Are Linux Reviews Fixed? 239
David Hume writes: "Following up on a Tucows article asserting Linux Reviews Are Bought Rather Than Earned, ZDNET asserts writers fire off glowing reviews for free software and asks Are Linux Reviews Fixed? Is this a real problem? Are reviewers induced to write good reviews by the implied promise of future free software? If so, what do we do about it? Who do we trust? Do we trust Slashdot? :)" I don't think my family even trusts me. Course the only software I've bought in the last 6 months was Diablo2 (Which I beat thank you ;).
I'd hate to say it (Score:1)
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Not exactly free (Score:1)
www.LinuxSucks.com (Score:1)
Coming from Ziff Davis this is funny... (Score:1)
Re:Flamebait (Score:1)
Re:Flamebait (Score:2)
Publish something especially absurd or scandalous about free software, and the odds are good that the article will get Slashdotted and a few hundred thousand geeks will make life easy for the ZD marketing department.
The obviously funny part is that those users are unlikely to pay any noticeable attention to advertisements on ZDNet pages.
Flamebait (Score:5)
For example, my Helix Gnome review [linux.com] was me downloading the distribution over my 56K modem and having a go at it. I had no contact with anyone at Helix Code.
If they want to see irresponsible journalism, perhaps they should read the stories they just wrote.
These kinds of accusations make me ill. I believe I've just read my last ZDNet article, and I don't think I'll be visiting TUCows anytime soon. I urge everyone to write to the respective editors of these "publications" and calmly voice your disgust.
Non-biased, objective reviews?? Dream on. (Score:1)
Comparing Linux to Windows to Other-OS is like comparing apples to oranges. The end product is one thing, the thinking behind the product is another, as is the approach with which it is implemented.
Reviews don't allow people to see this, and most readers quite frankly don't care for that -- they want a quick read that conveys the gist, and bias comes with the territory.
John
Re:AOL is Sending DVD Cases :-) (Score:1)
Yeah.. that AOL Platinum crap.
Re:Argh (Score:4)
People get flamed here on /. all the time for making an accusation without backing it up. You have to either acknowledge that you have no proof and are likely full of crap, or provide some evidence or at least some passable logic to back up your claim. I would expect better of a news organization... but then this *is* ZDnet. They've never been known for insightful, ethical, or even interesting journalism. Don't know much about Tucows really, but if the article originated with them, then they deserve the flames as much as ZDnet does for reposting it.
Who watches the watchers? And why...? (Score:2)
"It is frequently easier to be honest, when you have nothing at stake."
IMHO, this applies to reviewers, too. When there is there nothing at stake, you can afford to express your own opinion, free of bias. But reviewers (unlike Slashdot) DO have a lot at stake. They've their jobs, their advertisers and their journal/magazine's readership at stake.
(You -might- find a few real-life Citizen Kanes, who put integrity over and above mere green stuff, but they'll be very far and few between. Of all the voices in the "free software" world, IMHO only Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Slashdot's very own CmdrTaco have that high a level of integrity and honesty, under all circumstances.)
Re:Installing Linux (Score:1)
Kinda funny... (Score:2)
Re:Diablo 2... (Score:1)
Nobody cares!
Indeed, particularly when the Diablo games are such poor implementations of the original roguelike genre. If you want that sort of game, go an get a copy of angband/zangband/*band from http://thangorodrim.angband.org [angband.org].
The best reviews (Score:4)
--
Okay Now.... (Score:1)
The sky is falling, the sky is falling... (Score:2)
That has to be the lamest indictment I've seen. Free copies of RedHat and Mandrake with more to come? Puh-lease. Anyone qualified to do an adequate review of either one would be sharp enough to download their own free copy anyway. An exception might be for the "server OS" packages that RedHat has been coming out with lately, but people in a position to review it in the first place probably have the money or the financial backing to buy it if they wanted.
Yes, I agree that a lot of OSS is over-rated. It seems that any little niche tool that runs more than 80% of the time will be showered with praise on at least a few review sites. However, is that endemic to OSS? No. Read the over-hyped reviews of share-crap on any of the larger sites (Read you mail! Only $79.95!) and you'll quickly see where the hype is.
Re:As opposed to the fine ethical ZDnet journalist (Score:2)
Aah, what the fuck. It's free
--
Re:You decide (Score:2)
--
Re:Not more than normal, I suspect (Score:3)
Those I don't patronize anymore
--
Re:ZDNET talks about bought reviews??? (Score:2)
Re:WOW! ANOTHER FREE CD!! (Score:2)
As for reviewers getting "paid." Heck, the biggest huckster ever was probably Jerry Pournelle. He even bragged about how much "stuff" he got in the mail that he never got too! He usually told you about warts and all though, so I gotta wonder about the initial premise, let ALONE the simple fact that you can obtain the Mandrake Distro for no cost.
Not bribes (Score:4)
Take, for example, WPO2000. Corel has done a lot of work to port lots of their software to Linux, and is one of the companies making it possible for more businesses to start using Linux on a desktop. I could see a well-meaning reviewer wishing to downplay problems found so as not to sully Corel's rep before they have a chance to fix things. Because otherwise, they might just abandon the platform entirely.
Also, a lot of the problems in WPO2k appear only for some people under some circumstances. Unless a reviewer happens to try that feature in the right circumstance, everything might work fine. This is a fault of any review: some things you just don't notice until you've used them in production for a while.
FUD (Score:3)
Let's ignore for a second that you can DOWNLOAD all of the software for free. (Somehow I doubt that RedHat sends a Win2000 Server CD with every reviewer's package).
This is something that has gone on for a LONG time in every industry...the SOFTWARE industry isn't the first... Car's...there is a SHINNING example where bribes buy the awards. The companies that hand out car awards get free vacations and trips and other things like that... Of course these aren't for good reviews...its just because the reviewers are "friends" with the car company. uh huh, yeah that's it.
Further more... I think the author of this article might be mis interpreting what is going on. Perhaps reviewers are reluctant to say "oh and by the way, there is this minor issue with an applet you probably won't use" because they say in their review "Mandrake is available for free." Furthermore, it has been my experience that the major distributions are generally pretty well put together (upon release). If reviewers were ignoring HUGE problems, then I can see where this article would have some ground. (Huge problems being something like, the utility to partition the drives won't work with IDE disk drives, or installing Gnome means your mouse doesn't work).
As far as I know, the same kind of reviews happen in the Windows and Macintosh world... So why pick on Free software? Sounds to me like someone needed an article topic.......
---
Re:Journalistic Integrity ('99 jesse bersts) (Score:3)
Again, courtesy of LWN - the 1999 linux timeline [lwn.net].. quotes:
"Betting $5 on a 100-to-1 underdog can be fun. Betting $50,000 would be foolish. Yet some PC users are making similarly outrageous wagers on Linux, the underdog in the operating-system wars." - Jesse Berst, March 02, 1999
That is the last Berst article. There is no need to moderate this post up, unless you happen to *really* dislike Jesse. Then, by all means. :)
Journalistic Integrity (Score:5)
"I think it's great if you are willing to promote Linux to your boss. As long as you are aware of the risk you are taking. The risk of getting fired." - Feb 16, 1998
"Is a Linux takeover likely? Give me a break. Of course not." - June 23, 1998
"I personally think Windows NT will be the mainstream operating system within a few years." [...] "My belief: Linux will never go mainstream" - September 9, 1998
"I've always said that Linux could become a serious challenger to Microsoft's Windows NT." - September 28, 1998
So no, of COURSE linux reviews aren't fixed, and how dare you accuse ZDNet of fixing reviews!
ZDNET talks about bought reviews??? (Score:5)
Steven E. Ehrbar
Reviews not fixed, but restricted. (Score:2)
and am currently a columnist with Linuxworld.com.
I can assure you that my reviews are NOT nice for
the sake of being nice.
<br>
<Br>
It is important to remember though that as reviewers we are working with product that we
dont' have a lot of time to play with. We are
also dealing with word length limitations and
review specifications.
<br><br>
A review of RedHat 6.2 may only to cover the differences from 6.1 or it may be encompassing
a comparison to something like Corel.
<Br><br>
Also from a mainstream media standpoint... They
are looking for readership and if writing a review that is glowing and leaving out the parts that are
bad helps them, they are going to do it.
<br><Br>
Articles of the Wordperfect Office 2000 are like this. Agreed WordPerfect Office 2000 is a good
product, if you like running a buggy windows application on your Linux box.
<br><br>
Understand that when I say this, I am a WordPerfect 2000 for Linux user and the Linux
version is not anywhere close to be as stable
as the Windows version.
<br><br>
Reviewers won't tell you that because they are
just happy to see the product arrive.
ZD, CMP and IDG reviews are all "glowing" (Score:4)
You need only read something by some of the exceptions like the New York Times's Peter Lewis or Byte's Jerry Pournelle to get a sense of proportion.
In the major computer media from IDG, ZD and CMP, reviews of office suites or $600 graphics tools seldom go beyond a checklist of features and a few comments on interface design. How often does it (StarOffice, MS Office) crash? How often does it (Adobe Illustrator 9) mangle files created with it to the point that they can't be opened?
Large-scale databases and high-end application servers sometimes get a proper review, with a realistic test environment, a significant amount of use, and real-world legacy data. But desktop operating systems and applications--even expensive ones, like design software and development tools--just get a review based on firing it up a couple of times and a look through the feature set.
Sure, that UML tool integrates with PVCS, but does it integrate well in an active team environmet? How's the interface? Does it freeze up when there is network latency? Yes, that desktop database can support tables with millikns of rows, but how did it perform on complex queries? And how did its "multiuser" features fare when you try that same query when three other users are making queries?
Linux-related reviews seem no better or worse. Caldera OpenDesktop installs easily? Great. How well preconfigured was Netscape? Did the PPP dialer setup utility require odd gymnastics like firing up a terminal window and running it as root from a command line? Did you have trouble accessing the update and patch download site? How responsive and knowledgable is the phone and email support staff you're paying for? Were tasks like printing a screenshot or installing new hardware easy or difficult?
If there is a general disconnect between the low polish level of many Linux desktop apps and the high praise Linux gets in the resulting review, that probably has something to do with the remarkable stability of Linux itself compared to the major consumer operating systems. No antialiased fonts? Awkward printer setup? But gee! The darn thing ran for four the weeks of the evaluation without a reboot.
It's tough to get a meaningful review of, say, Photoshop, from someone who is a product reviewer by trade, and not a full-time graphic artist. Even if the reviewer was an artist in a past job, s/he is seldom going to give the application the hard workout they would have in the course of real-world use. Instead, we get charts giving rendering times for specific effects, a database-style test suite applied to a creative tool, which should be more about flexibility, interface design and stability.
Enterprise applications are easier to review, since you can draw meaningful conclusions from a rigid, numerically quantifiable test suite. But even here, reviewers grab onto the superficial to make major pronouncements. So-and-so's web-based server management console is lacking? But what if most users of the application use a command line to manage the product anyway, as with many databases and web and application servers?
Re:Flamebait (Score:3)
DING! Exactly correct. Jesse Berst figured this out some time ago, and now it's spreading through the rest of the ZD editorial department. Publish something especially absurd or scandalous about free software, and the odds are good that the article will get Slashdotted and a few hundred thousand geeks will make life easy for the ZD marketing department.
What I'd like to know is this: What's Jesse Berst's pseudonym on Slashdot, and how hard does he laugh when he submits one of his own editorials here?
Re:Why trust anybody.... (Score:4)
If you're basing business decisions on reviews you read in glossy software industry magazines, your business is in trouble from a lot more than just potentially unstable software. Please turn over technology purchasing decisions to someone less naive and go back to chasing your secretary.
The only halfway reliable source of information about software is the experience of other users, and preferably not the user who made the purchasing decision. Before you buy mission-critical software, talk to other professionals you respect who have used it.
Re:It's even worse than it appears. (Score:2)
Re:ZDNET talks about bought reviews??? (Score:2)
>advertising, and a long history of generating glowing reviews of every new MS product...
Naw, it's like the most notorious whore on the street screaming abuse at a couple of teenagers for doing it with a stranger 'cause they thought the guy had a cute moustache & bought 'em a six-pack.
I can't believe anyone read this article & didn't fall over laughing uncontrollably. Especially in the Ziff-Davis editorial offices. EVERYBODY knows that ZD picks their Editor's Choice based on number of advertising bought. It's been that way for at least a decade.
Frank Sinatra once compared female journalists to prostitutes, the apologized the next day to the prostitutes. Maybe I ought to follow ol' Blue-eye's example & apologize to the two-bit whores for comparing them to ZD.
]knowing my karma is going to Hell in a handbasket[
Geoff
They get free free software? (Score:2)
If this whole story isn't completely baseless, then perhaps reveiwers are slanting the reviews because they want to see Open Source software succeed?
You forgot an important reason (Score:2)
But before they learn they must still work, so they will have to trust someone else on the accuracy of what they write. Here the PR machine of [your big tech company of choice] is ready to take over and "help" the poor journalist with a deadlibne to keep his/her job.
We usually see it happening in computer-related fields, but it happens all the time in all scientific-oriented area.
Are Linux reviews fixed? No more than others. (Score:5)
You can see over 600 reviews of mine on my Web site [tgeller.com].
Having said all that, back to the question: Are Linux reviews fixed? The answer: It depends on the integrity of the individual journalist and publication. For the most part, very few reviews are fixed in the sense that there's pay for a positive evaluation.
When it does happen, it's usually for one of two reasons. The most common reason is that the media outlet is actually an advertising vehicle, and this fact is given up front. One example is "Bunting's Window", the high-tech products show that appears on most in-flight video programs in the U.S. If you look carefully, there's a statement in there about how "promotional consideration" has been paid by companies whose products appear in the show. That promotional consideration is typically in the 5-6 figures. The producers know that most viewers don't know what "promotional consideration" means -- but hey, at least they said it.
The second way that reviews are "fixed" is in media outlets that are less open about their pay-for-play policies. That's considered unethical almost universally in the U.S., but not overseas: For example, the (now-defunct?) Japanese print version of MacWEEK ran positive reviews face-to-face with a full-page ad for the product reviewed. In the U.S., it's often smaller and more cash-strapped publications that tie advertising and gifts to reviews results. These publications deserve their (generally low) reputations.
O.K., so there's little out-and-out fixing. However, reviews often skim over negative points. Again, there are two common justifications. The first reason -- and one that affects "community" publications, such as those in the Mac and Linux worlds -- is that readers really *want* to hear good things about their community, rather than serious evaluations. That's understandable, but not (IMHO) good: Saplings may need protection, but they also need a chance to grow into storm-weathered oaks.
The more pernicious sort of "fix" is when journalists abandon their evaluative senses because of peer pressure. We all know the big example: Microsoft Windows. [Insert here description of bugs and security holes ignored by the media.] Why do they do this? Because... well, because they're human. They may have friends at the company, or have personal (non-financial) reasons for wanting the product to succeed, or whatever -- the fact is, it happens.
However, *almost never* do journalists give good reviews for financial reasons, or for gifts, or for fear that the company will "dry up" if they slam the product. If it's valuable for a company to have its products appear in a publication, they'll be back with the next version, no matter how bad past reviews have been. And if it's not valuable to have reviews in that publication... well, then, why would companies bother with it in the first place?
--Tom Geller, Geller Communications, http://www.tgeller.com [tgeller.com]
Are other software reviews fixed? (Score:2)
Related anecdote (Score:2)
I will say that the temptation to give a glowing review to any new product is very strong when (a) you're not getting a lot of products and (b) the products are at least promising. Back in the days of the Amiga, there were only a couple of years in which reviews were objective, and that's only because there was real competition in the marketplace. Once most of the developers left, glowing reviews returned to the forefront.
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
Now that is provably false. The confusion is from the fact that they are using winelib from the WINE project as the compatability layer to port their Win32 version directly over to native Linux. Most people assume WINE means "emulation" (I know it is not an emulator, but humor me). There is even more confusion because not all the components built as native Linux binaries so some things are Linux/winelib and others are Win32/WINE, also some components appear to have the same naming conventions as Win32, *.exe files and such.
Corel is definately NOT giving up on Linux, in fact they are betting their entire future on it.
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
There is no native Linux version anymore.
Re:No More WPO2K for Linux? (Score:2)
But if you look at the actual files on the disk, they're plain old MS executables. "wp9.exe".
I asked the Corel people at Comdex, and they confirmed that they are doing everything as Windows binaries in WINE from here on in. At least, that was their plan.
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
"wp9.exe". Look closely at it.
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
(They even have a Windows-friendly "autostart" program which exists to tell you this is the Linux version, and you can't install it.)
Re:You make those up? (Score:3)
Re:Bowie is CRAZY! (Score:2)
Are you retarded?
Bowie J. Poag
This article has got to be a Troll. (Score:2)
Write a good review of Mandrake, receive a copy of some free software.
So, I write a favorable review of Linux-Mandrake 7.0, which indicates I am happy with the software. Mandrake later sends me Linux-Mandrake 7.1....
Help! I'm being bribed! They're sending me free software!
(Linux is free software, see....)
Damn right they're fixed! (Score:2)
After all, fixing Linux is what open source is all about!
Kevin Fox
Re:The best reviews (Score:2)
Actually, ditto for user reviews. The net is full of trolls, astroturfers, cluebies, and people that just plain-o don't set their standards high enough. If a user review portrays a product as the crown of creation, I moderate it waaay down. Acknowledging a few faults or difficulties helps a lot with credibility.
--
Re:Argh (Score:2)
Actually, I am willing to entertain the possibility that certain reviewers have a "box fetish", and crave having that $29.95 SuSE boxed set to put on the shelf behind their desk, rather than craving the free software itself. That could get expensive if you tried to keep your collection complete.
> Every time a pro-MS review come out, everyone screams about how they bought the review, either with bribes, free software, or advertising dollars.
No, we only do this when the review says something that we know isn't true. If we went on a rant every time a pro-MS review came out, Slashdot would be a heck of a lot busier than it is.
> With the new Linux companies, they could easily buy a review the same way.
Yep, big money tends to corrupt, and there's no reason to believe that persons associated with Linux are intrinsically more moral than persons associated with Windows. It's just that the idea of bribing people with free free software is a ridiculous concept. If someone at Tucows is on the take for free free software, then he's a dumbass in addition to being immoral.
--
Re:Argh (Score:4)
Someone on Linux Today suggested that it was a troll on Tucows to suckerpunch ZD. It would be hard to prove such a thing, but it was kind of funny to see the Tucows writer claim with a straight face that he got offers of free copies of Linux if he would gloss over its faults. I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye, and it will be interesting to see what the author says next.
> a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
AKA trolling. Yeah, that's my theory about why JB alternates between praising Linux and dissing it. The alternations keep both sides coming back for more; if he sang the same tune all the time, one side or the other would learn to ignore him.
Just think... all the trolls here may just be doing their homework for Journalism 101.
--
Argh (Score:5)
Altavista, who gets its "tech" news from ZDnet, also posted the article on its frontpage.
First of all, this all came from a single Tucows article which had very little evidence other than the one ancedotal incident with Mandrake. The ZDnet article also mentions Red Hat, but with no links to back up their accusations.
Second, and most obviously as others no doubt realize, Linux is free and the danger of this for Linux reviews is MANY times less than commercial software.
But the thing that bugs me most, is the amount of hits Tucows and ZDnet will get from posting this. As I wrote in their talkbacks, a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
Re:Not bribes (Score:2)
Just curious.
I thought (and I may have got this wrong) that Corel was doing a lot of work on Wine, but was using it as a library, not an emulation layer.
Apparently, Wine can be used either way?
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:You decide (Score:2)
Free software for a good review? (Score:3)
But I've never "softened" a review in order to get more software. The idea is ludicrous. If you're a reviewer it's a full time job staving off the avalanche of software that comes your way -- whatever you write about it. No software manufacturer has _ever_ said "You wrote a lousy review so we won't send you any more software". They usually say something like: "OK, but we'll make sure you receive the next update, because you're really going to see an improvement." And you go: "Oh, shit".
What is at issue is the reader's attention span. A lengthy review berating some piece of junk just isn't very interesting, so the tendency is just not to write about it. And I suppose it's true that if I really like a particular product (Mandrake, say), I'm not going to get too hung up about any downside I come across, unless of course it's a show-stopper. I'll spend more time putting across the good points of the product and stand by for dealing with any problemettes from readers when they hit my mailbag.
There may be journalistic technical reasons for downplaying the downside, too. For example, I'm currently gearing up to enthuse in my PCW column about Lars Bernhardsson's very interesting window manager (http://www.fnurt.net/larswm). Yes, it has some problems, but 1) they're of absolutely no interest to anyone who isn't going to try out the software, and 2) they would actually be very hard to explain (many column inches) to non-users of what is a radically different window manager. So I don't expect them to loom nearly as large in the column as they have in my worktime.
el bid
Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Re:Why trust anybody.... (Score:3)
If this includes the people who work in your IS department, then you hire consultants. First question you ask them(before you sign anything): Which OS do you prefer? Favored response: Whichever is best for the situation.
What if you don't have time to fully evaluate every option?
Then you're not doing your job. Get an assistant to foist the lesser half of your work onto so you can concentrate on "fully evaluating every option."
In the real world many business decisions are made on the basis of incomplete information and against tight deadlines.
In the real world there's a difference between acting professional and being professional. Acting professional requires things like nice suits and witty meeting banter, see The Courtier [uoregon.edu] for a more complete list. Being professional has only one requirement: pure fucking competence.
Therefore I would submit that Angry Badger's post is dead-on. If you're making IT decisions based on reading PC Magazine or whatever, there's a real problem. They should have no weight whatsoever in your decisions. If no one you work with knows about the different apps you're considering, you need to go with a third party, one who doesn't push a given package right up front.
You can trust me on this one, my stepfather wrote that magazine article shit when I was in high school, and he's a complete moron.
-jpowers
Corrupted by freedom? What a cool idea! (Score:2)
Now, a reviewer gets a copy of some free software. Is this shit? Well the promise of more shit in the future is hardly enticing, so really bad products will never get a good review. Does the product look pretty good? Ok, give it a little boost. The reviewer walks away with better software down the road.
But in this case, so does the reader who buys into the review.
The interests of the reviewer "corrupted" by the promist of future software is the exactly the same as the interests of the reader. The interests of the reviewer corrupted by money are opposed to the interests of the reader.
And, in point of fact, open/free source advocates are way more harsh on each other.
Re:Advertorial Reviews (Score:2)
I guess they're picking on people too lazy or stupid to know the difference between an "advertorial" (your term, I like it) and a real review. Of course, in cases like ZDNet, sometimes the line blurs a bit.
M$ST has been doing it for years^h^h^h^h^hdecades (Score:2)
Especially suspicous are the ones that start out with a few potshots at MSFT, but end up recommending their stuff. I remember a classic one on WinCE a few years ago. It went something like "Well, MSFT just doesn't understand real-time, multitasking, and WinCE is a piece of shit, but you might as well start using it because everyone else will."
Who do you trust? (Score:3)
But who do you trust? When it comes to Linux I trust my self. Right now I have a server that has been running for 95 days now! It is running Apache, VNC, DNS, FTP, SSH, MySQL, and many other things. Nothing has crashed. In fact when netscape pre6 came out I put a mirror and it withstood the
I trust my self. I trust the fact that my development cycle on Linux is faster than MS. I trust the fact that I can run more software with less hardware than I can with MS because I am doing it.
I trust the fact that Linux and most of the applications for it are more stable than MS crap because it has been running for 3x longer than MS ever has and under a heavier load.
I trust these things because of my experienc. Not because of some company praising Linux or Micro$oft.
If you are in doubt of which is a better product, review them your self. Or like I said discount the stunning reviews and the FUD then you may come to a somwhat truthfull conclusion.
Re:Argh (Score:2)
Oooh we better give this red hat a good review so that we get our support emails answered within three days. LOL
Re:Preview NOT review (Score:2)
Then pehaps you could provide a link to a review of an MS product they don't like.
Must See! (Score:2)
Sure Linux involves some nice ideals and a great bunch of developers. But now its a part of the software industry. Bias can exist because of a good product. But it will also be bought.
Any industry is littered with "product reviews" that are either thinly edited company press releases, or produced by publications/authors who shy away from the negative aspects of the product under scrutiny. This is where organizations with a thourough, fair, and unbiased reputation shine. Think Consumer Reports.
This is also the power of community forums such as Slashdot. Want to know if the posted story is marketing fluff? The technical community favoring sites like this are often all too keen to share with you their own insight. Burried in the midst of joking, rants, and half-baked opinions will be good arguments on various points concerning the topic in question. The truth becomes available for personal consideration.
Without going too far on a Jon Katz tangent - THIS is why sites such as Slashdot is truely "new media" and ZDNet is just another form of publication.
Why trust anybody.... (Score:3)
Re:Not specific to Linux/free software (Score:2)
Re:AOL is Sending DVD Cases :-) (Score:2)
Um... isn't the software free anyway? (Score:2)
I knew that reviewers were cheep but horing themselves off for free copies of free software seems a bit overboard.
What seems really odd is that this same process doesn't seem to cause reviewers to not rip apart the latest version Windows.
Something smells rotten and I don't think it is the free fish that the penguins are giving out.
Not unique (Score:2)
Like the other forms of criticism, the software & particularly in this case open source critics have to have the discretion and impartiality to say what they really think about a product, and not just "gee whiz they gave me this and ain't it fun" [1] but a balanced analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each item up for review. In other words, something akin to Consumer Reports, which goes out of its way to avoid entanglements with the manufacturers fo the products it reviews, accepting no handouts or advertisements. I think Slashdot could actually be a decent parallel to CU, in that few of us are actually on the payrolls (directly or otherwise) of, say, Red Hat. But our biases are a little too strong around here (like the godawful book reviews :) and I think somethign more objective is called for.
That or we could just learn to read these things with a huge lump of salt. That's probably easier anyhow.
[1] There was a great article in The Baffler [thebaffler.org] a while back in which a reporter accepted a weekend trip to the American Southwest to go bombing around in a brand new Audi TT, courtesy of course of Audi. The Audi people didn't come out and say "we want you to write a good review for us", but they were pretty thorough about making sure the reporters had a good time, flying them in first class, putting them up in a four star hotel, giving them the car, a full tank of gas, and a pair of Wayfarer sunglasses, and basically just letting them go race around the deserts & mountains for a few days. Most of the journalists were regulars, working for Motor Trend type trade magazines, but there were others (travel magazines, etc) and then the Baffler guy, who wasn't writing about the car at all, but rather the whole process of it. Surreal stuff, and makes you wonder just how honest the regular critics can be even if they tried, which they might not do anyway...
Re:Clarification: "Free Software" (Score:2)
I think reviews and articles are fine if you are trying to sell a boss-man on Linux, but I don't think anyone that actually uses it got it because the read a review on ZDnet or PC Magazine. Correct me if I am wrong, but that where you go to here about MS products, not free software.
It's an old, old question in the journalism biz (Score:2)
It's a risk in any kind of review journalism--but one I think is also mostly bogus. Do concert reviewers or film critics slant their opinions because they get free tickets? What about auto writers, who don't have to pay for the cars they test drive? No. Annoying is annoying, whether or not you paid for it. Plus, if you've spent more than a month reviewing software for a publication, you quickly find yourself deluged in review copies of stuff--most of which is utter dreck.
Goods or services that aren't mass-produced--for instance, a dining experience in a restaurant--are another issue. In these cases, you try to make sure you're just another customer to the vendor in question (i.e., show up at the restaurant unannounced and anonymously, then pay your own way).
Rob Pegoraro, Consumer Technology Editor
Re:Use Consumers' Union as a model (Score:2)
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
Use Consumers' Union as a model (Score:3)
One of the reasons for their success is their strict refusal of all offers of free products (nor do they solicit). They obtain their products as a regular consumer would.
Their procedures are briefly documented on their Web page [consumerreports.org].
Competent reviewers who wish to remain objective should adhere to these guidelines.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
Re:Probably Not (Score:2)
--
Clarification: "Free Software" (Score:5)
However, in the world of non-free software, where "review copies" of software can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, it gets a lot more tricky. I have had plenty of personal experience with people (myself included!) who want to write reviews of product X in order to get a free copy. And that can definitely influence what you write...
It's how the world works.. (Score:2)
MS does it, Novell does it, Network Associates does it, IBM does it. But they play it harder; Bad reviews mean they don't take out advertisments in the reviewer's rag, as well as give them software for review.
Big fricking deal, the distro makers sent copies of their latest and greatest to reviewers that had said favorable things in the past. Would you send your software to your harshest critic?
I wouldn't, and neither would you.
On the plus side; Only in the OSS community would people actually worry that their product was given unfairly good reviews!!!
Not more than normal, I suspect (Score:3)
So when all is told, I suspect that Linux reviews are just as biased as nay others in the industry. Now that Linux qualifies as being in the "industry", this will happen more often until it is at a norm with the rest of technology.
P.S. Sorry if the spelling and formatting are bad -- IE (stuck with it) has decided to all of a sudden not refresh the screen, making it impossible to read wat I'm typing.
Just further proof of the cluelessness... (Score:2)
Wow, free RedHat.
I've built at least 15 redhat servers over the years, db, web, ftp, irc, hotline, firewalls, proxies... Never spent a penny on software.
What exactly would they be getting in return for fixed reviews again?
Re:The best reviews (Score:2)
Kinda like spending so much time on IRC you begin to think of all your actions as "/me
ummm, wouldn't this be more of a problem ... (Score:2)
---
Re: Can't Quote Either (Score:2)
tucows says:
on ZDnet, this becomes
It's a very subtle change, but it's the difference between "sometimes it looks like something fishy is going on" and "Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE conspire to fix reviews".
I can see this as an error if it had been an in-person interview. But to quote a webpage wrong? What, did he go to one website, write it down in shorthand, and only then fire up his word processor?
But then, wtf is up with calling this news? What's Vaughan-Nichols saying? "I have no sources, but I read this other article by someone who actually does research, so I'll summarize it for you"?
But what am I getting all fired up about. I always knew ZDNet was the national enquirer of the computer world.
Re:Argh (Score:2)
(Score:2)
by Black Parrot on 04:03 PM July 13th, 2000 EST
(User #19622 Info)
> this all came from a single Tucows article
Someone on Linux Today suggested that it was a troll on Tucows to suckerpunch ZD. It would be hard to prove such a thing, but it was kind of funny to see the Tucows writer claim with a straight face that he got offers of free copies of Linux if he would gloss over its faults. I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye, and it will be interesting to see what the author says next.
Linux may be free, but Mandrake Linux isn't. Nor is Redhat, or any of the other commercial flavors. Sure, you can download them and get no support from them, etc, but that doesn't mean buying them isn't a good idea. You have a choice, a "free" copy that you take the time to download and you don't get any support from the company for, or the store-bought version that comes on a handy CD, most probably with a couple CDs worth of apps, and company support. One is obviously worth more than the other.
I don't see why something like this is so far-fetched. Every time a pro-MS review come out, everyone screams about how they bought the review, either with bribes, free software, or advertising dollars. With the new Linux companies, they could easily buy a review the same way. Just because it's a Linux company does't mean they can't do anything wrong. MS may be the biggest company to do those things, and the most popular to scream about, but they surely aren't the only one.
As opposed to the fine ethical ZDnet journalists (Score:2)
Does this mean what I think it means? (Score:2)
Re:Clarification: "Free Software" (Score:2)
This is another example journalistic integrity, a subject which has been pointed out by several other posts.
I'm personally very heavily attuned to security side of technology. As there are not that many like me around here (waaaayy up north and in Europe) it's not that odd that I've been doing every now and then some reviews for a computer magazine.
As these occasions are quite far apart, I haven't had the option of actually hoarding the reviews and getting those review copies. And that also leads to the fact that the few reviews I've done, are pretty objective (or at least that's what I'd like to think).
It's not that amazing that I endorse the use of SSH, and last summer I was given the option to review Anne Carasik's book about unix SSH. I had the possibility of having a nice talk with ther and my copy of the book is even signed for me. I think well of Anne, and I had the courtesy of sending her my review before it went to press. She liked it and appreciated that I pointed out what she could've done better.
Having a VIP treatment didn't prevent me from being objective as I clearly pointed out in my review where the book excelled and where it could've done far better. I apply the same principle to all my reviews. Yes, I don't get to do them that often but at least the editors know from experience that my reviews aren't bought.
And even if I did these reviews frequently, I'd still like to think that my integrity is not for sale. Is it just me?
It isn't easy doing reviews.. (Score:5)
Feature/Bug? (Score:2)
If I write a bad review of Windows NT, does that mean I won't have to maintain it anymore?
WOW! ANOTHER FREE CD!! (Score:5)
Since Linux itself is free, I couldn't figure out exactly what the reviewers were really getting in return for compromising their journalistic ethics... then it hit me!
The FREE CD!
AOL has been doing this for years, sending me FREE CD after FREE CD!!
I just didn't realize that they were expecting me to give them a "glowing review" in return!
Boy, do I have a lot of writing to do!
Faulty Logic (Score:2)
This theory works if the software costs hundreds of dollars, like the software of certain competitors, [microsoft.com] but it doesn't hold up for mandrake, since the guy can already get that for free. Is the writer seriously saying that the books and extra garbage that comes in the boxed set is what is motivating a glowing review? What if they just sent him a CD-R. Heck, I got a copy of Mandrake with Maximum Linux [maximumlinux.com] this month. (Why would you subscribe if you don't already use it?) At any rate, the article's author is just full of shit, flat out. He wanted to write something that M$ advocates would suck on to like barnacles, and he did, but none of his points make any sense. No offense, but that article is total hack work (don't mean to crack on it's author, we all have to pick a position and fight it to write a good article sometimes I suppose, I remember college english.)
Good reviews for free software? Not quite. (Score:5)
I spoke to someone who wrote a review of some compilers for a magazine. I read the review long before speaking with him. He told me that the magazine changed the numbers on the score card. The review in the text did not match the numbers on the score card.
At SD94, Gene Wang was presenting to a very nice breakfast for the press people. One woman refered to a press badge as a beer badge.
This type of thing have gone on for quite a while. That is sometimes why you see a review that looks like a rehash of a press release and wonder, if the reviewer actually used it.
Reviews are not fixed, they're careless (Score:3)
Based on the distribution of advertisements and actual content, how large do you think the advertising department is compared to that of the writing staff?
Truth is, for most magazines (both online and offline), the actual content is kind of an afterthought, so they're hesitant to put too much effort and money into them. So the writers either:
- Rewrite press releases to make it seem as if they've tested the software/equipment/cars themselves. This costs far less time and hence money than actually testing something.
or- The writers get a computer with software/piece of equipment/car that's been thoroughly prepared by the manufacturer to ensure a smooth ride and hence an easy review. You didn't really expect that journalists who gloat over W2K/Linux ever had to install it themselves, now did you?
or- You've actually stumbled across the one magazine that does in fact test the software/equipment/cars they're sent, but in this case you'll notice as the reviews are always much less positive than those in other magazines.
I only recall, for example, one review of Corel Linux that stated that it was easier to install for newbies than most distributions, but still a long way off from being completely userfriendly (user meaning: my grandma). Game magazines tend to be an exception, as they're run by people who love to play games, which is why there were almost no positive reviews of Daikatana, for example (even though I've seen one magazine that claimed that John Romero was "setting new standards of excellence" hahaha).This is not news, this is stating the obvious and adding a conspiracy twist to it.
It happens everywhere (Score:2)
But at the time of filming it, sony had it completely sorted. I cant recall which game was in question but I do recall it was terrible... it was only a prerelease and didn't have sound or gameplay implemented. So sony sent along some girl with tonnes of free stuff, games, candy etc... and even the producer told me "You cant say that when the girl from sony is here!".
Whilst i kids programming probably isn't the peak of the bbc's journalistic integrity it certainly felt like we were being used by the games companies.
I did post onto the web and bbs's some slightly more accurate reviews tho
Oh REALLY. (Score:4)
Exhibit A: Review of CyberSitter in PC Magazine a while back. Nothing but glowing praise.
Exhibit B: Recent reviews on the ZDNet site of various graphics programs. The hideously overpriced Photoshop received high marks, [zdnet.com] while the similarly-featured and much, much cheaper Paint Shop Pro 6 received a scathing review [zdnet.com] (from ZDNet staff, anyway; the staff gave it 2 out of 5, while readers gave it 4.5. What's wrong with this picture?)
Talk about the pot and the kettle. ZDNet appears to bias its reviews toward whichever company is buying the most ad space.
Re:Why trust anybody.... (Score:2)
If you're basing business decisions on reviews you read in glossy software industry magazines, your business is in trouble from a lot more than just potentially unstable software. Please turn over technology purchasing decisions to someone less naive and go back to chasing your secretary.
The only halfway reliable source of information about software is the experience of other users, and preferably not the user who made the purchasing decision. Before you buy mission-critical software, talk to other professionals you respect who have used it.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree that it would be foolish to base a product buying decision on a single review. But reviews are a good tool to use, amongst many others. The more different sources of information you can access, the better off you are.
We don't live in a perfect world. What if you don't know anyone else who uses the product(s) you are considering? What if you don't have time to fully evaluate every option? In the real world many business decisions are made on the basis of incomplete information and against tight deadlines. In this world you sometimes have to rely more on third party opinions than you would ideally like. It can really hurt you if the third party represents themselves as unbiased but actually aren't.
Re:Why trust anybody.... (Score:5)
It isn't like you really need to trust reviews...because most of the time you spend reading reviews your looking for the best investment of your money...and in this case, the software is free, so the only investment is the downloading and learning of the software. And yes, that can be a HUGE investment, but it you would still need to invest that time into commercial software anyway.
Actually downloading and even learning the software is often a tiny proportion of the investment you'll put into software. If I am going to (say) run my business on a Linux computer, then I could be risking everything I have on the reliability of the system. If the reviews that are out there are telling me Linux is highly reliable when in fact it isn't, then I could stand to loose a great deal more than just some download and learning time.
Of course, I'm not saying Linux actually is unreliable, just that the impact of biased reviews can be huge, even for free software.
I don't think it's limited to linux (Score:3)
Never attribute to conspiricy... (Score:4)
First, I've been writing reviews since 1984, when I purchased my first Compaq computer -- the sewing-machine version that couldn't take a hard drive. Yes, the lure to do reviews was "free" software...but I quickly moved to hardware reviews where you don't get to keep the product at all.
Reviewing platforms, or reviewing software cross-platform, is some of the roughest reviewing possible. Think about reviewing two different operas on two different stages and you get the idea.
The problem with all the reviews I've read that attempt to compare the performance of Linux and NT is that the assumptions behind the test methodology are geared toward either the Linux or NT model. That means you are trying to compare apples and oranges. The two are completely different beasts. Complicating the problem is that much of the performance testing methodology developed for the computing industry is centered around Unix -- very centered around Unix.
The most unbiased performance test suites around are the SPECmark series. I learned the hard way just how Unix-centric the SPECmark series of tests are when I tried to port them to the Macintosh OS -- indeed, I never finished the job. Indeed, I can't even see how to port the SPECmarks to the Windows environment because of the large number of Unix-isms built into the benchmarks. The reason? The benchmarks are actual live real working applications, designed to do a job and not just fiddle bits to eat up resources.
While I agree that the most unbiased reviews come from users, all the vast majority of them can tell you is that "Hey, it worked [didn't work] for me for what I do!" The vast majority of users don't have a clue how to do a structured evaluation of software or hardware...even slash-dot readers. That's why I was able to make a comfortable living for about ten years, writing reviews.
The only review methodology that might make sense is to develop a task, and have two teams configure systems to perform that task. Even then, you will run into variances because the teams may have differing knowledge levels of the systems they are trying to tune for the task. This is the big problem in SpecWeb marks, judging from the reports I've read lately on their sites.
Will there be a fair review? Right now, I think the issue is in doubt.
To the subject of "pay for play" -- in the fifteen years I have been reviewing stuff, I have been offered a number of bribes. None of the companies trying to bribe me ever met my price; hell, they never came close! Other companies have threatened me with lawsuits for what I wrote. None have gone to court, and all but one was settled out of court in my favor. (That one, I admitted that I did the review wrong, and the magazine and I came up with a fix that satisfied everyone.)
Of course I'll eat their food, and of course I'll listen to the PR flacks. That doesn't mean that I'll write a review based on what flacks tell me.
As a founding member of the Internet Press Guild (www.netpress.org [netpress.org]) I subscribe to a canon of ethics that require me to write what I experience with products, not what someone tells me to day. That includes editors -- there has been more than one article I've pulled because an editor disagreed with my findings. IT'S MY NAME. Stephen Satchell Satchell Evaluations
Mass meda reviews are crap. (Score:3)
I used to work for a hardware manufacturer that shall remain nameless. Whenever we would release a new box, we would not only give them to the reviewers, but were told who the reviewers were and how to contact them. Then if/when a problem arose (not with my stuff, of course) they were on the phone with the dude doing damage control. Some of these guys had exposure clear up to the exec-vp level on some products. Talk about service! You try getting that level of service when you buy the junk.
This has always been the case. Its not that they give good reviews for want of free software/hardware/etc. - they know they'll get that because they have circulation. Its that they give less than perfect reviews because they are not totally objective. And then there's the advertising revenue to consider, etc.
The only objective reviews are those published by those who care more about helping their fellow /.ers than the one trying to sell the junk.
Long live the free press!
Re:Journalistic Integrity (Score:5)
Having said that, let's admit that he is an attractive man.
It's even worse than it appears. (Score:2)
Are reviewers induced to write good reviews by the implied promise of future free software?
I know someone who writes for linuxmall [linuxmall.com], a well known e-seller and reviewing site. They are currently being taken over by another company, and have been ordered, not nudged, not suggested, but ordered to write nothing but glowing reviews.
Let's hear it for objective journalism. Hip, hip, Hooray!
gitm