LXF 154 Ethics

[Nuke]

In the LXF 154 letters, someone suggests putting the Red Flag distro on the cover disk but Our Editor replies that for ethical reasons he would not want "its livery on the front cover".

I am not interested in Red Flag myself, but why does being on the DVD have to involve its livery on the front cover? Crux does not, for example.

So what is on the front cover instead?

"Attack servers ... Exploit Services ... Everything you need to be Evil" !!

Am I the only one uncomfortable with this as a cover? I find the article interesting, and understand the need to know the enemy, but that stuff high profile on the shelves of W H Smith only re-inforces the prejudice that many have against Linux. Fuelled by the likes of Steve Balmer's infamous "Linux is a virus" claim, and other FUD, they do not need much more convincing that Linux is the tool of destructive hackers (sorry, crackers) and malware authors.

Could it not have been handled more discretely?

[Marrea]

"Attack servers ... Exploit Services ... Everything you need to be Evil" !!

Am I the only one uncomfortable with this as a cover?

No, you're not. It certainly caused me to raise an eyebrow. And I certainly don't think the "Only try this at home.." box on page 44 sufficiently absolves responsibility either.

My husband, a non-Linux user, who usually never even notices what is on the cover of LXF, felt it necessary to comment that he was amazed to see such an article in the magazine.

[wyliecoyoteuk]

Yes, I agree, a little OTT, even though the tools are meant to be used for testing your own security.