Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bob Young Blasts Recent Anti-Open Source Article

Posted by Hemos on from the response-==-good dept.

buzzcutbuddha writes "Bob Young from Red Hat issued his rebuttal to John Taschek's Anti-Open Source Article on ZDNet. Well written and articulate, and to the point ... He shoots, he scores!" Check out the original article blasting the open-source idea. Good rebuttal, Bob.

5 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Rig a poll, win a prize! by scumdamn · · Score: 5

    There is a pole on the page. Unfortunately, the lUs3Rz at ZDNet didn't give a Cowboy Neal option. I propose we Slashdot the poll. At the very least it shows that most of the readers of ZDNet.com feel that Open source is "John Taschek's worst nightmare."
    A side effect is that it gives them a little more ad revenue, but that's not that big of a deal. Right? They're still losing money anyway, aren't they?

  2. Bob's Article by Zordak · · Score: 5

    This is the kind of response I like to see in the Open Source world. It is calm, well thought out, and backed by fact. I think that the Open Source community, and Linux in particular, often gets a bad rap for being a movement of fanatics and funcamentalists. Articles like Bob's posted on a very public forum (and one frequented by Wintel users) provide some substance to the movement.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  3. Open-Source by kayser_soze · · Score: 5
    The concept of open-source is all about choice and the empowerment of the consumer. This is analogous to the Internet as a whole: the giving of power back to the individual. This is why the open-source movement will be successful.

    Companies need to realize that the dominant business model for the future will be geared towards the need and wants of the consumer. We see this already in small things such as increased availability of *designer* styles for home products. Even the most basic of items can be had in any style, shape, or color based on an individual's preference. The individual can make the choice of what they want.

    In the same way the Internet and the Web does this for information. Almost anything you could possibly want to know is available and free.

    Open-source does the same. It allows us to choose what functionality we want, how we want it, what it looks like, and so on. It lets us do what we want, which ultimately is where the appeal lies. As soon as mainstream media, and companies realize and begin to capitalize on it, the computing world will become a better place for all.

  4. Argument/Rebuttal, Argument/Rebuttal by Uruk · · Score: 5

    Seems that every time we have some major piece of anti-free software FUD, we almost immediately have somebody who is "famous" within the community weigh in on the issue with some form of rebuttal to let everyone know what their stance on it is.

    It seems to me that sometimes, it's probably just better to let the FUD bury itself, and not even give it the honor of being discussed. Now, there are some times when this is NOT the case, but other times, you have to just let the FUD go, because there's already tons of it out there, and there's going to be more.

    remember the "Linux Myths" thingy that MS put up? I can't remember if it was mandrake or somebody else who wrote some multipage rebuttal to MS' "Linux Myths". Guess what? You're preaching to the choir. The only case in which a rebuttal like that would be effective is if it was posted next to the linux myths column on microsoft.com, and if you think that's going to happen, think again.

    Well, Bob young's article on ZDNet is a little bit better, since it stands to be seen by people other than those who already know that the article was full of untruths to begin with, but at the same time, I don't understand the motivation to write rebuttals like this. Sure, the original column that he's talking about was bullshit, but everybody knew that.

    I'm trying not to be cynical, but all I can come up with in terms of the motivations for writing these rebuttals would be to demonstrate to the community that you are "pure of heart", or just to promote the popularity of linux.

    IMHO, linux doesn't need either.

    Course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)

    --
    -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
  5. Re:Why? by ballestra · · Score: 5
    I will steal a quote from someone's .sig:
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

    I really enjoyed a recent interview of Andy Grove I saw on The Charlie Rose Show, largely because Charlie kept trying to get Andy to say something really powerful, and Andy was seemed very careful. Andy Grove is known as a survivor of prostate cancer, and did a lot of research into the latest treatments and medical knowledge on the disease. So Charlie asked him what Mayor Giuliani should do (because Giuliani recently announced that his doctors detected he has early stages of prostate cancer). Andy said something like, "I can't say what he should do. I will only say what I have experienced. He may find that my experiences are pertinent to his situation..." This is just an example, but throughout the interview Andy consistently spoke equivocally, or qualified his opinions. I think this is really refreshing, since we all know that on the subjects he was talking about he could certainly be considered an authority. I think it's an academic influence that leads people to speak carefully like that.

    So I guess I'm really rambling off topic here, but I just wanted to share this because I agree that too many people (especially ACs) speak in absolutes and make claims that they can't support because they don't have the knowledge to defend their opinions.

    "What I cannot create, I do not understand."