Slashdot Mirror

Also, I'm confused as to which distributions actually uses 1.1.
--

Wow, this is a textbook example of how to write FUD!

First, make some claim to credibility by making a vague description of something you've done with the product quite some time ago, making it sound as if you've been on top of the subject for aeons. Now you're an "expert."

Next, establish your "talking points." These aren't what you're going to say directly, just the general things you want the reader to be thinking as s/he makes his/her way through the piece. For example, get the reader to wonder about the viability of the product: will it survive, is it just a fad, what will happen to my computing environment if it goes away? Divert attention away from such basic things as the GNU GPL by making it seem that only rocket scientists can type "make install" for all that perpetually free source code.

Talking points shouldn't include cutting-edge information in FUD pieces; they should work on historical points, reputations, and perceptions only. For example, early Linux distros may have been tricky to install, so talk about that.

Change. Most people hate change. They hate bugs, and betas are full of bugs. Talk about being in "endless beta," yeah, that's the ticket.

Documentation. Let's continue on the path we started down with Installation, and ignore such things as the past few SuSE offerings that come with voluminous documentation. And ignore HOWTOs and such while we're at it.

Then, after going after perceived historical flaws, a good FUD piece slips in a fatal misdesign of the competition and makes it into a feature. For example, the "Unified User Experience." Just try to get multiple desktops on Windows right out of the box, or to configure it to work the way you want it to work. Only an MIS Nazi could love having exactly one choice. Dear Emily, may all your dresses be short, red, tight, and low-cut; this, too, will provide a Unified User Experience. (Probably horrific, but hey, what do I know?)

Conclude your FUD by saying that all the perceived flaws cannot be fixed; there are and can never be standards (oooh, go see FreeStandards.org and contribute). Nothing like piling a lie on top of it all.

And finally, loop back to the difficulties you had ages ago, and make it sound as if the same problems will always be there for you to come back to.

What a horrible trap of logic for those without the brains to see through it!

Now, anyone want to do the same thing to a certain monopolist crashware company? :-)

If you're building/packaging programs then following the guidelines in the LDPS will help maximise the portability of the binaries.