Stopping the FUD 205
mackga wrote to us about the new LinuxToday Counter-FUD site. Good site to get information and destroy detractors -maybe we should link to it The Linux Myths and see who comes out next.Update: 12/04 11:52 by H :Also, thanks to Rik van Riel who pointed the The FUD Counter site.
Linux Has Detractors? (Score:1)
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
This may help a bit with the spelling.
' is used for contractions (represents missing letters)
they're they are
Id (subconscious) as opposed to Ego (conscious) as opposed to Superego (conscience).
I'd I would or I had
car's belonging to the car
cars one car, two cars, etc.
cute as in She is cute. (The final e is silent but makes the "u" long.)
cut as to cut with a knife or hatchet.
litigate as in to litigate a lawsuit.
legitimate as in real or genuine (very close to meaning legal)
we're we are
were we were is past tense of we are.
prefer as in choice
perfere sounds like you are trying to stick holes in something (perforate)
sense as in five senses or a hypothetical sixth sense
since as in Ever since
Also look out for:
it's it is.
its belonging to it.
they're they are.
their belonging to them.
Word has a Thesaurus (Tools,Language or Shift-F7). Use it.
Best way to learn spelling is by reading. Good books by good authors. Any subject.
When you write well, it sets a tone of anticipation, and any typo or inappropriate word clashes. Bad art.
To substance.
FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Church of Scientology trojans in the W2K defragmenter is FUD.
Snide remarks about Microsoft marketing are not FUD.
Granted, the VBA API is rich enough to include:
Options.VirusProtection = False
... supply the necessary shims so that the interfaces match.
"IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers."
Precisely. If you have control of the interfaces, you can do a clean design. If you do not have control, you do the best you can with what you have.
Still, I'm not sure what you mean by clean design. Single level global variables looks clean until things get complicated and it breaks down.
If you treat it as in functional programming, ie f(g(h(... ad nauseum))), each parenthesis is an interface.
The power is in the simple concepts. Face it, everything is a string of bits which is about as simple as you can get. Actually I prefer coroutines, preferably recursive, to pipes.
You might be able to do an integrated spell checker in emacs if it (emacs) is lispy enough. Me. I barely know Control-X Control-C to exit the thing. There are people who live inside emacs.
If you don't like command line, you probably will not like emacs.
Re:Linux Has Detractors? (Score:1)
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:2)
I'll accept that Microsoft FUD is different. I've seen paid employees of the Microsoft Corporation announce at MS-friendly conferences and whisper in corridors a variety of lies, half-truths, and mythical ship dates. Those bastards are downright mean in a way that no other corporation I know of is.
However, in the real world, I know of very few independent people wasting their own time with Microsoft advocacy. On the other hand, there's a certain Linux AgitProp with a ferocity not seen on the net since "Team OS2" (and we know what a successful endevor that was). The jihad rhetoric is only making your enemies hate you more.
It's been said here by the more insightful many times -- make a product that solves the most problems at the lowest price point, and you'll have the market. That's what Microsoft did, and Linux is on the way there, or is already there in many markets. If you think you're "supporting" Linux by playing the FUD/Advocacy game on the Internet, think again, and then start supporting the product in ways that really count.
--
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
how would you improve the following?
the mmio* functins
the acm* functions
the wave* functions
or some based off COM like
the IHTML* interfaces, OLEDB, ADO?
Different "versions" of Windows API are incompatible with other "versions" of Windows API.
what's not backwards compatabile?
Everyone is going to have to recode for Windows 2000, because there is a fundamental incompatability with earlier code.
gee i ran acidtetris on win2000. it ran fine. this is a DOS app with VGA graphics. what the hell are you refereing too? you mean you have to learn new code to work with new fearures? NAWW?? ya THINK?
I can't believe you used their API as the basis for your defense. If you actually believe that Microsoft Windows API is really technically ellegant then you truely are hopeless.
sure nothings perfect. but with all becouse of backwards compatabily, there's some things that have to be kludged. things like "duel interfaces" in COM. ya that's a hack, but what are you going to do if you still want to support people who arn't up with the latest and greatest?
-Jon
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:2)
On the other hand, I have hardware that's marvelously stable under Linux and NT, but will panic under Solaris 7. Does that mean that Solaris is a crappy unstable OS? No -- it comes down to hardware support, and Linux happens to have better lowend hardware support this side of Windows 98. My home NT machine will stay up for months, but at work the Celerons go blue when you click on the Start menu.
BTW, a blue screen = kernel panic, except that Linux runs less things in kernel mode, like video drivers for example.
(As a footnote, I think the stability of Linux is slightly exaggerated because the Linux OS vendors give you more integration services than Microsoft does. Simply, you get lots of shit in that RedHat box. If you were to take a base Linux OS install, and manually RPM hundreds of binary packages from vendors all around the world, you'd probably have the same DLL Hell that Windows can be. Not that that excuses kernel panics in NTFS.SYS.)
--
Re:FUD ME (Score:1)
If I had moderator points, I'd bump this up to a 5, so that all may have the benefit of reading it.
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:3)
As far as I am concerned when people like MS want this "OS Cold War" to be over they need to put down their weapons. Until then they can't say "dont' complain about us spreading FUD if you are going to retaliate" After all, none of us Linux users really want MS to completely go away, what we want is our fair share of the apps and the market. Think about it, if some guy comes up to you and starts beating you up, are you the bad guy because you fight back? No. Well that's what we are doing. We don't have billions of dollars for marketing campaigns so we do what we can.
But with FUD, it can all turn against us (Score:1)
It is smart to shore up your defenses, if you can, when offensive momentum is going your way. If nothing else, the anti-FUD site is there to prepare us just in case.
One thing concerning Mindcraft is: why does Mindcraft stand in direct contradiction to all the other Linux vs NT comparisons which show Linux to be head and shoulders above NT? hmmmmmmmm...
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:2)
It's true Linux doesn't have a "fully integrated spelling checker"; neither does any OS I know of. I think you are talking about applications, though (shame I have to work out what you mean; maybe you should have paid more attention in English class). For the record, though, a simple vi macro calling ispell works fine for me: :w^M:!ispell -S -x %^M:e!^M^M
map V
with the advantage that if I don't like how it works, I can change it -- something that would be harder to do if it were "integrated". I guess integrated features are fine for people who can't figure out how to set up their own working environment on their computer. However, the whole point of Linux is the "do it yourself" approach. For those that don't like that, there are software packages available, such as Staroffice, that take a more "mainstream" i.e. "works like MS stuff" approach. That's fine. People who prefer MS Word are fine, too: I wouldn't dream of slagging them off, any more than I'd cast aspersions on schools for backward kids.
Re:Other tactics... (Score:1)
As an aside You ghosted NT setups? Ewww! NT setups have a GUID for each machine, and when you ghost NT onto lots of boxes, and the same GUID is used, kiss stable networking goodbye under certain circumstances :)
Re:It is worse than that! (Score:1)
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:1)
Who really cares about USB, though?
Quite a few of use, I run keyboard, scanner, MPEG3 player, mouse and a video conference camera all on USB. Why? I don't want to have to use a seperate IRQ for each thing, if I didn't I'd have ran out ages ago. So don't just dismiss it.
Choose an OS for what it's good for.
Thats the crux of the whole deal. I use NT at work for lots of stuff I can't use Linux for,
No operating system is the magic bullet we're looking for and the sooner we all realise this, and promote OSes based on their strengths and not comparing it to other OS's weaknesses the better. It will be better for the consumer and won't make us look like religous zealots.
Re:Siege mentality (Score:1)
Good PR showing the good aspects of Linux is a good thing and is not FUD.
Best anti-FUD book (Score:1)
This would be a good model for an Anti-TCO (total co$t of owner$hip), the biggest FUD term of all time, that M$ loves to coin. They want some dream world of 0 administration, which does not exist. The real FUD is that NT is easier and less costly to administer than Linux. This is bullshit. NT administration requires you to take M$ classes that cost lots of $$$ just to get a midsized network to act appropriately. With Linux, you have to learn just as much...and editing a text file in
cd
{editor of choice} whatever.conf
and do your little dance. Plus in Linux, you have much finer control over everything...and everything is usually in the same configuration file to get the same effect.
So the outline is:
1. Prove M$'s FUD to be rediculous.
2. Show how Linux can do many, many things in general purpose computing and specific application environments.
3. Show how it is much more believable that Open Source could create better software through natural selection than closed source. Link to an ESR paper.
4. Provide a FUD questions and answers section at the end to answer any cynical M$ bullshit question.
And there you have it.
The problem with this approach is that you win no converts. I read this book in a class and 4 out of 6 people dropped out...mostly Christian conservatives. (The author was an obvious athiest and sort of indirectly said that religion was stupid-just by his tone. His tone even offended me, a professed agnostic.) Oh well, who cares if stupid MSCE's* don't finish...we'll have fun writing and reading it:`P
* - I make no assumption that ALL (or any) MSCE's are stupid...this is only a joke people! (you know, like D(+)GMA.)
Re:Not a double standard. (Score:2)
Probably the only time I notice is when an author replies to something I said to something they said, thus starting a conversation thread. I only notice that when I start getting a lot of posts on the same subject pop up on my User page, which I check to see replies to my posts.
In fact, I hadn't noticed Signal11's name until you pointed it out, and I just now had to scroll up to see that it was Dirtside I'm responding to. I think many people here judge based more on content, opinion, and general overall well-writtenness of an item rather than reputation.
---
Re:Not a double standard. (Score:1)
intersting but (Score:1)
Re:Biased...yes, but still useful (Score:1)
However, then another key point to stress is advocacy. And I could repeat that hundreds of times on slashdot, and still not get the message across.
I will write things that are anti-MS, (I have a "Microsoft Sucks" page on my web pages
It's also pretty funny when MS tries to fight the truth with propaganda. It shows their point of view very clearly. The "Linux Myths" page was a good one, but I think my favorite is probably this one:
"The macro functionality of Microsoft Office applications provides a
programming environment that allows customers and developers to extend the functionality of Office. However, malicious hackers have recently taken advantage of this macro functionality to create these harmful viruses. "
Come on! Hardly anyone in the media really has the balls to say how much Microsoft screwed up on this one. There should be a class-action suit against them just for this, for *creating* an entire category of viruses by not providing appropriate security measures. Sun never screwed up this much with Java, and that's a programming language built into a web browser. This is a frickin' word processor! Why can it format my hard drive? It's like if Emacs' E-Lisp had a built-in "root shell" feature in case you needed one, and the solution proposed was "Oh, just turn off E-Lisp if you think it might be dangerous..."
But, enough ranting. Sometimes it seems that Byte was the only magazine that *did* have the balls to say what they thought. It's a shame that we don't even have that anymore.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Interesting. (Score:2)
This won't help for directly combatting FUD, because those most susceptible to it are also those who don't know
the difference. The marketdroids are pretty firmly entrenched in most of the trade rags, although the web news
sites have been much more savvy lately (probably because of their readership
better. (But I still want Byte back! They are coming back, right?)
However, one should not be too quick to blow the whistle or jump to the wrong conclusions. (c.f. the Mindcraft
Fiasco. Sure, the tests were biased and unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that there weren't also limitations
in Linux w.r.t. what they were testing.)
Anyhow, it should be interesting to see what they put up here...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
FUD (Score:1)
The "Linux Revolution" is, I think, a new generation of Unix with the excitement of fresh discovery, a cool mascot, and by fortuitous chance, a useable word play on UNIX(tm).
"Was Ken Thompson engaging in anti-Linux FUD?" No. First, it isn't FUD. No Fear. No Uncertainty. No Doubt. Second, he has his opinions with, I am sure, more than adequate justification. Unix-3 (Linux) after Unix-2 (Berkeley *BSD) after originating Unix-1 as a doable alternative to Multics is just not going to make him say "wow!". Too much been there, done that with maybe a touch of Not Invented Here.
"Or will Linux come to eventually be recognized as a big mediocre mess?" Probably not, but if it is, there is always *BSD, or Linux learns from *BSD, as *BSD will learn a few things from Linux. If the "Linux Revolution" winds up with OpenBSD on every desktop, we have won.
Playing a bit of a semantic game, you _DO_ believe in the "Linux Revolution". The "Linux Revolution" is going from "No Unix" to "We have Unix". Your favorite unix at the moment just happens to be called NetBSD.
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:2)
You make a good point. Linux does have better USB than any current 'server class' OS (with the possible exception of OS/2).
Which brings up the greater issue of comparisions between Linux (or Solaris or Irix or OS/400) with Windows 9x. What a waste of time. If you want to run a backass no-security OS that has been kludged to hell for Win3.1/DOS compability and game performance, that's your problem.
I respectfully ask all of Slashdot to limit all Linux versus Windows flamewars to NT4/2000. Forget about Windows 98 - ya'all should be beyond that, except for the occasional video game.
--
Re:FUD everywhere (Score:1)
Both Sun and IBM make most of their money in areas of computing that Linux can't touch. They're both far more worried about DEC/Compaq and HP than they are about Linux.
--
Re:stop the fud? (Score:1)
A scalable Linux cluster machine is the 44th fastest computer in the world [netlib.org]. NT isn't on the list, but the list only goes to 500. Clearly, since you say WinNT is more scalable, the absence of WinNT from this list must be some form of conspiracy perpetuated by those darn Linux zealots.
Just imagine the performance if you installed NT 4.0 on all them nodes.
--
This is my favourite Micorsoft advocacy page [freeyellow.com].
Re:Linux Has Detractors? (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. WordPerfect users may have loved WordPerfect, but the inpenterable nature of the interface drove labor and training costs up for busineses. "Word Processing" used to actually be a marketable skill, and not just because of typing skills.
GUI rightfully won because it was cheaper and easier for casual users. (How many current middle managers have their secretaries type memos, or even have a secretary? All of them used to in the 1980s.) Microsoft won GUI because they had a mature product ported from MacOS.
(Then again, it might just be my personal jihad against WordPerfect. IMHO, the 1980s would have been better off if we would have stuck with WordStar, because at least the key commands were on the screen, not the keyboard. Plus they made sense too, unlike like that Shift+F7 WP crap.
And PS, MS Word 4 for the Mac was greatest word processor ever. Rant over. )
--
Re:Counter FUD? Useless. (Score:1)
other major corporations say if its unfounded? People who are literate will know what's useful and what isn't.
OK, let's make the optimistic assumption for a minute that most people are clueful (or literate as you put it), if nobody bothers countering the FUD how will the clueful people know that it's FUD? The only way would be for these individuals to evaluate all of the claims for themselves. So if Microsoft were to say "Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world" do you expect every potential user out there to evaluate the hundreds of other operating systems to prove or disprove Microsoft's claim? Of course not - that would be terribly redundant and impractical. It would be useful for those who have evidence to counter those claims would present that evidence so that everybody else isn't stuck with the decision of either trusting Microsoft or evaluating a couple hundred operating systems on their own. So sites such as the counter-fud site allow people to become more literate about questionable claims made by others in a practical manner - you can't expect people to be "literate" if there is nothing out there to counter the FUD.
Re:Siege mentality (Score:2)
Its true that Linux will continue to improve whether its accepted by PHBs or not, but without good PR less people know about it.
One large software company that I can think of has successfully used FUD several times to beat out other software packages that where far superior. Linux is different than those other companies, as you said, we don't go out of business if we get ignored, but less people reap the benefits out there.
Imagine how much better the computing world would be today if we all used computers with software that didn't stink.
Other tactics... (Score:3)
I'm always one to preach on what I find enjoyable about Linux, and yes, I'm not so easy to tell you the things that I don't like about it. The trick to this, is to do it in a manner in which you don't simply try to discredit the opposition. Most individuals, even M$ lovers, realize that it could be better (if nothing more), and most realize that it downright sucks. This leads to the belief that computers are difficult, and unreliable. Because people have come to endure this without question.
If I run across someone I know or work with that's into computers, and doesn't have any first-hand Linux experience, I give it to them. I let them play around on my system for awhile, letting them get into the joys that I so often experience just using my computer without it crashing. When someone realizes that it doesn't have to be the way it is for them, they start to change.
This goes a long way in swaying most people that simply don't realize there's a better way than Windows.
I understand that Linux wasn't originally intended for the masses, but it definately does have that avenue to explore before it can be taken seriously. With the advent and ease of use of RedHat 6.1, anyone that can use Windows 98 could just as easily be using RedHat 6.1. It's that easy. As they progress, and want to learn more, maybe put them into something a little less user friendly, and with a little more control. (Please no distro debates here, this is just my take) A good thing to do would be to put Linux in schools, as most people that use computers in high school, or even grade school, go on to use that same setup in real world after that. Also, people that learn it in school, wouldn't have to UNlearn their Win95 knowledge (which was the hardest part for me).
Re:stop the fud? (Score:1)
Re:Sympathy and other things ... (Score:1)
Calmly, rationally. Boring. Boring.
David vs Goliath. Underpenguin vs richest man on earth. Stay tuned to this channel.
There seems to be some confusion between FUD and the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE, particularly if it has some plausible grain of truth, told often and loudly, is very effective. Humor and ridicule are probably the only effective antidotes.
Re:It is worse than that! (Score:1)
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:3)
I see, then. You're against FUD, but you're against Microsoft even more? Fighting back doesn't necessarily mean adopting the same tactics that you despise in your opponent. Furthermore, those tactics can cause you to give up the moral high ground in the eyes of the people that you are trying to convince.
Re:Linux Has Detractors? (Score:3)
So, today, MS and allied forces attempt to generate anti-Linux "FUD"; that is to say, they go about using tried and testing marketing techniques to discredit the opposition. But it isn't working -- this should be obvious to anyone who follows the computer press. Why has the tide turned, the wind changed? God only knows. But it is certain that where the computer press lead, the computer managers will follow. And they are the people who will deliver the desktop.
Re:Siege mentality (Score:1)
Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:1)
[will@darkstar log]$ cat dmesg | grep POSIX
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
That would imply to me that Linux was tested and found POSIX compliant...
My OS was posix compliant out of the box, without extra add-ons to buy and install.
Balance, honesty (Score:2)
What got me was the comment that the Counter-FUD site "Will not attempt to be completely 'balanced'". Right there they lost any support I would have been willing to give. If all they are giving is hot air, then they aren't useful. No-one is going to believe them. Linux will be like MacOS, only without the pretty plastic to attract neophytes.
Look, for some people, Linux is not the right solution. It is still really for technical people only.
Say X crashes. The answer that comes up here and on the Linux newsgroups is to telnet in from another box, and kill the process. Hello? How is someone with a home machine, by itself, going to telnet in? And is the average person going to know how to run PS and kill?
The Zealot would call the above paragraph FUD, but it's a real problem that really happens. (It's my current problem, actually.) And pro-Linux "Anti-FUD" isn't helping anything. I really wonder if John Matthews is doing this because it's the only thing he can do: talk.
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:1)
At the moment, linux DOESNT have USB or DVD support, not in any distribution I've ever seen.
Yes, of course both are coming, and soon.. but it's true.. it doesn't have them.
Re:intersting but (Score:1)
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
-Jon
Re:Insightful? En vogue! (Score:1)
Reprinting the FUD: bad idea? (Score:1)
Even though its there to refute FUD, this site is also one of the best collections of anti-Linux FUD out there. If someone was looking to support an anti-Linux stance (as opposed to becoming properly informed), this site is a major convenience. No need to do the research themselves, its all right there, including links to the original articles which they could report as sources.
I wonder if it might be better to take a more subtle approach by providing only the positive, factual anti-FUD, instead of repeating the myth/lie they're responding to.
Re:Insightful? En vogue! (Score:1)
It's not a particularly bad thing to say things that are "against the grain". Once people get settled into one way of thinking, they can get stuck there, and sometimes it's helpful if they see things from another viewpoint (even if the other viewpoint is wrong?).
On the other hand, a lot of people like to blow smoke out their ass and think themselves big and cool by dissing groups of people. "Nya-hah... they're all wrong, they just don't realize it yet."
Of course, I'm thinking myself to be cool for dissing all those mindless naysayers, so don't take me too seriously.
Re:But with FUD, it can all turn against us (Score:1)
First, examine the strengths and weaknesses of the contenders.
Second, devise a benchmark that plays to the strengths of one and the weaknesses of the other. As non-obviously as possible.
Third, run the benchmark ostensibly fairly.
Re the Mindcraft benchmarks, it would be interesting to see how NT would fare with 5 processors and 3 network cards.
Threads vs Processes. IMHO it seems like there are *LOTS* more ways to get it wrong with threads. But if nothing goes wrong, threads are faster. IF.
Re:anti-FUD hierarchy (Score:1)
Basic strategy and tactics. Do _NOT_ use your oponents choice of weapons or playing field.
Re:Biased...yes, but still useful (Score:1)
...but more seriously, as a Linux community I also think that it is important we don't fall into the trap of fighting M$ propoganda, with what simply boils down to Linux propoganda...
-silent node
Re:Balance, honesty (Score:1)
WTF?! - You are running Linux and you only have one box? Hell, go to a garage sale and buy some cheapo 386 as a backup to telnet in! You can NEVER have too many machines! Bask in their glow!
Re:Counter FUD? Useless. (Score:1)
I do understand where you are coming from though. Having a site up that knocks the statements of what suchandsuch(tm) says to make sure its not a bunch of falsities is good. It's how its gone about which makes the difference. Sites such as KMFMS (hope thats right) provide good information and I don't believe the Counter-FUD label is a good name for it. It reviews Microsoft's practices and what is true, to the user. Its not Countering Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Personally I think that we shouldn't be wasting our time. Microsoft is very harmless to us. Let them spout off whatever they want. I mean look at it this way if someone from the scientific community said they had found the cure for AIDS they'd be reviewed by their peers. We already do that. If Microsoft says that it's OS supports this and that and it doesn't Users who want to use this and that will know and it'll definitely be something thats made public.
Stopping the FUD would be nice (Score:1)
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:1)
Who really cares about USB, though? I haven't noticed that Solaris supports USB either, and if you complained about Solaris on that count, you'd be very rightly laughed out of the room as sounding like a spoiled 14-year-old. ("This E10000 sucks! It can't even run Rogue Spear!") Choose an OS for what it's good for, eh? We'll have USB support soon enough, anyway.
Oh, and as for USB printers, scanners, and Zip drives: http://www.linux-usb.com [linux-usb.com] It looks like the answer to your question is "yes". (Looks like you might have to compile something. So sorry. I'm sure Linus and crew are working on the "read-users-mind-and-automatically-download-and-in sert-module-so-he-never-has-to-actually- even-think-about-working" patch that will soon do away with all that ugliness.)
Take a closer look at that statement on "balance" (Score:1)
From the Counter-FUD site:
Will not attempt to be completely 'balanced'--it's our aim to "locate, summarize, and link stories from the same mainstream press that refute the FUD points"--but we hope to never intentionally depict Linux as better than it actually is, or depict any Microsoft product as worse than it actually is.
The site's purpose is to counter FUD against Linux. In that sense it is not "balanced" since it's Linux focused. However, as the quote shows, the site will not try to make Linux look better than it is, or Microsoft look worse than it is. Read more carefully.
Why the press hates MS (Score:2)
Why has the press turned against Microsoft? I have three hypotheses:
1) (Obvious) The press likes a story with conflict, an underdog, and one matching the latest trends (which they hope to parlay into expertise which can reduce the effort of writing a string of future articles.) The ramifications of Microsoft potentially losing a substantial share of the OS market to Linux are also a strong argument in favor of coverage.
2) (Obvious to
3) (Obvious to me, at least) Before Apple's recent recovery, the press, having used Macs for over a decade, were forcibly converted to PCs by management for compatibility, support, economic reasons. The press has felt the shadowy arm of Microsoft restricting their platform choices. Resentment lingers.
Which one makes most sense to you? All three?
--LP
The need for FUD ... (Score:2)
The software market is slowly being transformed and the real fight is over where the balance of power (and thus control over spending) goes. Between the IP manufacturers and bundlers or the consultants and service people. FUD is a powerful weapon, as it can be used to deliberately suppress a competitor's stock price and thus create an easy take-over target using overpriced script as technology currency. Is it good or bad? Depends on whether you are the predator or the prey. Certainly Wall Street brokerage firms are not complaining. Fear and greed are two powerful emotions that can motivate individuals and FUD feeds on these elements. While from an engineering perspective, the technical advantages may be obvious, unfortunately life is not like that and good-enough tends to rule the day. While Linux anti-FUD may be a counteracting force, at the end of the day it is just the same thing in a different guise in trying to convince the market that your vision is a superior model despite the billions of capital lined up with proprietary solutions. As for the truth, whether benchmarking or quality testing, does anybody really care anymore? And this is the sad part.
LL
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
Add the delightful What You See Is What You Mean editor/word-processor/text-formatter, LyX.
It also has built-in support for RCS, among other things that would amaze a world full of Windows users.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
I think that everyone is missing the point... (Score:3)
i.e. NOT uptime quotes
If you chose Linux for a project, then you (or your manager, etc.) write an article explaining the decision process, what Linux did in testing that the competition didn't, etc. i.e. Real articles about solving problems, not open source propaganda.
In otherwords, if a reported wants to write an article, right now, they can go to MS's website and pull a ready to write article. Linux article writing is more work.
If tech writers can pull down 50 articles from computer professionals about why Linux or *BSD was used, or even why Solaris was chosen over MS, this provides amunition for writing an article without a MS slant.
Journalists rarely quote each other when it isn't a foreign policy piece (with foreign issues, there is usually more of a concern to get the word out than to not cite the NY Times), they quote people with knowledge.
The goal of the anti-FUS is(? or it should be) to gather expert testimonial. It doesn't have to be "hard evidence," an explanation that NT, Solaris, and Linux were all considered, and Linux was chosen, and why. A writer can then pull 25 quotes, easily, when preparing their piece.
Alex
Might As Well Argue About Screwdrivers (Score:1)
sure, each OS has advantages and disadvantages, and we can all yap about them until we're blue. but that doesn't change the fact that an OS (or more appropriately, an OS kernel) is pretty useless without other applications.
Insightful? En vogue! (Score:2)
But, I assure you, these kinds of posts are not especially insightful.
I forget the name of the particular fallacy employed in this particular post, but involves using "a grain of truth" and extrapolating to an absurd degree.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Re:Other tactics... (Score:1)
We would spend weeks configuring those systems too before they got ghosted onto hundreds of machines. And don't even get me started about the sheer and utter pain of installing a fully patched NT+Option Pack server.
Well first off the other Anonymous Coward was talking about Windows 2000. I assume he was talking about RIS(Remote Installation Services) for rapid deployment in a large corperation.
What's intresting with RIS is the fact you as an Administrator can set it up, configure it, and tell your user to install their own darn Operating System and have it automagicly detect all the hardware in their PC. It's that easy to use, I've seen it done, and it works(not a large deployment of course) and it's pretty simple to do too. So you could have compleatly diffrent types of PC's within your orginization and hopfully have it all work.
Also as far as you installing Windows system images and taking weeks to do, I'm not quite sure what you were doing. I had a friend who recently did a deployment of 300 NT Servers for his coperation, which configured all the servers to the exact spefications they needed to be and it took him about 30 hours to do. Which really isn't all that bad considering that means he deployed a server every 10 minutes.
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:1)
It is an absolute statement of fact that most hardware manufacturers, including the DVD and USB people, do not support Linux. Every single person working with Linux, including it's most ardent supporters, would agree with this 100%. Thus this is not "FUD".
What is "FUD" is distorting the truth. And you have just done so. You have pretty much said "Linux supporters call anything negative said about their systems FUD". THAT IS NOT TRUE. READ THE PARAGRAPH I JUST TYPED and stop being a child.
Anti FUD can be as bad as FUD (Score:3)
1.1 Fact: Open source software tends to be much better than proprietary software
which is hardly a fact at all. This so-called fact is easily counterable by any user of Photoshop, Visual Basic, Adobe Illustrator, Director, or one of thousands of proprietary games or edutainment programs. The usual exchange goes something like:
Linux Guy: You shouldn't use Photoshop! You should use The Gimp!
Person Who Uses Windows Because That's What He Has At Work: I like Photoshop, but if something is better then I'd be interested in seeing it. I can't guarantee my shop will switch over to it, though.
[time passes]
PWUWBTWHHAW: Well, it's a good start, but it doesn't have lots of the features of Photoshop that I've come to rely on. It also feels, I don't know, a bit crusty 'round the edges. Very 1988 Macintosh.
Linux Guy: But it's Open Source! It will get better! You can make feature requests, blah, blah, blah.
PWUWBTWHHAW: [slowly backing away] Um, okay, I believe you...
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:4)
Could we please stop with all the blaiming of the "Slashdot community" for everything. To a certain extent there is no slashdot community, just a bunch of individuals posting their state of mind. It seems that in almost any thread there is a comment along the lines of the "Slashdot community" being guilty of some horrible sin (we are zealots, flamers, mailbombers, fuddists, etc etc), yet for some reason these posts always get moderated up by the very "community" that is guilty.
There is a huge difference between a slightly exagerated personal statement about NT's percieved suckyness in a comment, and FUD as practiced by Microsoft and their equals. For them it is an adopted, controlled, and intentional process of discrediting the alternatives to their products. For them it is about making money, and countering any threats to their means for doing so: and, in the case of Microsoft, barred by absolutly no proffesional ethics (and that's not FUD, thats the conclusion of the US legal system).
No one is sitting in centrally located boardrooms in the middle of "Slashdot community" and making descisions about how we ought to discredit Microsoft (or, at least, no one has told me about it). I doubt very many of the posters here have financial incentives for wanting to discredit Microsoft. A lot of anti-MS sentiment comes through here because the people who post here are people who use and love computers, and they feel legitimately fucked over by them.
Maybe sometimes emotion gets the better of truth here: but that is far from FUD.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Not a double standard. (Score:4)
On the other hand, if Roger Ebert showed up on Slashdot and started spouting about how much he disliked Dell computers, we wouldn't take HIM seriously for the same reason: within the Slashdot community, he has no reputation. People don't believe movie critics just because they're movie critics; they believe them because they've been reading their reviews for years and generally agree (or maybe disagree, but at least respect) them. (And, duh, obviously there are reviewers who you never agree with, think are idiots, etc., but that's the exception.)
I've been participating on Slashdot for almost six months now, and I don't post anywhere near as often or as intelligently as you do; I'm sure there are probably a couple thousand Slashdot readers who recognize your nick -- Signal11 -- on sight; I know I do. I doubt there are any who'd recognize mine. But the reason is that you have time and again given interesting viewpoints and opinions; I don't post very often and when I do it's usually not a discourse of any kind; most often it's a short response. (Well, not this time :)
Anyway, like I said, it's not a double standard; it's THE standard. If you don't have a reputation in an arena, even if you know what you're talking about, the people listening to you can't know that yet. It takes time to build up their respect.
Ooopsie! (Score:1)
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:2)
No it wouldn't. Here is the "integrator" of Linux/UNIX software: |
That's right, the friendly pipe. You might fear him, but you need not; he is your friend. He will help you the true power within your computer, and within yourself.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Fud (Score:1)
FUD ME (Score:1)
stop the fud? (Score:1)
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
"However, I have a serious problem with operating systems or application programs which prevent me from coming up with quick elegant solutions on my own."
I think you have hit on the crucial reason that Unix is still around after some 30 years, after better systems have faded into oblivion. Remember "Obstacle" System 360?
Disclaimer: I am NOT fluent in Unix.
Basically, he's looking for quick and easy answers to hard problems. Microsoft does put up a glitzy facade and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
>It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have
The juxtaposition seems to imply that an integrated spell checker is one of the "simplest things". Either that or he has immense difficulty with the simplest things. A basic rule of computers and automation is that you automate things that you understand thoroughly. You do not substitute automation for lack of understanding.
>the write once run anywhere crap
That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT necessarily "low-level".
>The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine.
This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces, and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW, jon_c, were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
>Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new.
That other people have MADE. Confusing consumption with production.
>Howard rook [Roark] designed beautiful buildings, they we're [were] beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision".
However, he used the results of committees, etc. for the actual construction, the tools used, the building materials, the design of the building materials. It's a dream. Without knowing Strength of Materials I can design a building and everything will be wonderful.
>For any two programs to work together they're [there] needs to be some ground rules.
Not really. You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so that the interfaces match.
>even things like command line parameters aren't consistent.
Sure they are consistent. HP and TI calculators are consistent. Just not with each other. Big Endian and Little Endian are consistent, but not with each other. The distinction between adding signed integers and unsigned integers can be made with the opcodes (IBM 360+) or with condition codes (PDP 11, VAX). It helps to reduce inconsistency as much as possible, but there is no way to eliminate it.
>it only took Sun a few years to come up with [Java].
After something like 10 or 20 years of Programming Language research. The stuff so that the language is useable without expediting such as Word macro viruses is "non-trivial".
I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition, the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes. However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
speaking of countering FUD... (Score:1)
Counter FUD? Useless. (Score:1)
Re:Fud Factories (Score:5)
- Ours is Open Source FUD - anyone can add to it, yours is proprietary
- Our FUD is POSIX compliant
- Ours FUD Factory doesn't need to be restarted several times a day
- We don't have a FUD monopoly and the DOJ isn't about to close it down
- Ours is just plain cooler than yours
Just get the work Done. (Score:1)
I think that the problem is the out right untruths
that MS peddles. NT is NO WHERE near as advanced a UNIX/LINUX and I hate/resent MSFT for trying to say it is. The clueless EU's all think that MS is the only way and they deal with the problems that pop up using MSFT products. They all bought the MSFT hype and it stoped them from making an informed choice.
We need advertising regs to keep companies like MSFT from selling lies about what their products can do.
It is tempting to sit back and say "you be sorry" for using MS, but we all know what happen, our hands were tied by the PHB and now WE have to fix it or dust off the resume and move on. Let the PHB figure it out, it is just point and click right ?
Re:Interesting. (Score:3)
But it helps to have something to point those to who have been indoctrinated by FUD. Such a site could also serve as a training area and reference guide for people who wish to teach others about FUD. My intentions were similar when I created my kmfms website [kmfms.com] and I think it could work equally well with this counter-fud site.
Re:Balance, honesty (Score:1)
Oh and I am sure that NT or 95 has never done anything that you did not understand. Every see an NT server that reboot on the bsod ? how do you fix that ? This is a real problem and I have seen admins that don't have a clue how to fix it.
Biased...yes, but still useful (Score:2)
Suppose your manager is buying a bunch of MS FUD. Instead of sending him an email saying, "go see this anti-FUD site"
As an aside, I find it amusing how many IT "decision makers" I run into who take it as gospel if MS says it, but "obviously a vain and slanderous atempt at anti-Microsoft propoganda" otherwise. This anti-FUD site should be thought of perhaps more as a "portal" (hate that term!) to information, than as an objective provider thereof.
...just my 2 cents... (btw: I'd love to get "byte" back as well)
-silent node
Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
>and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look >too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
And basically that is a bunch of FUD. When it comes to my endorsement of Microsoft I'm talking about the API's and the SDK's. and that is defiantly not "glitzy".
>That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C
>per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT
>necessarily "low-level".
Yes assembly can be very productive, if you're proficient at it. but that like anything isn't it? I think you're picked on a side comment I made about how I don't agree with Java's VM implementation. Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully.. you guys have a real talent for picking out poorly worded text's and throwing them back in my face.
>This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the
>basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the
>pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces,
>and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW,
I agree pipes are great. I remember when I first used them I was awed by the power of such a simple concept. I guess when it comes down to it, this is a religious issue. Personally I don't perfere them command lines. There are some fantastic advantages to them. In some situations they are clearly superior. I could go on, but really this is a matter of preference.
>were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
I'll be the first to admit I can't spell jack. I wouldn't dare post anything with out typing it up in Word. My spelling is about on par with a 6th graders. Ever sense I was a child slacking off in elementary school I always figured I could get by on spell checkers. Now that I work in professional environments, I'm seeing what a huge mistake this was. It's become a thorn in every situation. Like when I write comments in my code I need to spell check it, when I write little one-sentence memos. Anything. Unfortunately when I post something people disagree with. I don't get to hear thoughtful responses to my points. I hear something like:
"Do you know what the word "litigate" means?"
arg... you know what I meant.
>You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so
>that the interfaces match.
IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers.
..and back to me spelling...
>I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition,
>the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell
>checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes.
>However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
I try to make my points as eloquent and clear as possible. Unfortunately my spelling is so horrific that I'll spell something SO wrong, that it's actually a word, therefore the spell checker misses it. Also sometimes I just screw up and agree with the wrong word as a suggestion on a misspelled word.
I think I need to put this in my
-Jon
Re:Linux Has Detractors? (Score:1)
Re:stop the fud? (Score:1)
Oh, how original. You get blasted a little for being an obnoxious prick, and think that the rule restricting how the Government can interfere in people's voicing of opinions has anything to do with an Anonymous Coward pissing in the wind on a very non-government web discussion forum.
Re:FUD ME (Score:1)
Someday, god willing, I WILL get moderator points, and so help me, I will moderate posts like these as high as I can!
I imagine it will take a miracle for an Anonmyous Coward to get enough moderator points to do that.Re:fud fud and more fud (Score:1)
The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine. Id rather spends my time doing something actually productive, something original. Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new. This is the philosophy behind "code-reuses" and the main reason we don't all write our software with our own hardware. Drive car's we build from scratch, or write up insults to our fellow man on keyboards made of wood we cute down in our backyard.
As for the "fully integrated spell checker". This is something I've wanted for a long time. And you're correct no OS offers it. Their are applications for Windows that attempt at this, but don't integrate as will as I would like.
The point behind the post (since most of you seemed to miss it). is that linux is not all that great of an OS from a usability standpoint. It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have some type of integration for applications that would allow this, something I have yet to see (and I'm sure lots of people have something to say about this, but before you reply. Realize that this thread is about FUD. And anything about how lunux apps are "so well integrated" would be complete bullshit).
This is getting offtopic, but I do have a serious concern that integration will never succeed with Open Source software. There are to many people doing things the way they feel is best, even things like command line parameters aren't consistent. You get a bunch of great programmers out their doing great apps, but none of the work together at all, they isn't any standard, no consistent way of doing something (and this is in a general "big picture" sense people).
For any two programs to work together they're needs to be some ground rules. Some type of standard. And if you not willing to have a large powerful company (like Microsoft) come up with them and shove them in your face, you may be stuck with a bunch of people in a standards committee for years debating on it. a good example of this is C++, this took something like a decade to get standardized, and a lot of people have very litigate issues with that they finally settled on (things like locale come to mind). Then you have something like Java, it only took Sun a few years to come up with. and it's a pretty darn good language, mind you I don't thing the write once run anywhere crap is a good idea. But the language itself is yummie.
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the "Fountain Head". Howard rook designed beautiful buildings, they we're beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision". When a committee got involved it became a hogpoge of mixed ideas, some of this from one guy, and a little of this from another guy. And this does not good art make.
(mystery subject) (Score:3)
The failure rate of Fujitsu drives is a number. 3/100ths, let's say, with a +-2% margin of error.
Whether "Thunder In Paradise" was a good movie is not a number.
This isn't a double-standard as much as it is two totally different standards. I would take your *opinion* on Fujitsu drives in the same way I'd take a review written by someone I didn't know: with a grain of salt.
It is worse than that! (Score:2)
The problem is that a lot of the people here get all their knowledge of WinNT, say, from /.
This means that when they get out into the real world, and run into an NT person who knows what they are talking about (Yes, they do exist) the /. person is made to sound stupid. Since they are normally championing the Free Software cause, it makes the whole Free Software world lose a little bit of creadibility.
For instance, go and have a look at some of the comments on here about XML - stuff like "MS owns XML, and are trying to use it to takeover the internet" type of thing.
If someone goes and repeats that to someone who knows what they are talkign about they look stupid.
Re:Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:1)
You're not getting away with that one (Score:2)
First of all, most Windows installations are 95/98 or 3.x. They most definitely do *not* have a journaling file system, or anything even resembling one.
Secondly, WRT Windows NT, I *thought* NTFS was journaling, and said so in a thread recently. Many people corrected me, and pointed out that NTFS is not a true journaling file system, it only logs metadata.
NT5/W2K/WhateverTheFuckIt'sCalledThisWeek is finally going to have an actual journaling filesystem.
Likewise, Linux should get XFS before too long. Not with the initial 2.4 release, but Linus says it might make it into 2.4.x eventually.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Re:Booooooooooorrring!!!! (Score:1)
NAME
fsck - check and repair a Linux file system
SYNOPSIS
fsck [ -sACVRTNP ] [ -t fstype ] [--] [fsck-options ] filesys [
DESCRIPTION
fsck is used to check and optionally repair a one or more Linux file systems. filesys can be a device name (e.g.
LABEL=root). The fsck program will try to run filesystems on different physical disk drives
in parallel to reduce total amount time to check all of the filesystems.
Re:Interesting. (Score:1)
I'm having problems tonight. Anyone know if you can plug a Sun keyboard into a peecee motherbroard? I keep hitting enter instead of backspace due to the different layouts of the keyboards. I suppose as long as you don't plug the mouse into the keyboard it would be O.K., no? If anyone had any experiences with using a Sun keyboard on a PC I'd appreciate an email.
Thanks,
fwr
Re:stop the fud? (Score:2)
Many NT monk^H^H^H^H"admins" have not had any appreciable experience with UNIX/Linux. So, their pronouncements about the "superiority" of NT are questionable, at best.
Most Linux and UNIX users, on the other hand, are likely to have had significant experience with Windows (even NT), simply due to its wide infect^H^H^H^H^Hdeployment. God knows, I've had to deal with NT for years, and know more than I really ever wanted to know about it, and its reliablilty/scalablity (and lack thereof).
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
EL8 DOOD: FUD KILLER (Score:1)
Linux, on the other hand, is simply the greatest OS ever and has absolutely no flaws. Using it increases your IQ. It is a known fact that all Linux users enter eternal paradise upon death.
What about the following FUD? (Score:1)
Linux has no DVD support.
How is this site going to help with that? By posting editorials? (In the words of Pvt. Hudson from Aliens, "Now what are we supposed to use, harsh language?")
TALK LESS CODE MORE.
I like this.. (Score:2)
It's also take-no-prisoners because they're admitting a bias. Some people will call them on their bias, saying they should be more balanced. To that I say: "burp". Why? Because MS isn't nice to us, why the heck should we be nice to them?
The only difference is we don't need to lie to be mean
Only anti-Linux FUD or all FUD? (Score:5)
It seems to me that a lot of FUD comes from the Slashdot community itself. They scream bloody murder when someone states something wrong about Linux, but they themselves say blatent wrong things about the other non-Linux software. Especially against Microsoft and Apple. If you really want to stop the FUD then I would suggest starting with the Slashdot comments (and sometimes main story post).
... (Score:4)
Okay, in this community it's assumed you have enough technical prowness to differentiate between "marketing hype" and technical specs. This means that when you talk with somebody, it's gonna get pretty boring if you just quote the specs. That means you provide anecdotal evidence. For example, I have had nothing but problems with Fujitsu drives. I had one crash horribly, and the other one wouldn't work correctly when it was installed with a tape drive. Word of mouth, in effect. This is dismissed, but a movie critic's views are accepted as a reason to, or not to, go see a movie? I could be wrong, but that sounds like a double standard to me.
Sounds like the media doesn't take outsiders seriously. Strangely enough, technicians don't take non-techies seriously in their area of trade either. Arrogance, or common sense?
Re:intersting but (Score:3)
anti-FUD hierarchy (Score:3)
IMNSHO we are not going to get anywhere from this defensive stance. Instead we should attack NT, since Microsoft for too long has enjoyed the slave-like attitude from their installed ( = captive) user base: they complain, but have no energy to revolt.
In order to attack we should structure our strategy along several dimensions:
1. NT - Unix
2. Commercial - open source
3. Technology - implementation and practices
4. OS vendor - independent software vendors
This means that it is not enough to just argue that Linux is better than NT because of X, Y and Z. We need to specify that X means "generic Unix is better than NT", that Y means "technology Y is poorly implemented within NT", etc.
Granted, I have no deep knowledge of NT innards, but my guess is pretty much anything that is implementable in Unix can be ported to NT (c.f. Cygnus). Also, I have respect for VAX/VMS, so the "core technology" issue should be a toss. (Any other opinions?)
But, as many suffering NT users can attest, we can score heavily on the issues of poor implementations and programming practices that cause applications to crash and sometimes bring down the whole system.
On the issue of commercial vs open source, we need to point out the vices of EULA. Unlike e.g SUN or SGI, Microsoft does not provide any hardware advantages over the free Unices, but their licensing terms make the whole issue of "big corporate support" a moot point.
mainstream credibility of LinuxToday? (Score:3)
But isn't the founding premise of this website the notion that the mainstream media is monolithically accepting of anti-Linux FUD? LinuxToday is attempting to reach middle-managers and CEO's who are entrenched in the Microsoft lifestyle, and cite to these individuals commentary that suggests Linux is a viable commercial choice. But in order for that commentary to carry weight, it must be from a source recognized by the audience as an authority.
If sources already exists, where is the need for this webpage? If they do not exist, from where will LinuxToday draw its material? My fear is that LinuxToday will be unable to find mainstream articles supportive of Linux, and hence resort to editorials or excerpted opinions from the slashdot crowd. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such a site would devolve upon the credibility of the hoster, LinuxToday. I am no PHB, but I was not aware LinuxToday had a large and devoted following among that crowd.
-konstant
Re:What about the following FUD? (Score:2)
Re:FUD everywhere (Score:2)
As far as Sun goes I wouldn't worry too much about them. With Intel making Linux the first OS to run on the merced, or itanium or whatever they are calling it now, and IBM bringing it to the big computers, and SGI porting IRIS performer over, I don't think Sun FUD would have a big effect on anything, or any FUD for that matter. Linux is growing, it's growing at an incredible rate, faster than any OS in history. FUD tactics don't work against momentum like that. I mean all of the FUD has been put out and yet we still have another major software/hardware company bringing their products to Linux on a more and more regular basis.
Besides, it seems to me that SUN hates MS as much as we do. I think if they were looking to attack Linux then they would wait until after it has done all the damage it can do to MS. No since fighting two enemies at the same time.
Siege mentality (Score:3)
Why are Linux people sometimes so caught up with a siege mentality? "Oh no! MS is spreading FUD about Linux again! Hurry up guys, we need to counter their unfounded FUD, otherwise they may FUD Linux out of existence!"
IMHO if Linux is really that good, it doesn't matter what people say about it. One day its true value will be manifested. Talk is cheap. It's too easy to talk and spread FUD and anti-FUD. How 'bout something real, people? Let MS waste their time and resources FUDding away. If Linux is really worthwhile, people's opinion of it will not matter, as long as the Linux community continues working on improving it.
Although there is the need to educate people so that they know they have choice outside MS and so on, we shouldn't get caught in the crossfire between MS FUD and anti-MS FUD. Let them FUD all they want; let's just present the facts to people and not be unduly provoked by what those people say about us. One day, people who believed in the FUD and people who spread the FUD will realize that they were totally wrong about Linux. But by then Linux would have left them far, far behind and it would be their turn to play catch-up.