11.01.07
Gemini version available ♊︎Critical Problem for Novell
Yes, it’s pretty much as it sounds, but it’s ambiguous.
Hey, Novell, watch this flaw. It’s “Critical”. Heise Security says more:
The Novell BorderManager 3.8 network administration software includes a Client Trust agent for network clients, in which a security vulnerability has been discovered by the Zero Day Initiative (ZDI).
There’s a bit of a flamebait here. Indeed, it’s just a technical flaw and it’s not even a key Linux product, but Novell has some more critical flaws which will actually affect its future. Examples include:
- Microsoft’s betrayal against Novell
- Novell’s financial dependence on a Microsoft lifeline
- Departure of many SUSE developers
- Bad image
All of the above would have been avoid if Novell did not sign an insane deal.
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Eric Gearhart said,
November 2, 2007 at 2:50 am
The image is really lame, and this is FUD. Man why do I subscribe to this RSS feed still jeez.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 2, 2007 at 3:16 am
Could it be that you see a company that you care about doing damage to itself and as much as it hurts to watch this as it develops, you simply can’t look away? This was my among my reasons for joining Shane. I used to love Novell and I still care for the company. Watching and tolerating what it does is like coping with an abusive spouse or sibling. By pointing out problems, maybe (just maybe) change can be brought.
Eric Gearhart said,
November 2, 2007 at 3:45 am
Yes but what I mean is that where is the news in this story? You tie a vulnerability that’s been patched to what you call a “critical flaw” in Novell’s strategy, by linking mainly to your own blog posts. I think anyone that reads any of the articles on boycottnovell would get the idea that you really, really hate the MS deal, but why devote a blog post to pointing it out?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 2, 2007 at 4:02 am
The items that we cross-reference in turn point to external Web sites. Since many site, in due time, retire, change CMS, remove pages, etc. links are bound to break.
We can’t trust external (direct) links, so I try to link internally (with context and fragments of relevant text) where it’s possible. In the long term it ensures fewer 404s and limited use of the Web Archive, aka Time Machine, which is unreliable and slow.
Shane and I are committed to making this resource available for a long time to come. This resource not even a target that’s sensitive to factors like acquisitions; not even litigation and C&Ds for all I can tell, particularly because all statements are backed by a lot of external (and factual) sources. Where needed, corrections are being made here, so we cannot be blamed for negligence. The comment system, which embraces no censorship, ensures that everyone gets a voice.
Because no other site (let alone press outlets) does this. We explore and carefully study this one particular problem and make the truth as we see it — based on overlooked facts that we collect — available for others to learn from.
Eric Gearhart said,
November 2, 2007 at 9:06 am
I meant more along the lines of why did you turn the patching of a security vulnerability into a sensationalist headline? I know you talk about things here that the traditional media won’t pick up, I’m just saying you degrade your credibility with posts like this one (in my opinion – I’m no professional journalist by any means).
Just trying to help.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 2, 2007 at 9:16 am
Professional journalists do it as well nowadays, for various reasons including the line-by-line competition for sensationalist headlines in RSS feeds
Just look at The Register and the Inquirer here in the UK. They’ve earned dis-reputation of ‘gutter press’ or tabloid by some.
I always try to make accurate statements in the post summary (assuming you read in RSS mode without full HTML previews).
The reason I included the headline was the fact that I had found an item on the critical flaw. There was no way to include it as a post and still making it sound informative enough to be worth reading. The second part of the post was appended to fit the context (flaw) and the site’s theme/topic.