Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Media The Internet Government The Courts News

Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher 279

NW writes "Tony Mobily, editor of the Free Software Magazine recently interviewed Fuat Kircaali, founder and publisher of Sys-Con Media. The interview revolves around the recent controversy surrounding the article written by Maureen O'Gara attacking Pamela Jones of GrokLaw."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free Software Mag Interviews Sys-Con Publisher

Comments Filter:
  • by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:40PM (#12525990) Homepage
    Lots of people seem to be attacking the credibility of Groklaw lately, this case was carried by several online media including The Register [] which seemed to side against Groklaw. A conspiricy by SCO perhaps?

    In the event of such a conspiracy, I today announce my new cut-rate prices of my credibility.

    For $20, I will state in any highly moderated slashdot comment that Groklaw may not be entirely correct and all sides of the issue must be looked at.
    For $40, I will embed subliminal messages into comments stating that Groklaw is evil and SCO is good.
    For $80, I will crapflood articles with SCO propaganda.
    and for $699, I will state that I too have purchased linux liscences for my company so we don't have to worry about the legal liabilities and also, Groklaw sucks.

    All Prices USD, effective date 13 Friday 2005.

    • Lots of people seem to be attacking the credibility of Groklaw lately, this case was carried by several online media including The Register which seemed to side against Groklaw. A conspiricy by SCO perhaps?

      Why is everything a conspiracy around here? MS funded SCO's bullshit lawsuit. SCO is funding this crazy lady's attack on our precious PJ. Much as slashdot might want it to be so, the world isn't out to get open source and everything slashgeeks hold near and dear.

      • Because, moron, MS DID fund SCO's bullshit lawsuit, albeit in a roundabout way (which is exactly the way these things are done.)

        And given that Darl McBride has made a point of attacking PJ and suggesting she was "not who she seems to be", and given that O'Gara had access to SCo documents unseen by anybody else, it is hardly beyond the realm of possibility that she is indeed an SCO shill and either on direct or indirect orders or on her own decided to pull this stunt.

        Which makes you an innocent moron...

  • by John F. Kerry ( 801779 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:40PM (#12525992) Homepage
    If I am elected President, I will submit a bill to Congress outlawing Maureen O'Gara!
  • by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:40PM (#12525993) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry if the article offended you nuts.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:14PM (#12526424)
      the story was perceived as offensive by a group of the readers

      I'll never purchase any publication by them again. Doesn't sound like there's much understanding there about the difference between right and wrong. Instead of a believable apology, we're presented with weasel-words.
    • Offended? Nope, no such thing. It irritates me that people are uninformed paid shills that has set out to defame and to harass PJ, and it irritates me even more that a so-called reputable newsoutlet carried it without a check. CBS-gate anyone?

      As for Gtroklaw, I have an account but I think I posted a couple of comments in the beginning. Today I mostly read the articles and skip the comments. Other than, I have no special feelings about Groklaw and PJ.
  • Slashdotting != DDoS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:41PM (#12525996)
    From the article:

    I am not interested in offending our readers or in driving them away. I do wish that they had tried to work with me to find a solution before the fanatics out there launched DoS attacks for days even after we pulled the story. Our Web sites remained under constant attack from Monday through Wednesday, for three days. We lost thousands of dollars in revenues during the past three days. We are trying to recover from the biggest cyber attack in history any media company was ever subject to!

    In Korea, only old people call a Slashdotting a cyber attack.

  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:47PM (#12526018)
    If somebody published an article with names and addresses of my family members, as well as a description of my car and the inside of my apartment, I would certainly interpret that as a threat, just like the old "We know where you live!" cliche. In fact, I would attempt to have the author and publisher charged with a hate crime, since I am in a bi-racial marriage, which people have been killed for in the past! There is a thin line between free speech and threatening speech; Moron O'Gara crossed it.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, it does sound a bit like harassment. This is not a figure like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.

      If one of his writers had written an article published in one of his magazines, do you think he would let him or her just tilt in the wind?

      It's one thing to have one's picture published. It's quite another to have details of one's life published for no related reason in an article (i.e., "he lives here [insert picture of rusted out single-wide mobile home] with his mother and grandfather, and drives this [pictu
  • by asifyoucare ( 302582 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:48PM (#12526027)
    This guy cannot see anything wrong with the O'Gara article!

    The boycott is still on (and that goes for his nutty mother too).
    • Big time. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:47PM (#12526286)
      From TFA:

      The "editorial board members" of LinuxWorld are appointed from among the leading professionals and participants of the Linux community at large.

      Well, that's just sweet. But what does it have to do with anything?

      LinuxWorld's independent advisory board and the core editorial team(s) have full editorial decision-making authority in everything that goes to print.

      But MOG doesn't appear in print. Her articles are posted on your web site.

      So what does anything about "print" have to do with this story?

      They funnel that passion into the accurate and unbiased editorial content that you look for in the pages of our magazine(s) every month and in every new issue.

      Still, not in print so why are you talking about this?

      We believe that a magazine such as LinuxWorld, supported by hands-on participants and leading industry experts, offers real-life editorial content that you will not find elsewhere.

      Hey! I can write this "note" and try to turn it into a free ad for my wonderful magazine.

      Our compensation and deep satisfaction is in knowing that we are providing a valuable service that benefits Open Source, Linux, and everyone in the industry.

      Yep. If I ever need to find PJ's mom, I'll know the site that provides that "valuable service".

      This is how LinuxWorld differentiates itself from other venues.

      Yep. Linux Journal certainly wouldn't publish that, even on its web site. Nor any other technical publication.

      On the pages of LinuxWorld you read articles written by the most knowledgeable and experienced professionals in the world.

      Did I mention the part about turning this into a free ad?

      Last but not least, we are pleased to announce that with the launch of our new Web site, we now made all our archived content and past issues available online.

      Thanks for having me on the show, did I mention my new web site? Can I do a quick plug for it?

      Please be sure to take a look at the "LinuxWorld Topics" section of our new Web site to explore our archived content grouped under a rich number of categories.

      I'm real sure I mentioned the free ad time. Right?

      Before I end my note, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you our publishing guidelines.

      End your note? You haven't even gotten to the subject.

      We believe in the Golden Rule.

      Give us the gold and you make the rules.

      In all our dealings we strive to be friendly and courteous, as well as fair and compassionate.

      This was not a single article. Read the past ones. You'll see an ongoing stream of hatred.

      But those were okay to put on your sites.

      We treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. We show compassion, show good taste, and avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

      Hmmmm..... You might need to check this page then - m?CFID=39636&CFTOKEN=75BBE516-14D5-139B-BC4011A448 3558B3 []

      Yep, Linux Business News on the site. And if I may post some of the hate there:

      Whatever you think of his politics, McBride may have a point or two. How come such an influence peddler is so mysterious?

      So, PJ is "mysterious".

      The name PJ is apparently a nom de plume or, in this case maybe it's a nom de guerre.

      Maybe it stands for "Pam Jones".

      • Cap?

        We have no intentions of encouraging or hosting an ongoing meaningless and pointless debate at our Web site, which does not go anywhere or accomplish anything and which, frankly, most of our everyday readers don't care for.

        Shouldn't be a problem without any readers.

  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:49PM (#12526033) Homepage Journal
    Read the interview. I think this man is either underqualified for the job of CEO of a media enterprise, or is pretending to be.

    Either that, or he's purely in the business-as-in-corporate side of things and not the business-as-in-journalism side of things. If that's the case, he shouldn't have been asked to approve O'Gara's ("I decided to publish the article"), or anyone else's works, that job should go to people with editorial responsibilities.

    Here's my "favorite" example of confusing statements:
    In one part, speaking of Pamela Jones being a blogger not a reporter, he says "The reporter's job is to report news." In another, speaking about O'Gara's hack job, he says "I decided to publish the article. It was published because it was an accurate news story." Are you as confused as I was?

    My least-favorite part, if true and I sincerely hope he's mistaken (I think he's confusing a DOS attack with the /. effect):
    "The reason why we decided to pull it [O'Gara's hack job] was that when the content, style and the language of the story was perceived as offensive by a group of the readers, a denial-of-service attack was launched against our entire company, interfering with all of our publications and all of our readers."
    • by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:24PM (#12526196)
      I think their servers are capable of withstanding a slashdotting, as they've been listed in numerous articles before this. In order to bring down a site with that kind of infrastructure, it's got to be a deliberate attack.
      • Personally, I'll believe it as and when I see the logs. There are plenty of people out there with both the means and the inclination to launch a DoS attack against syscon. I very much doubt that any significant number of them take Groklaw seriously.
      • I'm sure it had a LOT more hits on it than her other articles.

      • I'm not sure there WAS any "attack". Did anybody hear about such a thing before this interview? Especially since he claims it was the "biggest DoS attack" ANY media company has suffered?

        It sounds to me like this guy was claiming such in order to use the same "OSS people are wackos" claim that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.

        Which is very suspicious. It tends to make me think he's part and parcel of the same SCO-loving crew since he uses the exact same tactics.

  • by heli_flyer ( 614850 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:54PM (#12526051)
    From reading the article, apparently it's not the complaints from the readers, nor the complaints from the advertisers which prompted him to pull the articles. The only reason he pulled the article is the DDOS attacks. He still doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong.
    • Mr. Kircaali is *FULL OF IT*. I have several emails from his advertisers expressing their discontent with the content of MOG's attacks on PJ He is tap-dancing, to make himself the victim. Instead, he should be looked at the kid in the corner wearing the dunce cap, obviously for making disruptions.
    • by HorsePunchKid ( 306850 ) <> on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:03PM (#12526372) Homepage
      Exactly. It's not an apology at all. It's like running over someone in a crosswalk and then saying, "I'm sorry you didn't get out of the way quickly enough." Fuat Kircaali does not believe even in the slightest that there was anything ethically questionable about the article, or he wouldn't have run it.

      Pathetic. Anything for some extra traffic, I guess. They certainly got more hits from me than they ever have in the past. At the expense of never getting any more in the future, though. I hope it was worth it, Fuat!

    • He still doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong.

      He doesn't understand what he did wrong when he published the article, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts he doesn't yet realize what he did wrong in the interview.

      I can't imagine anyone with even a shred of a clue, when giving an interview that is almost certain to be linked to by slashdot, giving blanket permision like he did:

      Besides, talking about personal home numbers, you can find my home number listed in the white pages and my home ad

    • The only reason he pulled the article is the DDOS attacks.

      These online SYS-CON rags must not be getting much traffic. The geek comunity has been avoiding SYS-CON for a while now.

      For a brief while it looked like SYS-CON was doing the right thing so we all had a look see. They could not handle the traffic. They have no idea how much traffice they could have if they did the right thing on a regular basis.

  • What an ass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by instantkarma1 ( 234104 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @08:58PM (#12526066)
    To paraphrase..."There was nothing ethically or morally wrong with the story. It was factual. However, many of our idiot readers.....errr..customers, got their panties in a was about it. I see no problem publishing personal attacks against people, including their physical address and making fun of their religion, but I'll be damned if some of our readers aren't prudes."

    This guy is absolutely classless. I think I'll pass on anything put out by them in the future.
  • by One Louder ( 595430 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:02PM (#12526087)
    Even in the "article" itself MOG admits that she didn't know for sure if she had tracked down the actual PJ, and even implied that this "Pamela Jones" might have been the victim of identity theft.

    Given that, why plaster the address and pictures of a potentially innocent party across the Internet?

    What about the mother? She's not a party to Groklaw in any way, she's not a blogger, a reporter, or anything, yet her address and pictures of her house ended up in the "article".

    I'm sorry - I see nothing ethical here.

  • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:03PM (#12526096)
    The CEO is content to run a "tabloid trash" type of website, where reporters can harass and intimidate people. That answers everything.
    • If that "tabloid trash" ends up getting back to their advertisers, they aren't content to run with it. This is like ringing the doorbell and running... they get off by publishing something like this, but when it offends the public sensibilities they retreat as fast as possible.

      I'm glad that they canned MOG, but talk about a lack of balls... the damage was already done. They were just tired of being called jackasses, and thought that pulling the article would stop it.

  • People should keep in mind that Mr. Kircaali really doesn't have the option of fully admitting and apologizing for anything. That would just open up him and his company to a giant lawsuit.

    He has to forcefully deny any wrongdoing to remove the possibility that at a later trial, a lawyer could just just hand the apology/admission to a jury and say "Here's the evidence, he admitted to it, please make them give PJ $1 (holds pinky to lip) MILLION dollars"
    • Bull crap. There's a big difference between opening yourself for lawsuits and being a tool. He goes well beyond being cautios. For example, he says that the only reason he pulled the story was because there was a DOS attack against his servers. He could have just said "In my judgement the story was reasonable but many of our readers and other staffers disagreed so we chose to remove it". If anything, he's really opened himself for a lawsuit by publicly endorsing O'Gara's invasion of privacy and stalkin

    • Right - his "forceful denial" that was actually published could be ripped to pieces in five minutes by a retarded attorney.

      Most of it can easily be described as a further hatchet job on OSS and PJ in particular, and as SCO-directed bullshit to boot, given that he's using the same "OSS supporters are wacko nutjobs who use DoS tactics" crap that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.

      If somebody supoenas his email, I suspect we'd find some interesting stuff.

      If he's the best Sys-Con can trot out, the Board of Directors n
  • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:09PM (#12526133) Homepage
    I mean, who else writes stuff that you can read something on your screen that makes your scream:
    There's just something so cathartic about that.

    Oh, wait, Forbes is still printing Daniel Lyons. Never mind.
  • by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:22PM (#12526188)
    He has suffered enough. Add the following lines to your hosts file:

    • I prefer this way:

      type master;
      type master;

      put an SOA for and in the respective files, and a wildcard A record pointing to

      Poof...sys-con's gone. Doesn't matter what they change their names to.
  • I've eagerly read this interview but as I've devoured the words it seemed to me Mr. Kircaali was becoming aggressive in his answers. Up to a point where he finally complained about his media company being DoSsed. He did put emphasis on the fact they've had experienced the biggest cyber attack in history of any media company (which, I would like to remind you, sounds like SCO words in the past).

    This raised a question in my mind - what this interview was for? He did not seem to really care about the case n
  • by arose ( 644256 )
    I sent her an email but I haven't received an answer yet, I must admit... Here is the phone number for G2 Computer Intelligence, 516 759-7025. Most unknown emails go to spam boxes these days, at least in my case.
    He filters unknown emails for a publicly stated email account? If his email isn't stated it has no relevance to the question.

    • Yet he makes a point about how anybody can contact him.

      Their editorial email address is working today, so I just sent a nice email to their editorial department pointing out that his brilliant interview has caused Sys-Con to be hated more than ever now.

  • by brennz ( 715237 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:31PM (#12526221)
    My email ("A problem with your advertising + SYS-CON Media website") was quoted in that interview. I'd like to set the record straight on what Fuat Kircaali discussed with me. I sent out email to SYS-CON advertisers, questioning them if they knew about the article. A few hours later I received a call from him. First he was yelling at me "I want to speak with the chairman of $MYEMPLOYER" Then he started threatening to sue me. It was only then that I said I he could easily discuss this with my lawyer. Only after his verbal tirade continued, did I choose to end the conversation with him. His claim that people "needed legal counsel" is a joke. He was threatening to sue people, they no doubt replied "speak to my lawyer". Mr Kircaali treated me in a manner which I find unbecoming of a CEO / publisher. He also did not know the definition of slander/defamation either. Another legal newb attempting to intimidate people. gg.
  • by wes33 ( 698200 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:33PM (#12526229)
    in the immortal words of Fuat Kircaali:

    "The reason why we decided to pull it [O'Gara's hack job] was that when the content, style and the language of the story was perceived as offensive by a group of the readers, a denial-of-service attack was launched against our entire company, interfering with all of our publications and all of our readers."

    Leaving aside the incredible moral blindness of missing what was wrong with the O'Gara article, this guy admits he is willing to dump "entertaining" and "accurate" reporters because of a DOS attack. Nice guy to work for ...

    What a piece of work is Fuat Kircaali.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Maureen O'Gara carelessly tossed the accusation that there was some Identity Theft going on, with PJ as:

    A) The Victim
    B) A willing accomplice
    C) Herself, but not really Pamela Jones
    D) All of the above, more wild accusations to come in our next mogwash piece.

    Completely apart of the deliberate slurs and slants, criminal accusations make for straightforward Defamation cases.

    Mr. Kirkaali says that PJ should not fear thieves, but seems blissully unaware that his own jourmalist accused Pamela Jones to be a thief
  • Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChaosDiscord ( 4913 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:37PM (#12526247) Homepage Journal
    So the publisher admits that he pulled the article not because it was ethical, but because he was being DOSed. So they first lack the ethics to realize that publishing someone's home address and the address of their elderly mother is wrong, then bend over when attacked. That's shameful. This publisher has shown that he fundamentally does not get it. I strongly support his first amendment right to publish that article, but he's still a sleazebag. I'll be avoiding the entire SysCon family of magazines as I can't trust them to do good journalism.
  • by mcc ( 14761 ) <> on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:39PM (#12526255) Homepage
    So is this the new trick, if you're in a situation where you kind of look like the bad guy and you're trying to deflect attention, just claim somebody DDOSed you?
  • Well that makes sense, surely everyone else would be too embarrassed to call themselves an "i-technology magazine publisher".

    I suppose it could be worse, they could be an "i-technology e-magazine net-publisher".
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:59PM (#12526351) Journal
    Here I was ready to give Sys-Con the benefit of the doubt since they fire MOG but fuck it! This interview only proves that they aren't sorry, they do NOT see the err of MOGs ways.

    If MOGs story WERE legitimate and they fired MOG not because of her story but because of it's unpopularity then that too would be mucho unethical.

    Throw Sys-Con and it's publications into your meat/cyber space equivalent of a kill file.
  • This guy running Syscon seems a bit like a tabloid journalist. I get a feeling that the interviewer just came out of the interview feeling like he had a bucket of snot poured on him.
  • Incidentally... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:32PM (#12526491) Homepage Journal
    PJ has her own pointers regarding what O'Gara did over here []. Her side doesn't line up with Kircaali's statement - and under the circumstances, I'd believe her first.
    • LinuxWorld Editor James Turner weighs in [] late, and thickens the plot.
      • So Turner notes [] that there's a Forbes article in the works. And he is inclined to guess that it won't be favorable to the Linux community.

        There seems to be an interesting amount of media attention. And an interesting spin. Is this simply dust kicked up from an interesting incident? Or is it being driven by someone's PR firm?

        There was a recent Slashdot article noting how the vast majority of news stories (outside of events like disasters, etc) are driven by PR firms. One example given was the "suits a

  • Here is the phone number for G2 Computer Intelligence, 516 XXX-7025. Most unknown emails go to spam boxes these days, at least in my case.

    Uh-huh. And how many phone calls get shunted to an "answering (see the irony in that adjective?) machine" where you have to know the exact code in order to speak with a human being?

    We've gotten so good at avoiding real communication and providing pseudo-communication that it's pissing people off.

    The preceding has been a pre-programmed response from [insert name
  • He points out that the story was removed, not because it was unethical, intrusive, and mean-spirited, but because SYS-CON was subjected to DOS attacks. Whoever did those DOS attacks, SHAME ON YOU! Most of the world that doesn't read this interview will think the publisher pulled the articles for the right reasons (the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the article has nothing to do with Linux).

    In my opinion, until this guy recants the idiocy he spews in this article (or leaves the company), Sys-Co
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:44PM (#12526543)
    >>We do not make decisions on behalf of Ms. O'Gara. I'm not her boss.

    I don't know much about publishing. But, I thought that controlling content was indeed the responsibility of the editor?

    If I were the editor, and I saw content that included publishing the address, and photos, of the home of PJ's elderly monther; I don't think I'd publish the story. That is the responsibility of an editor, isn't it?

    Also, why does a tech publisher want to publish the address of a blogger's elderly mother? How is that related to technology?
  • by dougmc ( 70836 ) <> on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:09PM (#12526673) Homepage
    I'm a proud American citizen.
    So? Does that give you license to act like a jackass?
    [alas, to many, the answer is yes, but I digress ...]
    Where are my First Amendment rights?
    Dunno. You seem to have just used them, and they worked fine.

    Did you look behind the couch? When I lose something, that's where I usually first look.

    Though I wonder if you've really lost them -- after all, the First Amendment says that `Congress shall pass no law' ... and while this has generally been interpeted as meaning that the Government shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech, in this case, I see no law having been passed. So what are you complaining about when you ask about your First Amendment Rights?

    Where are Ms. O'Gara's?
    Hers seem to be perfectly functional as well. Did she lose hers too?
    Where is the freedom of press?
    Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. You own your press, and so you have freedom of press, and you used it. What's the problem?

    As for the story you posted, what did you think the response would be? I'm not talking about the DoS attacks, but just the general reaction from the more `moderate' people? Did you think that people would appreciate knowing who PJ was? Was that news?

    As far as the DoS attacks go, call the FBI. You should be able to assign a large dollar figure to the damage being caused, and so the FBI will probably take your complaint seriously. Nail the bastards! Seriously. I don't approve of what you've done, but you've already given yourself enough problems -- we don't need criminals adding to them with DoS attacks.

    As for the rest of the world (the people who are saying that you made a poor decision, in varying degrees of articulateness), well, you made your bed -- now lie in it. I don't feel sorry for you. You may have had every right to post the story (or maybe not -- it sort of looked like a threat. But I'll leave that to the lawyers) -- but the bad will you've just gained with a signifigant portion of the community can't be a good thing.

    • Just got to thinking, perhaps the 'DoS' attack being talked about, is not as people would initially think, bringing down the site through some network attack. Perhaps the actual notifications being sent to the advertizers about the initial article, and possibly their subsequent response, up to and including canceling their advertizing contracts with sys-con, is being considered a denial of service attack.

      The logic here is that in order for sys-con to provide service, they need a positive revenue stream, wh
      • As for whining about first ammendment rights, it is his right to elect to remove a story from his servers. Just as it would be my first ammendment right as a BBS owner to delete messages I find offensive that are being posted on my BBS, or web server, or groupware server, or any other server.

        Absolutely. His servers, his domain. He can do whatever he wants with them.

        As for the DoS attacks, they're nothing new. People have been getting hit with them for various reasons for quite some time now. N

  • He didn't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kid Zero ( 4866 )

    He just doesn't get it. He thinks "Me Media! Me almighty journalist! Me do what I like! Me No apologize but call YOU moron! Worship Media!"

    We think "God, what a idiot."

    and they wonder why we don't trust them?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    To quote Fuat Kircaali, CEO of Sys-Con:

    What does ethics have anything to do with professional reporting and journalism?

    What indeed. And people wonder why so many CEOs are going on trial.

    This notion that being a "journalist" justifies invasions of privacy of all kinds against all kinds of people may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for most Americans, and results in reigning in press abuses. One can only hope. For my part, while I don't normally approve of DoS attacks, in this cas

  • by blackbearnh ( 637683 ) on Saturday May 14, 2005 @01:18AM (#12527249)
    Yep, I was at my 25th High School Reunion when this broke today, here's my initial comments [], more to come later in the weekend.

    James Turner
    Senior Editor
    LinuxWorld Magazine

  • His entire remarks demonstrate it to anyone who can read.

    I suspect he's bullshitting about the DoS attack, as well. While I had problems accessing Linux Business News (and by the way, they send you an email every time another response is made to the article you post to, and they offer an opt-out link - which doesn't work!), I neither saw nor heard of any DoS attack on them.

    His response is the classic human primate response of claiming to be completely blameless and on the side of "right" when caught doin
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14, 2005 @02:28AM (#12527524)
    Check this [] out! Apparently the editors got fed up.
  • This was very unfortunate. I was glad to be offered a free subscription for Java Developer Journal just a day ago. I accepted, but after reading this interview I sent a polite mail asking to cancelling it.
  • []

    The Other Shoe Drops


    Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Magazine Announce Resignations

    MONTVALE, New Jersey, May 14th, 2005 --- The entire senior editorial staff of LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that they will be leaving the magazine, effective immediately.

    The following statement was released by the group. "We regret that Sys-Con Media has been unable to apply a standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably operate under. We feel that recent articles published with the consent of Sys-Con Media fail to meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and because the management of Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the articles are by all informed judgment ethically unsupportable, we have decided we must find other avenues for our work."


    James Turner


    Dee-Ann LeBlanc

    (604) 898-8433

    posted Saturday, 14 May 2005

  • by elronxenu ( 117773 ) on Saturday May 14, 2005 @04:02AM (#12527807) Homepage
    This was the guy's chance, probably his only chance, to acknowledge that Maureen O'Gara's stuff was beyond the pale, to say sorry for it and renew readers' faith in the quality of his publications.

    Instead he chose to use his time to pick nits about whether bloggers are reporters and whether the telephone numbers which were published were business or personal.

    And then he launched into a lengthy diatribe about how his websites were being DOSed by "fanatics" and how people were complaining to his advertisers.

    The "DOS" was most likely just a slashdotting. I know for a fact that Groklaw suffered load related problems when the "Intimidation" and followup articles were posted. Groklaw hit some kind of resource limit on comments on the "Intimidation" article, and I was seeing PHP error messages too. If Mr Kircaali saw a much higher flow of traffic than usual, for several days afterward, that would be because he didn't pull all of the Maureen O'Gara stories off his websites, contrary to his promise. There were reports that some stories had remained and my impression is that it took a few days before they were all gone. Of course people are going to reload the site frequently during this time - those who care whether SYS-CON.COM keeps its promise, and those who care whether any Maureen O'Gara stories remain.

    And as for the second horn of Mr Kircaali's contention, that people were unjustly contacting his advertisers, my understanding is that the continued presence of Maureen O'Gara at SYS-CON.COM had been an issue for 6 months and Mr Kircaali had refused to terminate her for that length of time. If something's an issue for that long, of course somebody is going to escalate it. And the advertisers are ultimately Mr Kircaali's boss.

    Mr Kircaali defends the practice of running Microsoft advertisements on a Linux website by asserting the absurdity of refusing to run Microsoft advertisements on a Microsoft website. This is a straw man argument; few people would complain about seeing Microsoft advertisements on a .NET website. But Microsoft is the enemy of Linux specifically and Free Software in general, so it is rather disturbing that an OSS advocacy site should run their advertisements (this includes Slashdot).

    Finally Mr Kircaali closes with some choice weasel words on the issue of privacy, an unsubtle insult to Groklaw's readers ("if the majority of Ms. Jones' readers are the same people whom we dealt with this week, now I understand better why she may want to remain anonymous") and a bit of bignoting themselves as the victim: a media company who became a victim of perhaps the biggest cyber attack in history.

    My opinion is, whatever the merits of Mr Kircaali's arguments, he chose exactly the wrong way to close off the matter. I doubt he has endeared himself to anybody except Microsoft, who believe they benefit by painting Linux supporters as vigilante zealots.

  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Saturday May 14, 2005 @05:03AM (#12527993)

    James Turner, former senior editor of LinuxWorld wrote Fred Brown of the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Commitee. Here is what Fred Brown wrote:


    I agree with you. That piece by O'Gara definitely is outside the norms of good journalism. It's bullying, insulting and harassing, and I, for
    one, really don't get the point of it. That's not to say that other journalists are sometimes guilty of those sins, but that still doesn't make it
    good journalism.

    So I don't think you did the wrong thing in using you First Amendment rights to call for O'Gara's ouster or reprimand or whatever. The SPJ Code of
    Ethics says ethical journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media" and "abide by the same high standards to which they hold others."

    Fred Brown

    Co-chair, SPJ Ethics Committee []
  • by bmo ( 77928 )

    Nobody can stand Fuat any longer. The ones who can go do something else have decided to do just that.

    The sooner IDG gets its trademark back from Sys-Con the better.

    Sys-Con - System of a Con.


I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.