Reality On The "Purchased" Linux Reviews 83
infodragon pointed us to a Penguinista article which does a very good job of addressing the issue surrounding the recent complaining by Tucows and ZD-Net that Linux reviews are bought instead of earned. It says pretty much exactly what I feel about the whole thing.
Great Points (Score:1)
Nothing new (Score:3)
It all goes to show that the reviewer and any trust you have in them are as important as the review itself in helping you to determine its credibility.
Those who rely on reviews alone rather than doing some investigation in product selection dig their own graves anyway, in my opinion.
Government oversight? (Score:2)
God forbid.. Unless journalists keep compromising their own integrity to the point where the government is forced to pass legislature making it punishable not to enclose materials received from parties involved in an article along with an article - unless it's secret information - which in such a case will not be enclosed to the government, but to a court..
Though the devil may be in the details, I think we as media consumers would benefit from such information. There are lots of opinionated media fare that result from PR stunts and PR packets and plain bribed editorial space. (Such as what is going on in the software industry. I would reconsider the reviews in the media if I knew that the winner always was the one offering the biggest benefits to the journalist)
Non-Linux Software (Score:3)
bought with free software (Score:2)
Wait a second... (Score:5)
Are they really too lazy to download RedHat, or are they just too stupid. (Hey, this IS ZDNet we're talking about).
Okay... (Score:2)
Oh... to make fun of ZD-Net, of course! They'll publish anything!
(Hey, let's get TUCOWS to write a really long piece on the corruption in and downfall of Microsoft; that would be *excellent* on ZD-Net!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Dear Taco (Score:5)
Former salary information available upon request.
Re:slashdotted! (Score:1)
Tucows article is just (-1, Flamebait) (Score:4)
on Linux? Free Redhat 6.2s? Free Mandrake Distro?
How about a free beer with Linus Torvalds?
Beside, non-biased reviewers don't exist. Recall the old adage : one man's Windows is another man's Linux.
We're getting good (Score:2)
All stupidity aside: You know what?? I don't give a damn about the reviews. I read em, sure, but they don't affect my opinion. I just installed red hat in the past 4 days, for the FIRST time, and I can already tell you, most of those opinions aren't too far off. It does kick some major butt compared to our favorite m$.
Please consider the above with generosity, I couldn't actually read the article this time.
somebody purchased an opinion?? (Score:5)
Somebody bought a positive Linux review? Somehow I doubt this would be the first time that an organization supposedly impartial was influenced by dollars in front of their noses. Let's face it, it happens all the time in this industry, otherwise why would we have such a problem with RDRAM vs. SDRAM. Every reviewer I've read comes to the side of SDRAM, but corparate marketing always tries to exert it's influence on the free market.
Perhaps I'm totally wrong and completely unjustified in my view, but it just seems to me that this is only what we should expect when dealing with large corporations (don't forget that CNET is a pretty big company too, and their word shouldn't be taken automatically... I wonder who owns shares of CNET (ZD)? )
Alright, I've hurried into my aspestos-lined jumpsuit now... turn on the flames!
How do we know *THIS* article wasn't paid for? (Score:5)
It cracks me up. Really. The whole idea of Linux as being "independent" of Big Corporations. You do remember who owns Sladshdot, don't you? And Freshmeat? That's right: a Big Corporation.
Between the huge number of Linux web sites owned by VA Linux, Internet.com, IDG, and others, it's laughable that anyone could consider these sites to be less biased than say, CNet or ZDNet. They still have advertisers, and they are still responsible to their stockholders to bring in huge profits. I think it should be well known to Slashdot that they idea of a "socially responsible" corporation is laregly a myth. VA Linux wants to sell you Linux machines, and if that means promoting it in an unethical way, then ethics be damned. You will want Linux hardware.
But is it more than just the media? Think of how many Linux "celebreities" work for Big Companies: Torvalds at Transmeta, the huge number of people at Red Hat (Alan Cox, etc), Larry Wall working at O'Reilly ("the biggest parasite on Open Source", according to Bruce Perens). Are these people truly independant? It's hard to be when you know where that check is coming from.
I really think that this whole "no bribes here" attitude, especially coming as it does from the supposedly "community-based" Linux sites, should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Buick.
Re:slashdotted! (Score:1)
Well, maybe there should be some minimum requirements sites that are linked to in a slashdot feature.
Re:Dear Taco (Score:1)
Open source, no denero... (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3)
I'm willing to give mine up for far, far less than that.
What About Journalistic Integrity? (Score:4)
But we can validate those reviews (Score:4)
This means that we are competent to determine if a review is valid or not. Let's look at the main points of a typical review of a Linux distro:
As professionals, we understand these facts. So if a review gives a glowing report on a distro we, because of our skill level, we would know if it's true or not. The points I made above are facts, no review is going to change that.
So what's the point of claiming that reviews are paid advertisments? How are you going to pull the wool over the eyes of the very people who are most qualified to decide if a review is valid? It just won't work, we'd know if a review was a lie.
Like Mindcraft ? (Score:2)
No-one goes by reviews alone when buying a product such as a word processor or a graphics package. We look more at features and familiarity and compliance with standards than what some stupid startup
Re:somebody purchased an opinion?? (Score:3)
Not a FlameBait! (Score:5)
Why cant you all just understand that no matter what company it is, whether they stand for Open Source or not, they are all run by people and people do make mistakes. I have heard a lot of them here saying that you cant bribe someone with an otherwise free software. Good point. however, do you think when you download a software for free from Corel, do you get everything thats part of the actual package that they sell on the market ? No you dont. Also, the company would give the journalist an opportunity to receive all beta version of software, which would be released in the market only months later, which would give him enough time to go through it, write reviews on the cool product and get some moolah. Tell me whether I am right or wrong in that assumption.
No one was questioning the stability or scalability of Linux here, they were just questioning the integrity of Linux companies and saying that they are not infallible as they portray themselves to be, just because they are Open source prophets. Understand that and just move on. Or else, stand around and shout its not true and realise the world has gone ahead and you are the only one standing on the curb.
I hate responding to flamebait... (Score:1)
That doesn't make sense when I can purchase a copy of any distro including *BSD for $0.99 at Linuxmall.com.
ChozSun [e-mail] [mailto]
You're not entirely clear... (Score:1)
Well, maybe they're bought, but SDRAM has a much lower latency, and therefore works better with modern processors. RDRAM only gives benefit if you use it in a unified memory architecture, and that's only used for low-end PC's where the price of RDRAM makes it out of the question. On a high-end PC, where the extra cost could be justified, it may end up hurting performance a tad.
DVD Reviewers (Score:1)
I still see bad reviews.
Refrag
They tell us what we want to hear (Score:2)
The same thing is probably the driving force behind reviewers on Linux- Mac- or Windows-specific sites, which we can all agree with turn
Thus I say that a reviewer IN GENERAL cannot be _fully_ trusted except in a comparison or something where thay have nothing to gain by lying (in the case of a comparison, the reviewer will have to offend somebody)
Anyway, seems to me the ingrained hatred just makes the reviewers more eager to please.
Re:Dear Taco (Score:1)
Very good, you corrected the "feal" mistake. Unfortunately, the (much more obvious, I think) mistake of ppointed is still there.
Good to know some mistakes are fixed, though. (what I feel used to read what I feal). Maybe he'll fix the ppointed mistake, so the parent comment really won't make an sense.
Welcome to the "real" world (Score:2)
The same for game reviews? (Score:1)
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
Someone, please read my parent comment and tell me why it's "Offtopic".
Does the moderator in question simply lack all reading comprehension? No, really, I want an answer! Let's have some accountability in reviewing here.
Okay, moderators; whatever. But before you mod this comment down, I expect you to read the parent comment, and either (1) decide to moderate it back up, or (2) tell me why it was Offtopic.
Thank you.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:slashdotted! (Score:2)
Rose-tinted specs and security (Score:2)
Linux is vastly more secure than Windows: true
Caveat:Linux can be vastly more secure than Windows. Spend some time on any security mailing list, newsgroup or web page, and you'll discover that security is always a moving target. You'll also discover that any unmaintained system, be it Windows, Linux, any commercial Unix or even BSD can be vulnerable. A barebones Redhat 6.0 system without a firewall is probably vulnerable to script kiddies through several methods, especially given that there is a tendency to leave too many services enabled in inetd in the distros.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:Not a FlameBait! (Score:1)
The fact is, this is a *LINUX* forum, so things not Linux or pro-Linux-related.
Communities are inherently biased (or exclusionary, or discriminatory, etc.) by their mere creation and existance.
Biased Reviews...And Linux (Score:1)
What do Windows reviewers get in return for "positive" reviews?
D
Re:slashdotted! (Score:1)
"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:2)
I know that
(Okay, just had to rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled "what happened to beer" spam.)
We have to power to choose (Score:2)
humbly,
Changos
Re:What About Journalistic Integrity? (Score:3)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:1)
Re:Government oversight? (Score:2)
Not really. If a publication exists to review products, and takes bribes, and people find out about it, nobody will read them anymore. Bye bye, revenue stream. Nice knowing you, high share values.
Shareholders can not sue a company for protecting their market. For that matter, they will never sue a company for turning down business that is outside of their scope. (If you are in the business of taking money from companies to issue press releases, that is one thing, but if you are a journalistic publication, then you are not in the review-selling business.)
For that matter, when is the last time you ever heard of any stockholder trying to sue any company that they are part-owner of??? That's like going to court to demand money from yourself.
That Stuff Happens, But Not Everywhere (Score:2)
Not at one site, at least. (Score:1)
Man - their reviews crack me up. Check out the one for FF8.
Re:What About Journalistic Integrity? (Score:1)
Not to mention the pricetag they placed on that integrity.
Journalist whispers: "If you want a good review, I can be bought."
Linux Company: "Oh yeah? How much?"
Journalist whispers: "I'll do it for $0.00 and not a penny less!"
Linux Company: "Done!"
Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:1)
Maybe it will happen, but there is a difference between rumors and news.
Re:Which is? (Score:1)
Sure there's bias in reviews... (Score:2)
Very few people can be objective, even when it's supposed to be part of thier job.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
As for ZD, how many times do we have to write favorable Linux stories, before some people finally get that, in my part of the ZD universe anyway, we call 'em as we see 'em. And, lately, that's meant we write favorable Linux stories because the Linux and BSD people get it right and others don't.
As someone whose first story was on why MS-DOS 3.2 was a dog and who most recently called C# a bad joke, I've gotten really tired of readers who automatically assume I'm pro-Microsoft. Ask someone's who pro-Microsoft and reads me, whether they think I favor Microsoft. Just make sure they're not drinking at the time or be ready to get wet.
Steven, Editor at Large, Sm@rt Partner
Re:Dear Taco (Score:1)
Re:Not a FlameBait! (Score:1)
And as for the extra goodies in a shrink-wrapped distro: 99% also free from the 'net. They do make it more convenient to install, and make it instantly available (good for the bandwidth-challenged), but also tend to include older, and possibly out-of-date versions. All in all, the 'extras' don't really seem all that alluring, and IMO, they would hardly be effective as bribes.
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
----------
AbiWord [abisource.com]: The BEST opensource word processor
How is it... (Score:1)
Re:How is it... (Score:1)
what the problem is.
Re:Rose-tinted specs and security (Score:2)
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Linux by default is vastly more secure than the average default windows system, and has the potential to be vastly more secure than any Windows machine connected to a network ever can be.
Merely saying "linux has the potential" is misleading, it implies that, by default, it isn't as secure as Windows, while the very opposite is true.
Re:Sure there's bias in reviews... (Score:2)
How is this;
...it's the same bias the reviewer starts with before they 'report' on something.
Very few people can be objective, even when it's supposed to be part of thier job.
...a troll?
Sure, it's not a deeply insightful comment, but it's not bad, and it is a wee-bit thoughtful.
I agree with the other guy ... I want an explanation for this one; tell me why this is a troll, for future reference. I just can't see it.
Re:Government oversight? (Score:1)
Okay, the word "should" finally tipped me off.
Shame on me for not realizing that you were trolling earlier.
Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:3)
Ah, SCO really IS doomed. They have come a long way from the days when they used to send propaganda to Linuxers in the mail trying to "upsell" them to SCO kit.
Sure /. is biased, as is ZDNET, and MSN, and the Chicago Tribune and Jason Earl, for that matter. We all have our biases our likes and dislikes. I read /. because my biases are more closely aligned with CmdrTaco's than Jesse Berst's.
On the other hand, SCO Unixware is still doomed. Your biases may cause you to believe otherwise, but that isn't going to save Unixware.
Re:Government oversight? (Score:1)
++tlt
Re:Not a FlameBait! (Score:3)
Read the posts more carefully. I posted yesterday and explicitly said that there's no reason to think Linux company employees are any more ethical than other companies. What I don't believe is that free copies of free software makes effective bribes. The charge is ludicrous prima facie.
Also, the original Tucows article was nothing but innuendo. The author said that certain unnamed reviewers reported reluctance to dis a product because they might not get any more free evaluation copies. They did not say that they were directly being offered bribes for good reviews. When the innuendo came in is after he said the above, when he made the bogus claim that the problem was "illustrated" by the fact that one reviewer got an e-message from a vendor after that reviewer made some negative comments about a product. He doesn't quote the message. He doesn't even claim that the vendor mentioned free software. Apparently there's nothing more to this than ZD-style sour grapes after being called out on a sloppy review. His petty revenge was to insinuate that Linux reviews are typically stacked.
I would like to see him post the full text of the e-message. Then if Mandrake or some other vendor is being evil, we'll all know about it. And if not, he can eat his words.
And in case he hasn't got the guts to post the message: Would whoever sent him the message please post it to Slashdot so we can see the facts rather than relying on vague, unsubstantiated accusations?
--
Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:2)
Thanks for the FUD. I'll get busy burning my O'Reilly Korn book right away, since all I need is BASH from now on.
Sorry, but you still sound exactly like the Microsoft astroturfers who were proclaiming the death of Apple two years ago. You may not like it, but there are a lot of companies who still want to run UNIX (real UNIX, as in SVR4) on x86 systems. Companies like USWest (now part of Qwest), Seimens, etc.
I use Linux at home, and lots of little mom & pop companies also use it, but the kings of the NASDAQ exchange live on Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Win2k, and yes... SCO. Deal with it, Pink Boy.
Re:What About Journalistic Integrity? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, net journalists don't need a reputation for integrity. They need clicks on their Web sites. That appears to be what this whole thing is about - certainly at ZD, and very possible at Tucows too.
If the gods are just the phenomenon will be short lived, because the exchange of long-term credibility for short-term click counts will eventually render them readerless, and thus bankrupt. Meanwhile we've got to put up with it, and the best strategy would be to deny clicks to the sites that go over the top.
--
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
I wasn't posting with a +1 bonus; actually, I posted the other one with the bonus to get some moderator attention. (I know they can't read anything, but I wish they'd start from the bottom and work up...)
Also, I don't think that intent really matters; judge on the merit of the post, and not on whether you think someone is a "Karma Whore". I've got a lot of karma, and I like to post on slashdot, but I've been doing it for a long time, and I don't think my posts have changed because of the addition of Karma. But I *hate* to see bad moderation, and I haven't seen that much of it lately.
(except for the occasional "Overrated" two days later when something gets moderated up to 5; I don't know how that can be anything *but* sour grapes...)
Oh yeah, this whole *thread* is Offtopic now, but marking an entire thread Offtopic is a borderline moderation abuse, IMO. Just mark the first post, and make sure the others aren't above 1, I'd say.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
And don't forget... (Score:2)
Restrictions (Score:2)
Re:I hate responding to flamebait... (Score:1)
Us: "Hey, IBM, JDK1.3 for FreeBSD?"
Them: "We've already released RPMs, and have no plans to develop for BSD Linux."
Grrrrr... fuckers. Ten years ago, when BSD meant something, I could have had someone shot for saying that.
---------///----------
Re:Its not that easy to get Free software for Free (Score:1)
But, for example, since I dont live in the US I cant buy a distro for that price, and since I am limited by my 56kps modem connection, I cant download a distro as soon as it arrives at the FTP servers.
So getting a Mandrake 7.1 disc without having to hunt for it through magazines is definetely a bonus.
Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:2)
---------///----------
Re:Open source, no denero... (Score:4)
So, you see, the wheel is greased even if the software is "free".
---------///----------
Two options: LAZY or WEAK? (Score:1)
Obviously an employer will seek talented people. Since you did not define "truly independant", your concern about how hard it would be can mean anything. I see this burden as being slight. If these people were too lazy or weak to handle it, I doubt they would have accomplished the deeds that made them recognizable.
Just as another thought, righteous indignation does exist!
Re:Dear Taco (Score:1)
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism (Score:1)
Even better (Score:1)
"Got the goods?" asks the reviewer
The Linux advocate pulls out a laptop with CDrw drive...
Linux advocate: Got the disk?
Reviewer produces a blank Eraseable CDr.
The advocate puts the CD in his laptop... a few moments later the laptop spits out a new Linux CD.
Advocate: For your review...
Reviewer: Thanks... How did you get this?
Advocate: Oh I downloaded it from the FTP site...
Back at the revewers office someone delivers a free copy of Windows 2001 and drops it in his "Free review copy" box.
The History of Bribed reviews... (Score:2)
But historicly reviewers have had the decentcy to refuse to be bribed. People who abuse the position lose respect and (unless it dosn't matter to the editor) a job.
1980s... Shortly after Commodores Founder left Commodore for Atari lot's of things got messed up.
One thing was Commodore sent press releases to mags. One mag reported that the press releases looked more on the vain of "say this or we'll cut you off" and a lot of mags took the treat sereously. This one mag however said how much the product itself stunk and accually ripped other mags for what was obveously inaccurate data.
Did Commodore carry out the threat? No.. It could have even been a compleate missunderstanding.
I do not believe this ever happend at Commodore again. (One time deal).
But later it did seem like a few "press release" reviews did start showing up in mags.
I rember one reviewer saying he WILL NOT review from demo relases games like to issue and many reviewers seem to throw away press releases. (CmdrTaco comes to mind but hardly alone in this).
It makes sence.. press releases DO NOT give the revewer an honnest grasp of the product.
(By the way Mandrake 7.1 sucks.. I got a free copy and THAT is my review... I hear good things about 7.0 but thats not what I had)
Then there is Windows 95 Beta. Someone gave a really nasty review. Microsoft desided to cut short the reviews by not sending him anymore CDs.
The short version of the review.. Win95 didn't match the hype.
So the short story... Linux gives away free software to people to BEG for reviews while Microsoft threatons to cut off reviewers if they don't get the reviews they like...
Linux is bribing reviewers... Microsoft isn't...
Ummmmmm yeah....
At least Linux is being original....
Bribing people with something anyone can get for free....
Thats pritty dang smart...
I say we get a patent on that....
Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag (Score:2)
Your warm fuzzies aren't going to keep SCO in the OS business. If so many of the kings of the NASDAQ still want to run SCO, then why is SCO flirting so much with Linux?
Your example of the Korn shell is actually quite apt, because you will be able to use a variant of the Korn shell as long as you want, as it has been open sourced. You could maintain it yourself indefinitely.
On the other hand, if SCO decides to stop selling Unixware SCO's Unixware customers are flat out of luck. They can continue to run the installations they already have, but their investments are literally investments in an evolutionary dead end.
You may scoff at the mom & pop companies that use Linux (although I would bet that more Fortune 500 companies have Linux installations than SCO installations), but it doesn't change the fact that Linux use is on the rise, and Unixware is in a downward spiral. SCO is going to have to jump off the Unixware boat if they are to have any chance of survival.
In fact, the mom & pop market is an order of magnitude larger than the Fortune 500 market. If Linux is doing well there, that is good news indeed.
Re:I hate responding to flamebait... (Score:1)
ChozSun [e-mail] [mailto]
Re:How do we know *THIS* article wasn't paid for? (Score:1)
*spits on the capitalist society*
_joshua_
Re:Open source, no denero... (Score:1)
In order to get Linux for free you need to allready have a reliable internet ready operating system installed.
If you allready have an internet ready operating system installed chances are pritty good you don't need/want Linux to start with.
If you have no OS or your OS dosn't work then your only hope is to buy a Linux CD.
As far as how hard it is to install....
Linux WAS hard to install when there were no distrobutions and you basicly had to create your own Linux system by hand...
Now there is even a project to make it easy to install Linux from source code...
Linux from scratch [linuxfromscratch.org]
Note that companys making money off of Linux are not specalising in Linux distros.
VA Linux sells computers with Linux preinstalled. Ideally they save money by using a free operating system. At one time they installed it by hand and costummised the system for you. Today they just sell RedHat CDs.
While RedHat is losing money as far as I can tell WC Cdrom is doing pritty well. Unlike RedHat however CdRom dosn't specalise in Linux. They sell free software of all types.
It's a service. For $20 to $30 you get a CD with megs of free software. (Stometimes it's easyer to buy a CD than download software). As such they do not put any risk on a single product. Supporting Dos, OS/2, Linux, BSD, Windows and yes at one time they even put out a CP/M CD.
The reason so many open source companys fail or lose money is becouse they have bad busness plans to start with. That will kill you in ANY market. Also Open Source confuses people as it dosn't conform to the simplifyed rules. But then many markets don't conform to simplifyed rules. Open source plays by the same rules as everyone else. It's just not layed out the same.
But then the whole software market is diffrent from any other market. Software is diffrent from other products. How many inventions qualify as poetry?
Think about it. Software is both poetry and tool....
And as such the software market has no choice but to establish whole new rules for busness...
For now people have to be smart about where the money comes from. Once repeatable successes are known then we can slap together a busness based on proven busness plans.
But for now... none of the proven busness tactics work with open source...
Sorry I'm a bit off topic here
To be honest... (Score:1)
I know that theres a big deal to be made of the difference between Free Speech and Free Beer, but thats not the point. Anyone can download most (if not all) of any popular distro from FTP sites around the globe; mainly because its GPL, not because of marketing. The fact that vendors GPL-ise their own addons may be marketing, but thats not the point. The point is, if a particular distro gets a bad review, does anyone really think that they're going to stop giving out CDs of it and making the distro available via anonymous FTP and such? They can't do that, commercial distributions NEED to give out CDs as an easy way to gain market penetration.
I personally just think this is complete nonsense; I bought a RedHat (5.0) CD a couple of years back, and have since switched to Debian (getting it completely over the net). If someone says that Debian is buggy (for the record, I am not saying it is; I love it), people may herd like sheep to other distros, but Debian will not remove their entire distribution from the public because of it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that truly Free Software isn't subject to media bias, just because the writers of such reviews can get whatever it may be for free regardless of what they say about it.
Distros in general are solely judgeable on the quality of the linux system you end up with (in terms of options/features/optimizations packages are compiled with, and the arrangement and customizability/modularity of the filesystem as a whole) and whatever addons they may have added. Almost all of this is free anyway (I can only think of 2 examples of propriatary bundles: RH used to bundle Metro-X, and Corel probably bundles WP Office, both of which are available seperately, and both distros can function perfectly well without these components), so is it really fair to judge (read: FUD) a distro just because you get a beer coaster with the distro's logo printed on it?
I don't see how completely free distributions would be affected at all by bias of this sort; when I say Debian RULES, its because Debian RULES, not because I'm trying to secure free copies of Debian in the future. Keep up the good work guys! =)
--
Paranoid
Re:Open source, no denero... (Score:1)
---------///----------
Re:Government oversight? (Score:1)
Uhh (Score:2)
Re:Like Mindcraft ? (Score:1)
familiarity and compliance with standards than what some stupid startup
any case
Okay, I'll bite and agree that a fair amount of people look to things like features and familiarity when buying an app. I disagree with the "...compliance with standards" bit though. Windows is lots of things, and complient with SOME standards, but mostly its compliant with itself. Linux is also mostly compliant with standards and if the Linux Standards Group ever actually makes any decisions you can bet I'll only support Distro's that impliment them, but there is a lack of standards to be complient with in that arena (although on an aplication front at least Linux is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows in being standards compliant with everything but MS-Office... a current de-facto standard).
I wish people would cared more about word of mouth than reviews. Some do, the rest keep the Ziff-Davis publishing houses churning out more dead trees in a week then could possibly be useful to any one person.
Re:Government oversight? (Score:1)
This, I know.. There are very few places you can find journalistic integrity. I like to think that Mother Jones [motherjones.com] has a fair amount of it. Of course, it's pretty leftist. Still - they're not afraid to take on what goes on in the real world.
The point that I was making, was that I think the media should be required by law to inform us about possible sources of bias. Slashdot does this on a regular basis, whenever Andover.net is involved in an article, the guys will remind us of that.
Re:slashdotted! (Score:2)