Why oh why oh why?

Like the old “Points Of View” shows, the “modern equivalent” is complaining to the BBC about stuff on their web site. Like this article on BBC News. Entitled “Linux cyber-battle turns nasty”, it is actually the first article that has made me send them feedback.

This is what I sent:

The article entitled ‘Linux cyber-battle turns nasty’ is full of
supposition and has so many factual errors it’s just not funny:

“It is … a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the
open-source Linux operating system.” – SUPPOSITION. This comment has no
factual basis whatsoever.

Use of ‘geek’. This is usually used as a term for someone who has extremely
good technical skills. The article refers to “run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak
damage on the unsuspecting computer user.” – this is an unwarranted attack on
many self-proclaimed law-abiding geeks. Someone who “wreaks damage on
unsuspecting computer users” is a criminal, pure and simple.

“Patenting Linux” – MEANINGLESS. This heading half-way through the article has
no meaning. No-one is suggesting that they wish to patent Linux, no-one is
suggesting that Linux should be patented, the article does not discuss the
patenting of Linux.

“[The MyDoom virus] has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website
with a barrage of emails” – FALSE. The virus attacks SCO’s webserver, it has
nothing to do with email.

“There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted […] because it has enraged
many people devoted to the Linux operating system.” – NO PROOF. Given the
nature of the virus – it creates backdoors to facilitate the spread of spam
email – the denial of service attack on SCO’s webserver could simply be a
‘distraction’ programmed by the author of the virus, since there’s no denying
that SCO is Bad Guy Of The Moment in many Linux users’ eyes. Given that this
article has been written, it would seem to have been a successful
distraction! The author effectively accuses Linux users of a criminal act
without any proof.

“If anyone’s anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who
believe that code should be free to all (open source).” FALSE – the author of
the article has done no research. Linux users are generally proud to extol the
merits of the GNU Public License. This software license does NOT mean that
“all code should be free”, rather that “all free code should remain free”,
a rather important distinction. And what on earth is “internet zealot”
supposed to mean?

“Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users …” – FALSE. The
court action is between SCO and IBM, as in fact the article states elsewhere.

“It is about malice not money.” – SUPPOSITION. If the virus was written to
help spammers and the spammers are out to make money, then that strongly
suggests that it is about money, yes?

In summary, as even the article itself admits: “There’s no proof, of course.” –
TRUE, for once in this article.

Fact-based news, then? Not a chance.

Interestingly, one or two changes seem to have been made to the article since it was posted. And without updating their timestamp either, which is rather naughty. Given earlier discussions on Slashdot, where many users including me posted their comments and copies of their ‘feedback to Auntie’ messages, it sounds like the Beeb were rather overwhelmed with responses. My quotes above are from the original version of the article that they published, as far as I am aware.