or a bit of analysis, or a conclusion based on the material covered. You previously dodged this challenge by granting to me that everything on Groklaw MIGHT be true, but you then immediately implied that something must be missing: "Where her motivation comes in is then in choosing what to write."

A logical progression to your argument might look something like this:

- Assertion: it is important for PJ to be publicly accessible, with regards to her interests, history, and contact information.
- This is important in general because people in power must seek transparency.
- PJ is a person with influence, and her lack of transparency is hurting her cause (or someone else) because *BLANK*.

You, Brad, have totally avoided that third part. What frustrates people here is that you can't provide us any evidence, so there's really nothing to sustain an intelligent debate. What we want to hear is something like,

"Here's a bit of analysis that I disagree with, because..."


"Here is something important to the case that has been omitted..."

You have been asked for these things over and over again, and in response you continue to repeat your intitial assertions. You state your view that transparency is necessary for people with influence, and then leave it there, as though it doesn't need any further attempt to apply it to this situation. The closest you have come to a direct challenge of the material on Groklaw is to deride PJ's view of the ethics of open source adherents, and you repeat this derision ad nauseum. Your refusal to go deeper is a hallmark of a person aruing only from emotion.

What makes your position so embarrassing is that you end up parroting the spin proferred by Maureen O'Gara and SCO, and in nearly the same form. "Who is this PJ anyway? It's awfully suspicious that no one knows! You people are in an echo chamber!"

If there really is another side to this case that's not getting told, some body of analysis or discussion that is being suppressed or ignored, then SCO could start their own website, and you might be able to provide some of it to us in a rational debate. So far, SCO's own website has only manged to copy documents found on Groklaw, and you have only managed to provide your opinions.

Permalink to Comment

TrackBack URL:


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Legend of Dennis Hayes
Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
Welcome to 1966
What Must Craigslist Do?
No Such Thing as Free WiFi
The Internet As A Political Issue
Google Images Ruled Illegal
Fall of Radio Shack