Sabotaging The System

MS Faces Class-Action Suit In Wake of Virus Attacks.

Half-Life Source Code Stolen.

These acts have much in common. Both (not the lawsuit, the virus attacks) are acts of sabotage.

Blame The Patient

On one level, blaming Microsoft for the virus attacks is much like blaming the engineers of the World Trade Center for 911.

Why put all the blame the attacked, and spare the attacker? If someone shoots you, do the police arrest you for not wearing a Kevlar vest? No, they go after the people with the gun.

This rather elemental logic simply does not compute in large sections of geekdom.

This is not to say that Microsoft is always innocent of lax practices or negligence. However, when you have many, many people literally gunning for you and spending lots of time and effort trying to find the slightest chink in your armor, when does it stop being negligence and start becoming assaults?

Doesn’t it strike you as being funny that almost every virus is targeted at MS? It’s not like you can’t write a Linux virus; they’ve existed. You may say writing a virus to a less-security conscious, Joe Sixpack friendly OS like MS is easier than “go to /root to make any changes” OSs like Linux, and you’re probably right.

However, might there not be an ideological component to at least some of this? If you can’t take MS down in the marketplace, take it down with cyberbiological attack after attack to try to scare people away from it?

If people will not adapt your way of life, make their lives miserable. Frighten them, scare them, make them feel insecure, unsafe.

Sabotage their way of life because it isn’t yours.

Let’s move on to the Half-Life theft. If you believe in open source software, and some evil greedy SOBs don’t, why, “liberate” it.

You want to write a game, but you’re not too good at programming? Why, take someone else’s. After all, you want it, and that’s all that matters, right? If they won’t share, make them share.

You just want to play the game, but you’re not very good at it? Need to cheat? Well, having the source code helps.

You can see these are all very admirable motives.

The Sea In Which The Fish Swim…

The Sea In Which The Fish Swim

What is more remarkable than the existence of a relative handful of extremists is the far more widespread sympathy if not veiled approval you find for such extremists, and how ideologues, far from condemning their behavior, use it to further their agenda.

How many times in have you seen someone say in response to some virus, “Switch to Linux,” as if the virus were some ad for the penguin?

Source code stolen? I’ve seen posts in some places that essentially said, “Good, now we’ll have Linux binaries.”

It is hardly a hostile environment.

You Lay Down With Dogs, You Wake Up With Fleas

It should come as very little surprise that when you have a culture that demonizes Microsoft, largely because they’re more successful with Joe Sixpack than your side, that some will go beyond that.

It should come as very little surprise that when you have a culture that justifies, even glorifies theft from the big guy, that people start taking from the smaller fry.

It should come as very little surprise that a culture with such attitudes breeds bigger and badder.

It should come as very little surprise that when there is a sea of acquiescence to these actions, no matter what it is, that it breeds nastier and nastier creatures from the deep.

Just watch. Some people have just pleaded guilty to a warez operation, and there will be places where they’ll be called victims and decrying the injustice of whatever sentence they end up with.

It should come as very little surprise that when even those who denounce some forms of theft then have to stop to explain why their theft is good and this theft is bad, that theft proliferates.

These acts of virus-writing and theft are all criminal behavior, but you’d never guess it in some circles. Again, this should come as very little surprise.

“From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs”

Karl Marx said that, and it fits these extremists and their fellow-travellers to a T. Come to think of it, if you asked regular thieves how the world should be, they’d say pretty much the same thing, too.

I’m not trying to resurrect Cold War bugaboos. There is a core problem with communism (or theft as a way of life) : It doesn’t work in an entire society. No advanced human society has ever been able to make it work, and it works no better in cyberspace. Most people want to be rewarded for their work, and if you don’t reward them, either by not paying them or just taking what they make, they stop working.

Look at P2P networks. Poke around one and what do you find 98% of the time? You find:

  • Stolen music
  • Stolen software
  • Stolen movies
  • Stolen porn
  • Stolen TV shows

    Notice a trend here?

    Take away those five things from P2P, and what do you have left?

    You have a parasite that has nothing left to feed upon that soon shrivels and dies. It’s a virus, a leech, living off a productive organism.

    At the moment, the music industry is the first to start getting sick from the leech draining it. You want to say they’re bad people, fine, but bleeding them to death is hardly going to make them better.

    Unless, of course, you want to bleed them to death, in the hopes that you’ll somehow end up running the show. Many nowadays say just that.

    How can you not call it corporate sabotage? Indeed, how can you not call it corporate terrorism?

    Terrorism? Not only is a form of terrorism (you don’t think the RIAA and Company isn’t terrified about losing their businesses?), this is better and more effective terrorism than what you see on the TV. You have millions of participants (the vast majority of whom are cannon fodder clueless as to what a relative few really want). There’s no command structure to break, no formal organization, just an amorphous mob united only by the desire for freebies, whacking away, 24/7, 365 days a year.

    And because each whack is so minor, so subtle, hardly anyone takes it seriously. It’s like rubbing feathers against a rock. It sounds futile until you realize you have millions of people rubbing away with billions of feathers.

    I know very many don’t mean their actions that way, they have other, more reasonable/understandable reasons for doing so, but the actions have the same effect.

    And what’s the replacement, the better world? It sure isn’t better for the artists. Call the RIAA and Company slavemasters, but at least slave owners fed and housed their slaves.

    The RIAA and Company at least has big money to advance for recording and promotion and concert tours; the alternative doesn’t. If artists are slaves to the record companies, the answer is not to “free” them by paying them much less than RIAA and Company and telling them “Not my problem, you make too much, anyway. You ought to be recording music for me for love, not money.” when it comes to matters like promotion.

    Meet the new boss. Worse than the old boss.

    What About Linux?…

    What About Linux?

    You want to talk about Linux as an example of constructive cybercommunism? Fine.

    Linux is like the old Soviet system. If you throw most of your limited resources into a few areas, like the Soviets did the military or space program, sure, you can have some successes, just like the Soviets did. (Nor does it hurt leeching off evil capitalists like IBM.) But look around the whole system, and you find empty shelves and clunky pieces of work that the average person doesn’t want.

    Lord knows the Windows world isn’t perfect, just like the capitalistic system isn’t, but it does a much better job giving people what they want. Even the thieves.

    Give the average thief the choice between illegally stealing a Windows program or legally copying a Linux program, and what do they do most of the time?

    Why is that?

    I don’t care if people use Linux. It’s your life. Most Linux users are not loons. It’s when the extremists among the loons (and sorry, but these are your spawn justifying themselves with your ideology) start stomping on others that I draw the line.

    I don’t doubt there were and are very many well-intentioned people associated with open-source software and Linux and the like. They had a dream.

    Perhaps that would have worked in a small, close-knit group with shared values, like a monastery. But open it up to the whole world, and it turns into a warped travesty of the dream for some, and in cyberspace, it takes just a few bad apples, and some more cheering them on in the stands.

    If all this open, free stuff is so good, why does there have to be coercion? Why do people have to be forced into paradise?

    What else can you call, “If you will not share, we will make you share?” but a perverted parody of the original ideals?

    There is a war starting. There are those who have views inimical to the values of the societies in which they live, core values like property rights.

    Mind you, we’re not talking about reasonable reform of these property rights to take into account new conditions. We’re talking about people who effectively deny their validity, either entirely, or by suggesting some figleaf nominal sum with no basis in economic reality.

    The societies have begun to notice, and are beginning to fight it.

    As the fighting begins in earnest, you will see more and more acts like these as the situation polarizes and more people slip over the edge. It won’t take many.

    In the last few years, the term “cyberterrorism” has been loosely tossed about, with little reality to go along with it. I think people are looking in the wrong direction.

    This is where it is likely to first get serious.

  • Discussion

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.


    *


    1. I think its kinda just stating the nearly obvious.
      I don't really find anything in there that makes we think about it any more that I already have:/ I agree with or at least can understand where the other side is coming from on all the points.
      I use windows, I havn't found linux worth the time, YET.
      woo hooo 1st reply. Anyway.
      I was having a little bit of trouble reading through the sarcasm but here it goes. (if thats what he intended, if not. then I'm lost ;)
      (I use Windows XP)
      I think that attacking something because it doesn't fit what you do is extremely ignorant and immature, therefore i do not agree with that. I think that something you make is yours and you have the right to keep it to yourself. Anyone taking it from you without permission is steeling, even if your network is vulnerable. Just because your house is unlocked doesn't mean its your fault if someone steels your favorite lamp.
      Although I am very radical, i agree that the laws should not be broken. I agree because i try to put myself in victom(SP?) shoes. And i don't think that you should commit a crime on someone because they are greedy. Is it right to be greedy? hell no. Is it right for someone to protect their property? yes.
      I think that the viruses and worms are attempts to scare people from Computers. This is why my dad turns his cable modem off when he's not using it. And this is also why my mom gets histerical when Norton Systemworks is disabled. These viruses are doing their job in scaring people. But are they keeping people from MS? No, absolutely not. What they are doing instead of then moving to linux is investing in all the anti-virus software. They arn't hurting the MS industry, they are helping it.
      I believe that people/companies do things against them to gain something. This depends on the scale of what happened, of course. I don't think creating a virus for invading your own software is something they would do.
      There's no such thing as bad advertising. And i agree with this. If you look in the fine print, good things (good for the companies) happen when something bad happens. Well, one exception is after 9/11 the Airlines losing money but i think thats a bit stupid to not fly because your afraid of being flown into a plane.
      Anyway, to get back to the subject. To recap. I believe:
      persecuting the attacker, not the attacked
      MS nor valve harmed themselves/software
      Virus makers do this to scare MS people
      people take the bridge instead of going around
      I hope this is stil the first reply when i submit ;)
      I have every sympaty for the guys from the Half Life team and believe that its wrong to steal the source code... I really do not think it does a lot of good for computing gaming in general... People have a choice and this does not include stealing it...
      While I am not suppoting or condoning virus writers in any way let alone the people who choose to coin a phrase 'assault' Microsoft.... I do find it reasonable to ask when will it start to defend itself from these assults. Microsoft places priority on ease of use and features it desires rather than what the user really needs.. Microsoft is not a little boy being picked on at school... it is fully a mature adult and has the ability to defend itself far more than it currently does imho
      I have security in my home, If I leave the door open do I deserve to get robbed .. NO , Should I be surpised if I do ?
      I should take responsibility over my security and unless Microsoft provide people with the tools to stop them getting assulted then they should defend the users or at least attempt to.
      How many times in have you seen someone say in response to some virus, "Switch to Linux," as if the virus were some ad for the penguin?

      I do not see this as a unfair statement, and currently the truth of the matter is that there are less active viruses for Linux than there is Windows... It is one of the many advantages of the OS... I do not consider that I am deluded and think that Linux is virus proof however when building a mail server what OS would you choose and for what reason ?
      If all this open, free stuff is so good, why does there have to be coercion? Why do people have to be forced into paradise?

      Im not so certain that all Linux users consider open source to be the path to paradise, I most certainly do not... I use a combination of open and closed source products and believe that each has its own value... I do not believe that price effects the quality of the software as suggested here... While I have indeed seen some dreadfull free software the same can be said for retail software...
      Paradise can mean different things to different people and for me it is having the ability to use my computer as I wish... it is about control and having the ability to choose for myself rather than having a company choose for me... Linux frustrates me and is by no means perfect but then again neither is the Alternative !
      If all this open, free stuff is so good, why does there have to be coercion? Why do people have to be forced into paradise?

      I'm all for free will. But I think that if noone could warez Windows there'd be alot more people not using it. The Microsoft empire is built on warez.
      I agree with Ed one point, and only one point: that those ultimately responsible for these acts are the crackers and virus writers who committed them, not those who failed to adequately defend themselves against these attacks. That is not to say that those parties are not somewhat responsible for them. If we must use the analogy to 9-11 (which I feel trivializes the events of that day, but that's another debate), Microsoft and Valve are more like the CIA, who, with more effort in investigating terrorist activity, may have been able to prevent the attacks.
      I have to disagree with all Ed's other comments, especially those targetted at the open source community, and his attempts to portray that community as a gang of theives, communists, and pirates.
      Ed's comments in that area are accusatory and foundless. It's interesting how far he pursues his discussion of the open source movement, while he either has little knowledge about it, or has some desire to twist it into something it's not.
      For example:

      Let's move on to the Half-Life theft. If you believe in open source software, and some evil greedy SOBs don't, why, "liberate" it.
      You want to write a game, but you're not too good at programming? Why, take someone else's. After all, you want it, and that's all that matters, right? If they won't share, make them share.

      I'm not quite sure why Ed would believe that any open source supporter would want to steal the source code of a commercial game. I'll attribute that to a lack of understanding of what the term open source means. One cannot steal code and then claim it as open source, the developer(s) must release it that way.

      How many times in have you seen someone say in response to some virus, "Switch to Linux," as if the virus were some ad for the penguin?

      While not "ads for the penguin", viruses do show that the current computing market is unhealthy. It is homogenous. One virus is capable of affecting far too many systems, because they all run the same software. What software that is doesn't matter. If the market was dominated by Linux, that would be just as unhealthy as it is now. It would be wise, in order to minimize the damage done by viruses, for the computing world to become more diverse.

      Source code stolen? I've seen posts in some places that essentially said, "Good, now we'll have Linux binaries."

      So now we can judge the mind set of the entire open source community based on the remarks of some random anonymous poster on Slashdot or the like? Get real. No one with the talent and ability to port the code will touch it. Why would they want to be associated with a theft of intellectual property?

      Linux is like the old Soviet system. If you throw most of your limited resources into a few areas, like the Soviets did the military or space program, sure, you can have some successes, just like the Soviets did. (Nor does it hurt leeching off evil capitalists like IBM.) But look around the whole system, and you find empty shelves and clunky pieces of work that the average person doesn't want.

      I'd have to say that this is the most ridiculous part of the whole article. Comparing Linux to communism, particulary Soviet communism, is simply an attempt to demonize the entire open source community, while offering no evidence to back up this assertion. I would expect this sort of libel to come from SCO, in their incessant attempts to brand open source as subversive and dangerous (while, of course, never supporting these assertions with any real information). I'm shocked to see the same disgraceful stuff spewing forth from our front page.
      To answer your second question, UnseenMenace, I use Linux and other Open Source Software almost exclusively on my computer. I am also a novice open source developer. Certainly, that explains why I find this article so offensive.
      I'll start off by saying that I use Windows XP. As a matter of fact I prefer XP to almost any Linux package I've ever tried. So at this point almost all my exposure to Linux is through requirements, either course work or side jobs. That being said I don't think it's a bad OS by any means, but for everyday use, it's just not practical.
      I'll have to agree with ED on a lot, and semi-agree with him on other points.
      Do I think MS is liable for damage caused by virus attacks? In the case of the blaster virus no. If you look at the actual vunerability, it's not exactly an open door that would be apparent to everyone with a slight inclination to abuse it. It's quite the opposite. I don't know how it was initially discovered, but I would wager it was dumb luck more than anything else. The very fact that it took years to find would show that it wasn't a gaping security hole in the OS. On the other hand, if a blatent security risk is left in OS that MS ships knowing the risk is there, then I feel they should be held responsible. In this case I don't believe that MS knew about the vulnerability until it was too late.
      As far as why people write these codes or steal source code it comes down to one thing, some people are just evil. That's it. They take joy in seeing their name on news, or knowing that they "own" something they shouldn't. There's not much we can do about it besides punish them with criminal charges. If you ever take a close look at the kind of person writing these viri, they tend to be social outcasts to say the least.
      It's like Bill Maher said about the creater of the Blaster virus: "yeah, you brought MS to it's knees, I'd wager you've never had a woman in the same position." That statement pretty well sums up one of the underlying problems with our new "cyber culture". We have people living their lives with little/no human contact (chats, message boards, etc don't count) and it warps their sense of reality. The guys doing this probably think they're heros. To stop people from doing this, we as a society, need to pay a lot more attention to how the people around us act and at least try to spot this kind of potential before it manifests itsself.
      For whoever stole the HL SC, I don't think there is any simpathy for them, excpet from the anarchical amoung us.
      The writers of the recent viri have some sympathy. Not so much for their actions, but because of the results. In other words, people didn't like the fact that servers crashed and chaos was caused, but they did like the fact that MS ended up looking bad and probably lost more than a few stock points. This is, in a way MS' own fault. People still remember years of trying to use Windows 95, 98, and ME. And they weren't great products, but that was all there was. It's like being forced to buy nothing but Fords, but every Ford would radomly go dead, the alternator's would die, or the muffler would fall off. If you were forced to buy and use these cars for years, you'd probably smile a little too when you heard somone made their plant shut down a day, or that the company lost a few million $$$.
      Originally posted by Titan386
      I'd have to say that this is the most ridiculous part of the whole article. Comparing Linux to communism, particularly Soviet communism, is simply an attempt to sermonize the entire open source community, while offering no evidence to back up this assertion. I would expect this sort of libel to come from SCO, in their incessant attempts to brand open source as subversive and dangerous (while, of course, never supporting these assertions with any real information). I'm shocked to see the same disgraceful stuff spewing forth from our front page.

      I'd have to agree with this and it seemed that the article was more of an attack on linux and open source software than a commentary on what is wrong with cyber terrorists. Virus writers, etc are cyber terrorists but they aren't solely to blame and the lawsuit against ms isn't completely unjustified.
      Many of the viruses attacking windows machines are the result of social engineering but they also come due to standard MS procedures in the OS/Office software setup. The default setups for MS Windows and Office are often insecure and are made to be that way so that they don't scare users. A recent virus was able to spread because the Windows default was to hide extensions for known file types. Users were sent emails with filenames like filename.jpg.exe. The .exe was hidden by windows and the typical windows user with default settings would have seen the file and thought that it was a picture when in reality it was a virus. By the time they realized that it was a virus it was too late. This is similar to selling a security system to customers and suggesting to customers that if they are too lazy to remember their passcode for the alarm that they should write it down on the wall next to the alarm keypad. This way they won't have to be burdened with having to actually care about anything. While a burglar who breaks in is wrong for doing so a security company that encourages customers to leave the key under the mat and the security code next to the keypad would have to share in the liability. They also enabled active scripting in email. They allow the scripting full root access to the OS. What kind of security practice is this anyway. What valid use is there in email scripting other than for spammers and virus writers? They should be liable. Now that I think about it some of the things that MS has done with their initial setup is more akin to installing a lock on the door when the homeowner is gone and leaving the key lay on the ground for the homeowner to find it for their own convenience and then blaming the burglar and the homeowner when everything in the house is stolen.
      Windows can be made more secure by end users. They can setup non privileged accounts that will go a long way to increasing system safety and integrity, just as linux can be protected by not running the system as root. The difference is that most, not all, linux distributions warn you about performing certain tasks as the root user and they recommend that you create a separate user with limited privileges for the sake of day to day operation. Windows does not encourage this behavior. I recently tried to run xchat as root and it gave me a warning that connecting to an irc server as root was incredibly stupid and that I should arrange access under a standard user account. I have never received that sort of warning in windows.
      To address the whole communist argument. You will have to prove to me where linux and the gpl parallel communism. I don't see people in Best Buy being escorted over to the linux isle by gunpoint when they want to buy a windows machine. I don't see Linux users being forced to use linux. I see people getting an OS that has billions invested in its research. I see redhat making a profit. I see companies like IBM who realize that they get to use a product that has billions of dollars and countless man hours devoted to its development for no charge. There is a simple rule. You get this thing with all of the previous development, but because you received it for free the Open Source community requires that you disclose any changes that you made to the product to your purchasers if you intend to resell the work that thousands of people have given to you. You don';t have to use it and you don't have to sell it. It's there if you want it. Take it or leave it. Microsoft is still free to develop windows and they don't have to share the code with anyone(except in the case of a court investigation and that sharing is done via due process of the law). I am free to buy windows. I am using a perfectly valid copy of windows XP on my main system. My laptop uses windows 2k pro. I have a shrink wrapped windows 2000 Pro cd with the license just in case I need it.
      I also run a webserver using redhat linux. I run a test server at home. I paid for the version of redhat that I use at home and am to the point where buying the support from redhat's website for the webserver is looking like a good idea. Redhat got a free OS that they took time to develop further(at their own cost as well as the cost of others) and they gave back code changes to the community that gave them the foundation for what they are selling. I purchased this OS from redhat. They gave me the source code so that I would be free to make necessary modifications to the code. That's freedom, not communism. If there is something wrong with the OS or something that I don't like about it then I don't have to keep the offending problem in there. This isn't the soviet union where you get rationed toilet paper, rationed computer parts, rationed software and people jumping over the Berlin wall to get out or people dying in rafts between Cuba and Florida trying to get away from Castro. This is the free world where if you want to participate in the free sharing of ideas, particularly those that will benefit your fellow man, then you should be good and free to do so as long as you are not sharing the work of people who didn't agree to have their work shared. And if you make a profit from taking those ideas and packaging them into an easy to use system for those who would like to be able to purchase the package then I call that free enterprise.
      Now. If you want to talk about limiting freedoms then we can talk about Microsoft EULA's that tell you what you may or may not say or publish while using their software. Don't believe me? Check the EULA for FrontPage 2002. Let's talk about vbulletin, the software that this forum is built on doing exactly the same thing. That's not freedom except for the freedom to not use their products. You are free to use linux. You are free to publish with other types of software. I can still buy services from redhat. Quite frankly I prefer to pay for a full version of the software and the support that comes with it and the freedom to change it as I desire. I've seen forum software companies claim liability issues when allowing full free speech to be used with their software and I would assume that similar liabilities exist for Front Page 2002. If they can be liable for what a publisher does with their software then how can they not be liable when they flagrantly ignore common sense safety practices int he default setups of their software.
      Man , it looks like Ed is having a " Rush " moment this week. ;)
      I liked the article, as I do almost all of Ed's stuff. I have seen this type of attitude from most of the linux users I know personally. Then again I don't know too many. Just like anything else you can't make a blanket statement and say that ALL people in a group are X , but I don't really think he did that. Maybe ,and this seems to happen in almost everything , the people that took offense need to have a little thicker skin. I didn't read this article as a personal attack on all Linux users , just some of them. I use Windows XP, and I like it. I did however just install Mandrake Thursday so that I could check out Linux and see what it is all about.
      It's not about thick or thin skin. It's about an article implying that linux users are jack booted communist thugs who steal and terrorize others because they comment after many of these attacks that flood networks with scans and by spamming the world appear that if you don't want the threat of viruses and a terrible default security model hanging over your head that you're free to use another OS where more care was given to making the default installation reasonably secure.
      These viruses are created almost entirely by windows users to attack windows. You'll find that most linux installations are on servers and are supported by adults who have little or no interest in writing windows viruses and who are more interested in securing their own systems from attack. Ask that kid from wisconsin or wherever it was that modified the blaster worm if he was doing it to promote linux or if he was doing it just because he was a bored malcontent who thought it would be fun to spread a worm and if he did it with windows because that's what he had to work with?
      And as I said before my primary systems are windows based. Either XP or 2000, properly licensed and not stolen with a license to spare in case I need it or want to use it in the future. I like windowsXP and 2k for the most part and aside from some blatant security issues having to do with the setup of the OS and related software it can be made secure. The problem I have with it is that while marketing it to the masses they go to extreme pains to make sure that users understand that MS is making security their number one goal while advertising that the system is easy enough for anybody to use. When you make the basic setup insecure and you don't explicitly state that leaving certain functions as they are will create a potential security problem after such an advertising/media campaign then you should be criticized and be held accountable for failing to provide a product that lives up to its advertising.
      It's not about thick or thin skin. It's about an article implying that linux users are jack booted communist thugs who steal and terrorize others because they comment after many of these attacks that flood networks with scans and by spamming the world appear that if you don't want the threat of viruses and a terrible default security model hanging over your head that you're free to use another OS where more care was given to making the default installation reasonably secure.

      I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Windows users doing this than there were Linux users altogether.
      I took me a couple of reads to fully understand Ed's article, either I'm too stupid, or it didn't make much sense. And in the end, I'm not entirly sure to whom this article was written.
      I agree with the point about Microsoft not being at fault. We, my work, go hit very hard by the msblast virus, but it was our own fault because we didn't patch anything and then tried to play catch up after the fact. Sure, it is pretty stupid of MS to have left that gaping whole open, and it sure sucks that we got infected, but I can't blame them for something I didn't do to fix.
      What is more remarkable than the existence of a relative handful of extremists is the far more widespread sympathy if not veiled approval you find for such extremists, and how ideologues, far from condemning their behavior, use it to further their agenda.

      I guess this was the key paragraph that transitioned from Virus writter bashing to Linux bashing, that I missed the first time I read it. At first, I took offense with the article, but having realized that he is not speaking to me, all that melted away.
      I'm moorcito, and I'm a Linux user.
      Originally posted by XWRed1

      I'm all for free will. But I think that if noone could warez Windows there'd be alot more people not using it. The Microsoft empire is built on warez.

      How true.
      Originally posted by XWRed1

      I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Windows users doing this than there were Linux users altogether.

      Wow... I agree again.
      I don't think anyone stole the HL 2 code, and I suspect darker forces at work behind the scenes (maybe Nvidia forced them to wait until they release a faster card or optimize the game, etc)... who knows, but the mere fact the code was stolen wouldn't change a darn thing, especially not pushing release back 6 months. maybe the game was never ready and it was a grand promotion-ploy to get some attention and build even more anticipation... who knows, but what we're being told as reasons are lies.
      Well the code is definately out there, but I bet Valve was going to push back to April even if the code hadn't been stolen. Blaming the delay on the code is bogus.
      Originally posted by XWRed1
      Well the code is definately out there...

      Well, in that case it was "unoffically released"... which still means they lied. :mad:
      i dunno if the source code is leaked but there is a "beta" version leaked. its 1.4 Gb on irc. I don't even know if it works. All i know yet is that there's a frenzy on the irc channels to get it, most places are full and its slow well because, its 1.4GB. But i ran accross a text file that is supposed to be in the patch that came out on irc that does i have no clue what. This is what it says

      Well, I forgot to update you with the freshest stuff from
      Valvesoftware.
      Detonator-52.13-ANON got leaked today, its the new NVidia drivers for HL2, though i have no fancy video card to test the driver on.
      Btw., for those of you still thinking -ANON is a group, i have
      to say it isnt. Its just Anonymous.
      To all those saying HL2 was delayed because of the hacking
      action, ill just remind you that what was leaked is what Valve
      has, nothing more and nothing less, so its pretty good to
      understand it wasnt finished yet.
      Also I'd like to point out the E3 was one big fake by Valve.
      Ever tried to kill that soldier in physicstown ? Notice the
      door will still get kicked ? No scripted sequences ?
      To everyone saying this is no Beta: I'd like to point out that
      THIS is what you wanted Valve to release on 9/30/03, theres no such thing as a much better release in Valves network!
      To Valve: I suggest you stop lying to your customers about how
      much was stolen/compromised, or I'll have to release everything
      just to prove my point. And you know what you got, as I do.
      - Anonymous leaker
      MS gets the blame, b/c there is no one else to blame and until I see someone does it better than them they need to shut their pie holes. Yea MS has there security flaws, but where would we be w/o Windows? ..... Apple's only... ugggh
      I really don't feel sorry for Valve. They should have protected it better and if they had the game out last month like they said it would be, it probably wouldn't have been stolen in the first place. That's what them bastages get for hyping up the game with the September release date and letting everyone down. :mad:
      here's a tid bit from a web site regarding hl2.
      The ANON leaker/hacker (anonymous), has said in an undisclosed IRC channel and room that he will be releasing the Pre-Gold version of Valve's Half-Life 2 tomorrow with the 100% SourceCode. When asked why he will be releasing it so soon after the Beta he said "I suggested Valve to stop lying to their customers about how much was stolen. However, they disregarded my statement and called me a liar. Now they will see how much I have been lying when I release the Pre-Gold and all 100% of the sourcecode. Actions speak louder then words." Read More...
      I was in the IRC channel and room when people where buzzing with the new news. I just wanted to let you guys know, for you all will know soon enough, especially when it will be out tomorrow. I just hope Valve does something and something real soon. And for you guys that will come in here flaming, it is not fake and I did not make this up. In a little while go into any IRC channel (I won't tell you which) and you'll hear the buzz too. Remember, Im just trying to tell you guys what's up. Judge me tomorrow when it comes out if you want. I am not trying to support Warez but its not like I can do anything about it to stop him.

      As a little side discussion, if you don't mind.
      Do you think he's telling the truth?
      Do you think Valve is lying?
      Why do you think the feds havn't caught him after all this supposed communication between valve and this anonomous guy.