Would you turn in the author for the SCO's reward?

Just curious as this is sort of a moral dilemma for me. If I knew the author of the Mydoom worm, would I rat him out for the $250,000 reward the SCO has placed on his head? I think I would, and here is why.

I loathe and despise virus writers, even those who writes bugs that attack the worlds lowest form of corporate life (the SCO). I would take the money and donate it directly to the Linux defense fund. That way SCO would be funding it's own demise.

What do you think? Would you snitch on the culprit?

They all go up the river for $250K. I might even do it for less since I am broke.

Like Pcghost's explanation , safe that I'd keep a certain amount (some 10%) to build myself a neato beowulf-cluster from these handy small boxes.

As much as I do not approve of what the virus writer did, the fact that it slams SCO and MS security AGAIN I would turn the other cheek. MS needs to get their act together with the security of windows, and SCO needs to go sit on a cactus.

Money does not make me talk, and court orders do not help much either.

I'm poor and need money so I'd turn them in.

Yet as much as I hate SCO, I'm not childish enough to stoop to their level per se. Even since they stated that the virus was most likely written in Russia and not by the Linux community, it still does not look good on our behalf.

Anyone that would like the virus to attack sco.com or the such, your just as bad as SCO themselves claiming Linux has stolen code and them suing IBM. Writing viruses to attack is not what the Linux and OpenSource community is about, well at least I would hope not. If it is, I don't want any part of it or as its just stupid and that goes for any virus anyone writes, for Windows or Linux. Windows might suck in security but that doesn't mean individuals should write code to hurt others.

My two cents...

For sure turn them it, it costs them 250000 dollars out of their legal fees and a virus is a virus, bad news for everyone involved, not just sco
For an extra bonus, donate the money to Linus and co.'s legal team

I think MS needs to stay the way it is, it would dissapear soon enough. Too bad for SCO and ignorant windows sysadmins.

" What do you think? Would you snitch on the culprit?"

Yes. I would do so even without a reward.

------------------------
Steve Stites

Depends who the person is.

If I did, I would donate 20k of the money to some Open Source project, I spose.. I don't care much for money myself... :/

I'd turn him in... give 30k to the Linux cause, then buy myself a dual AMD 3200+ mobo and other crap. Maybe a water cooling system to go OC.

I loathe and despise virus writers, even those who writes bugs that attack the worlds lowest form of corporate life (the SCO). I would take the money and donate it directly to the Linux defense fund. That way SCO would be funding it's own demise.

PcGhost

Yet as much as I hate SCO, I'm not childish enough to stoop to their level per se. Even since they stated that the virus was most likely written in Russia and not by the Linux community, it still does not look good on our behalf.

Trickykid.
These are mirror of my exact thoughts on the matter. Great skills should never be so misused! This bitch (and here I mean the virus writer! NOT Steph of course!) is not really above the idiot insurgents in Iraq (the ones planting roadside bombs) or any other anarchist putz; it's NOT the way to handle a gripe!

I vote w/Stephanie. I'm not normally an anarchist, but severe transgressions deserve - REQUIRE - severe countermeasures. I'd have been helping dump that tea in Boston harbor.

All's fair in love and war, and SCO obviously has no morals about how IT is conducting this war. Would you kill someone if that was the only way to get them to stop trying to kill you?

Steph: RE M$ 'security' and locks:

If a man sells a 'lock' which can be opened with any paper clip bent a certain way, and a man's home is broken into because he trusted and used that lock, who is the REAL thief? M$, THAT'S who.

Locks keep honest people honest; they don't deter dishonest people. 'Locks' which really aren't, entice honest people to become otherwise. Again, who's the real criminal?

witeshark, I hope I'm misreading your post, but if you were calling Stephanie (whom I don't know from Adam) a bitch, you are a coward, and I hope she notifies the moderator so you have to get another acct.

Also, witeshark: You didn't identify WHICH idiot insurgents in Iraq you were referring to. Did you mean the people who live there and collectively own that sovereign land, or the people who are desperately - and futilely - attempting to 'occupy' the place?

" If a man sells a 'lock' which can be opened with any paper clip bent a certain way, and a man's home is broken into because he trusted and used that lock, who is the REAL thief? M$, THAT'S who."

The locksmith's negligence doesn't negate the guilt of the burglar.

Grey -

I respectfully disagree. Specifically, see the sentence following the one quoted.

"Criminals" aren't the only reason we have locks. Mothers, brothers, sisters-in-law...

Originally posted by Greyweather " If a man sells a 'lock' which can be opened with any paper clip bent a certain way, and a man's home is broken into because he trusted and used that lock, who is the REAL thief? M$, THAT'S who." The locksmith's negligence doesn't negate the guilt of the burglar.

I must respectfully agree with Grey. A true and reasonable statement!