Slashdot Mirror
Are Linux Reviews Fixed?
David Hume writes: "Following up on a Tucows article asserting Linux Reviews Are Bought Rather Than Earned, ZDNET asserts writers fire off glowing reviews for free software and asks Are Linux Reviews Fixed? Is this a real problem? Are reviewers induced to write good reviews by the implied promise of future free software? If so, what do we do about it? Who do we trust? Do we trust Slashdot? :)" I don't think my family even trusts me. Course the only software I've bought in the last 6 months was Diablo2 (Which I beat thank you ;).
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Actually, Mandrake the boxed version comes with a nifty version of Partition Magic that makes installation even easier than on RedHat. The Mandrake version on the net available for free does not have Partition Magic. Oh boy, free Partition Magic..yippeeee!
You want to see bad reviews about Linux? Go to http://www.LinuxSucks.com I'm as big a Linux fan as anyone, but I think getting out the BAD STUFF helps make it even better in the long run.
ZD's mags are notorious for giving the "editor's choice" to their heavy advertisers. I don't trust the editorial content of ANYTHING with ZD's name on it as far as I can throw a pile of pre-internet Computer Shoppers. I recall ZD ranking Packard Hell high in a PC Magazine review in `96. That destroyed all their credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Ones that your junkbuster filtered out.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Publish something especially absurd or scandalous about free software, and the odds are good that the article will get Slashdotted and a few hundred thousand geeks will make life easy for the ZD marketing department.
The obviously funny part is that those users are unlikely to pay any noticeable attention to advertisements on ZDNet pages.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For example, my Helix Gnome review was me downloading the distribution over my 56K modem and having a go at it. I had no contact with anyone at Helix Code.
If they want to see irresponsible journalism, perhaps they should read the stories they just wrote.
These kinds of accusations make me ill. I believe I've just read my last ZDNet article, and I don't think I'll be visiting TUCows anytime soon. I urge everyone to write to the respective editors of these "publications" and calmly voice your disgust.
The more you know, the less you understand.
Unfortunately, a review that does not convey the reviewer's passion and interest is not interesting to read. Unfortunately that is, because that is what a review must do so as to be unbiased.
Comparing Linux to Windows to Other-OS is like comparing apples to oranges. The end product is one thing, the thinking behind the product is another, as is the approach with which it is implemented.
Reviews don't allow people to see this, and most readers quite frankly don't care for that -- they want a quick read that conveys the gist, and bias comes with the territory.
John
John_Chalisque
Yeah.. that AOL Platinum crap.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
People get flamed here on /. all the time for making an accusation without backing it up. You have to either acknowledge that you have no proof and are likely full of crap, or provide some evidence or at least some passable logic to back up your claim. I would expect better of a news organization... but then this *is* ZDnet. They've never been known for insightful, ethical, or even interesting journalism. Don't know much about Tucows really, but if the article originated with them, then they deserve the flames as much as ZDnet does for reposting it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"It is frequently easier to be honest, when you have nothing at stake."
IMHO, this applies to reviewers, too. When there is there nothing at stake, you can afford to express your own opinion, free of bias. But reviewers (unlike Slashdot) DO have a lot at stake. They've their jobs, their advertisers and their journal/magazine's readership at stake.
(You -might- find a few real-life Citizen Kanes, who put integrity over and above mere green stuff, but they'll be very far and few between. Of all the voices in the "free software" world, IMHO only Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Slashdot's very own CmdrTaco have that high a level of integrity and honesty, under all circumstances.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm curious.. Exactly which point and clicky useless eye candy widgets are you talking about in Windows? I'm not saying that they're not there, I'd just like to hear what you think..
Rigging reviews of FREE software so they can get FREE evaluation copies. Hmmmmm.... does this strike anyone else as a bit odd?
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Nobody cares!
Indeed, particularly when the Diablo games are such poor implementations of the original roguelike genre. If you want that sort of game, go an get a copy of angband/zangband/*band from http://thangorodrim.angband.org.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I believe the best reviews are not what a journalist writes, but the testimony of the users. I rarely trust the word of a single person on the quality of a product, but if I read on a mailing list or news site where some number individuals who use the product say they like it, that carries more weight.
--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
This has to be FUD.... Lets see, I can download Redhat, Mandrake & SUSE for free (or get them from cheapbytes for $3-$4). So what are these companies giving the reviewers that would sway them so much? A CD, that will be outdated in a few months? I think both tucows and zdnet should publish another article on how to download, install and evaluate linux for yourself, without ever contacting the vendor, one for each distribution mentioned. That would be a real plus for all in the community. My biggest problem is that a lot of people probably took the articles seriously. And if these people did review the product but did not talk about bugs they found, the webzines should not let that person do a review again.
Palin...
That has to be the lamest indictment I've seen. Free copies of RedHat and Mandrake with more to come? Puh-lease. Anyone qualified to do an adequate review of either one would be sharp enough to download their own free copy anyway. An exception might be for the "server OS" packages that RedHat has been coming out with lately, but people in a position to review it in the first place probably have the money or the financial backing to buy it if they wanted.
Yes, I agree that a lot of OSS is over-rated. It seems that any little niche tool that runs more than 80% of the time will be showered with praise on at least a few review sites. However, is that endemic to OSS? No. Read the over-hyped reviews of share-crap on any of the larger sites (Read you mail! Only $79.95!) and you'll quickly see where the hype is.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yet another reason to like Debian... Zero dollars are spent on marketing, so you know they're not paying anyone (directly or indirectly) to trick you.
Of course, if you're smart and knowledgeable enough to evaluate your options for yourself, do that and pick the best software, regardless of marketing. For me, Debian is the best software I've found yet, but YMMV.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
You mean people are getting free software for free?!?! Oh, the shame of it. This had better be stopped, and quick. Throw those scumsucking reviewers in the slammer.
Next time, buddy, you better PAY FOR your free software before you review it!
... and Sun too. I'll never forget PC Magazine's orgasm over StarOffice 5.0, in which the word "speed" is not mentioned even once. What a fucking joke - I'm all for StarOffice, but it does not merit the rating they gave it.
:)
Aah, what the fuck. It's free
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
As cool as that sounds, it really makes no sense. Think about it.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
The best, most foolproof way I have found to find sites that are whoring their reviews is to just look for the ones that gave Daikatana a good review.
:)
Those I don't patronize anymore
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Heck - AOL should be sued for sending a Virus (AOL software) thru the US mail!
As for reviewers getting "paid." Heck, the biggest huckster ever was probably Jerry Pournelle. He even bragged about how much "stuff" he got in the mail that he never got too! He usually told you about warts and all though, so I gotta wonder about the initial premise, let ALONE the simple fact that you can obtain the Mandrake Distro for no cost.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I don't think it's bribery, so much as a lack of time and a desire not to scare companies away from the linux market.
Take, for example, WPO2000. Corel has done a lot of work to port lots of their software to Linux, and is one of the companies making it possible for more businesses to start using Linux on a desktop. I could see a well-meaning reviewer wishing to downplay problems found so as not to sully Corel's rep before they have a chance to fix things. Because otherwise, they might just abandon the platform entirely.
Also, a lot of the problems in WPO2k appear only for some people under some circumstances. Unless a reviewer happens to try that feature in the right circumstance, everything might work fine. This is a fault of any review: some things you just don't notice until you've used them in production for a while.
Watch the ZDNet talkback section on this article - right now the first ten postings have all been extremely critical of the article and ZD. It'll be interesting to see if those postings stay that way.
http://www.linuxiso.org
There you go. No reason to take time out of your busy day to write prose extolling the virtues of Linux.
Actually, I don't know if this is FUD or not since I'm not sure I even understand what is or isn't... but this article is just plain dumb. Let me get this straight (the article seemed awefully short, so maybe I missed something)... Mandrake, RedHat, and SuSE are being "charged" with giving reviewers FREE software in exchange for better reviews. Huh. Those bastards.
Let's ignore for a second that you can DOWNLOAD all of the software for free. (Somehow I doubt that RedHat sends a Win2000 Server CD with every reviewer's package).
This is something that has gone on for a LONG time in every industry...the SOFTWARE industry isn't the first... Car's...there is a SHINNING example where bribes buy the awards. The companies that hand out car awards get free vacations and trips and other things like that... Of course these aren't for good reviews...its just because the reviewers are "friends" with the car company. uh huh, yeah that's it.
Further more... I think the author of this article might be mis interpreting what is going on. Perhaps reviewers are reluctant to say "oh and by the way, there is this minor issue with an applet you probably won't use" because they say in their review "Mandrake is available for free." Furthermore, it has been my experience that the major distributions are generally pretty well put together (upon release). If reviewers were ignoring HUGE problems, then I can see where this article would have some ground. (Huge problems being something like, the utility to partition the drives won't work with IDE disk drives, or installing Gnome means your mouse doesn't work).
As far as I know, the same kind of reviews happen in the Windows and Macintosh world... So why pick on Free software? Sounds to me like someone needed an article topic.......
---
Companies have been doing this for years. And with this like DMCA ,UTICA writing bad reviews will get
harder. I like linux and all but I also know alot of the software for it cab be bad and also there are alot software out there is great. People must learn to take things with a grain of salt and decide on their own.
Well since the software is mostly free to try out you could argue that this is much less of an issue in the OpenSource arena than any closed source offering. We will probably never have 100% influency free reviews anywhere but Open source seems to be the easiest to check, or at least the cheapest.
Help fight continental drift.
Again, courtesy of LWN - the 1999 linux timeline.. quotes:
"Betting $5 on a 100-to-1 underdog can be fun. Betting $50,000 would be foolish. Yet some PC users are making similarly outrageous wagers on Linux, the underdog in the operating-system wars." - Jesse Berst, March 02, 1999
That is the last Berst article. There is no need to moderate this post up, unless you happen to *really* dislike Jesse. Then, by all means. :)
"I think it's great if you are willing to promote Linux to your boss. As long as you are aware of the risk you are taking. The risk of getting fired." - Feb 16, 1998
"Is a Linux takeover likely? Give me a break. Of course not." - June 23, 1998
"I personally think Windows NT will be the mainstream operating system within a few years." [...] "My belief: Linux will never go mainstream" - September 9, 1998
"I've always said that Linux could become a serious challenger to Microsoft's Windows NT." - September 28, 1998
So no, of COURSE linux reviews aren't fixed, and how dare you accuse ZDNet of fixing reviews!
Aw, it doesn't deserve a 5 -- and I forgot to preview first, so it's got HTML and spelling errors. I'm perfectly happy with a 3; I've got a lot of Karma anyway.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Well, okay. Go to ftp.redhat.com to get the free copy of Linux I've prepared for you and...
WAIT! I don't need to give you anything! It's already been moderated up to a 5!
[goes back and reads own post]
Oh, okay. I implicitly defend Linux and attack MS, while explicitly attacking ZD. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect I was a Karma Whore.
Steven E. Ehrbar
That's like the pot calling the dinner plate black. Ziff-Davis has a long history of getting lots of actual money from MS for advertising, and a long history of generating glowing reveiws of every new MS product...
Steven E. Ehrbar
I have written several articles for linuxnews.com
and am currently a columnist with Linuxworld.com.
I can assure you that my reviews are NOT nice for
the sake of being nice.
<br>
<Br>
It is important to remember though that as reviewers we are working with product that we
dont' have a lot of time to play with. We are
also dealing with word length limitations and
review specifications.
<br><br>
A review of RedHat 6.2 may only to cover the differences from 6.1 or it may be encompassing
a comparison to something like Corel.
<Br><br>
Also from a mainstream media standpoint... They
are looking for readership and if writing a review that is glowing and leaving out the parts that are
bad helps them, they are going to do it.
<br><Br>
Articles of the Wordperfect Office 2000 are like this. Agreed WordPerfect Office 2000 is a good
product, if you like running a buggy windows application on your Linux box.
<br><br>
Understand that when I say this, I am a WordPerfect 2000 for Linux user and the Linux
version is not anywhere close to be as stable
as the Windows version.
<br><br>
Reviewers won't tell you that because they are
just happy to see the product arrive.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
There's nothing special happening with Linux-related software reviews. Damn near all the reviews in the broad-audience print and web publications are superficial, usually on the positive side.
You need only read something by some of the exceptions like the New York Times's Peter Lewis or Byte's Jerry Pournelle to get a sense of proportion.
In the major computer media from IDG, ZD and CMP, reviews of office suites or $600 graphics tools seldom go beyond a checklist of features and a few comments on interface design. How often does it (StarOffice, MS Office) crash? How often does it (Adobe Illustrator 9) mangle files created with it to the point that they can't be opened?
Large-scale databases and high-end application servers sometimes get a proper review, with a realistic test environment, a significant amount of use, and real-world legacy data. But desktop operating systems and applications--even expensive ones, like design software and development tools--just get a review based on firing it up a couple of times and a look through the feature set.
Sure, that UML tool integrates with PVCS, but does it integrate well in an active team environmet? How's the interface? Does it freeze up when there is network latency? Yes, that desktop database can support tables with millikns of rows, but how did it perform on complex queries? And how did its "multiuser" features fare when you try that same query when three other users are making queries?
Linux-related reviews seem no better or worse. Caldera OpenDesktop installs easily? Great. How well preconfigured was Netscape? Did the PPP dialer setup utility require odd gymnastics like firing up a terminal window and running it as root from a command line? Did you have trouble accessing the update and patch download site? How responsive and knowledgable is the phone and email support staff you're paying for? Were tasks like printing a screenshot or installing new hardware easy or difficult?
If there is a general disconnect between the low polish level of many Linux desktop apps and the high praise Linux gets in the resulting review, that probably has something to do with the remarkable stability of Linux itself compared to the major consumer operating systems. No antialiased fonts? Awkward printer setup? But gee! The darn thing ran for four the weeks of the evaluation without a reboot.
It's tough to get a meaningful review of, say, Photoshop, from someone who is a product reviewer by trade, and not a full-time graphic artist. Even if the reviewer was an artist in a past job, s/he is seldom going to give the application the hard workout they would have in the course of real-world use. Instead, we get charts giving rendering times for specific effects, a database-style test suite applied to a creative tool, which should be more about flexibility, interface design and stability.
Enterprise applications are easier to review, since you can draw meaningful conclusions from a rigid, numerically quantifiable test suite. But even here, reviewers grab onto the superficial to make major pronouncements. So-and-so's web-based server management console is lacking? But what if most users of the application use a command line to manage the product anyway, as with many databases and web and application servers?
If you think that your time isn't worthless (free), then maybe you shouldn't be trusting worthless (free) reviews.
If the reviews that are out there are telling me Linux is highly reliable when in fact it isn't, then I could stand to loose a great deal more than just some download and learning time.
If you're basing business decisions on reviews you read in glossy software industry magazines, your business is in trouble from a lot more than just potentially unstable software. Please turn over technology purchasing decisions to someone less naive and go back to chasing your secretary.
The only halfway reliable source of information about software is the experience of other users, and preferably not the user who made the purchasing decision. Before you buy mission-critical software, talk to other professionals you respect who have used it.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
OK, that's a shame, but check the name. Linuxmall - that hardly sounds independent, does it? Would you expect forddealer.com to post a review saying "the new Taurus is even uglier than the present jelly blob . . ."?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If this whole story isn't completely baseless, then perhaps reveiwers are slanting the reviews because they want to see Open Source software succeed?
Journalists, as a rule, are not educated in any technology field. As curiosity is a fundamental personality trait for most journalists I know, many of them will learn a lot after a couple of years working in any technical field.
But before they learn they must still work, so they will have to trust someone else on the accuracy of what they write. Here the PR machine of [your big tech company of choice] is ready to take over and "help" the poor journalist with a deadlibne to keep his/her job.
We usually see it happening in computer-related fields, but it happens all the time in all scientific-oriented area.
Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc, all send thousand dollar packages to Media companies. How do you think they get reviewed? Writers don't have the time (or inclination) to hunt out software packages to be reviewed.
To attack a small magazine because they don't have the time or resources to fully research a product before posting up a simple 'I like it', is, as far as I'm concern, destructive journalism, meant to just belittle the 'non-professionals' and bolster their own publication.
"What do I care, if life ain't fair,
If you look at me real sore.
I've paid my dues and you should too,
as a son-of-a-bitch to the core"
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
You can see over 600 reviews of mine on my Web site.
Having said all that, back to the question: Are Linux reviews fixed? The answer: It depends on the integrity of the individual journalist and publication. For the most part, very few reviews are fixed in the sense that there's pay for a positive evaluation.
When it does happen, it's usually for one of two reasons. The most common reason is that the media outlet is actually an advertising vehicle, and this fact is given up front. One example is "Bunting's Window", the high-tech products show that appears on most in-flight video programs in the U.S. If you look carefully, there's a statement in there about how "promotional consideration" has been paid by companies whose products appear in the show. That promotional consideration is typically in the 5-6 figures. The producers know that most viewers don't know what "promotional consideration" means -- but hey, at least they said it.
The second way that reviews are "fixed" is in media outlets that are less open about their pay-for-play policies. That's considered unethical almost universally in the U.S., but not overseas: For example, the (now-defunct?) Japanese print version of MacWEEK ran positive reviews face-to-face with a full-page ad for the product reviewed. In the U.S., it's often smaller and more cash-strapped publications that tie advertising and gifts to reviews results. These publications deserve their (generally low) reputations.
O.K., so there's little out-and-out fixing. However, reviews often skim over negative points. Again, there are two common justifications. The first reason -- and one that affects "community" publications, such as those in the Mac and Linux worlds -- is that readers really *want* to hear good things about their community, rather than serious evaluations. That's understandable, but not (IMHO) good: Saplings may need protection, but they also need a chance to grow into storm-weathered oaks.
The more pernicious sort of "fix" is when journalists abandon their evaluative senses because of peer pressure. We all know the big example: Microsoft Windows. [Insert here description of bugs and security holes ignored by the media.] Why do they do this? Because... well, because they're human. They may have friends at the company, or have personal (non-financial) reasons for wanting the product to succeed, or whatever -- the fact is, it happens.
However, *almost never* do journalists give good reviews for financial reasons, or for gifts, or for fear that the company will "dry up" if they slam the product. If it's valuable for a company to have its products appear in a publication, they'll be back with the next version, no matter how bad past reviews have been. And if it's not valuable to have reviews in that publication... well, then, why would companies bother with it in the first place?
--Tom Geller, Geller Communications, http://www.tgeller.com
Tom Geller
Like for Windows? Are people reviewing OSes ever trying to do more than browse the web on their PII 1000000mhz box?
Don't feed the trolls!
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
> First question you ask them(before you sign anything): Which OS do you prefer?
> Favored response: Whichever is best for the situation.
I doubt I'd trust any consultant that gave me such an evasive non-answer. Your implied point is valid, i.e. you don't want to hire religious zealots, but it's actually good for people to have a personal preference (it shows that they care), and you want to know up front what it is. The last thing you want is someone who hides behind pretend impartiality.
Perhaps a better approach would be to ask what her preference is, and then ask her to describe a case where she implemented something other than her preference and why.
pot()
{
kettle( black);
}
Gee, how clever of you to rehash somebody else's quotes. Much easier than having any wit, I guess...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
or is someone asserting that writers won't say bad things about free software because the publisher might give them... free copies of the software?
...
no, really.. come on..
--
blue, who is obviously too stupid to grok zdnet.
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
*Note to publishers of both magazines... please cancel my subscriptions. I've been trying to do this for 3 years now! Don't make me call the BPA
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
Back in my days as a wee youth, I reviewed movies for the Off Campus (teen) section of the Ocala Star-Banner. Several of my colleagues were under the impression that we wouldn't get to see any more movies if we gave bad reviews to them; I pointed out that the newspaper (not the movie studio) was paying for the movie tickets, so it didn't matter whether the review was positive or negative.
I will say that the temptation to give a glowing review to any new product is very strong when (a) you're not getting a lot of products and (b) the products are at least promising. Back in the days of the Amiga, there were only a couple of years in which reviews were objective, and that's only because there was real competition in the marketplace. Once most of the developers left, glowing reviews returned to the forefront.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
It's amazing that anyone at Ziff-Davis would have the balls to say this.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, or that they're charges may not be correct, but hearing it from ZD just makes me laugh.
These are the guys who gave Windows 95 an award for "Technical Excellence" in PC Magazine when, at the time, over half the people I knew who had installed it were having to reinstall it several times per month, it was corrupting data on networks, etc. It just plain didn't work, and there were competing products like OS/2 Warp version 3 which utterly crushed it into dust and ran circles around it. "Technical Excellence" my ass. What a coincidence that Microsoft had so many ads in PC Magazine. Hmm.
ZD's meaure of "technical excellence" is a direct function of advertising budget. For them to accuse someone else of selling reviews, is blatant hipocrisy.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Of course not, there would be general outrage.
But if you look at the actual files on the disk, they're plain old MS executables. "wp9.exe".
I asked the Corel people at Comdex, and they confirmed that they are doing everything as Windows binaries in WINE from here on in. At least, that was their plan.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Actually, Jesse Berst actually said all those things at various times in his editorials... They may be taken a little out of context, but in general accurate...
Well, all I know is that whenever I submit articles to Slashdot exposing Intuit's dirty dealings or pointing out linux problems (OTHER THAN SECURITY PROBLEMS - Slashdot does a fine job of publicising those, thank the gods) they don't get posted.
Of course, my writing skills suck, so that might have more to do with it...
Its not a yes or no question. Its a question of human nature. Regardless of how unbaised we claim to be, ultimately we ALL end up being pushed and throttled and nudged to one side over another. You, me, everyone. Writers, third parties, the whole lot.
Here's an interesting tidbit of reality for example: Lets suppose our very own CmdrTaco was to write a review of some sort. I've had several (private) conversations with Malda by email..He's done an admirable job of trying to convince me that he remains totally unbiased, despite the connections he has to his employers, despite his money, and despite his fame. In Rob's mind, he's managing to offset the pressures, and doing as best a job he can NOT to be affected by it all.
Rob is human, which means he's affected by different pressures in a number of subtle ways. Unfortunately, the fact that hes sitting on a crapload of money means that he cant possibly be as "hungry" as someone who hasn't made it yet. The tainting has already taken place. It can be masked with effort, but its effect is irreversible. Rob can no longer care about Linux as much as someone who hasnt yet made it to the promised land. Rob, despite how much he tries to, cannot be unbiased when it comes to issues surrounding VA. They cut his paycheck every two weeks. The influences exerted on him can be counteracted -- But that doesn't erase the fact that the overall equation has been tampered with.
Rob + Bias Correction != Old Rob.
YOU + Bias Correction != Old You.
The proof is fairly abundant here. The very thing that is driving Linux right now is the same thing thats corrupting it. Greed. The psychotic need to continually put yourself an inch above your competitors..Until that stops, the ball will keep rolling, and we'll eventually become what we originally despised.
Don't leave it up to the marketing department. Leave it up to the users. They'll decide.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Quick question.
Are you retarded?
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Perhaps the problem is not any "fixing", but the superficial nature of web reviews. It is all too easy for reviewers to gush over the latest installer screens. It is not that easy to actually test the distribution after it is installed. I too have been disappointed by the cheesy, glowing reviews of Mandrake 7. When I installed it and tried to use it, I found it full of bugs: XEmacs' info system has not been working for the last few distributions, the ftape driver still does not load right, one Mandrake Security config script clobbered my /etc/inittab (making my machine unbootable) etc. A little digging beyond the skin-deep level would have revealed that Mandrake 7 does not deserve such overly positive reviews.
On another topic, I wonder what magic incantation is there for submitting articles? I sent in the same thing 2 days ago:
2000-07-12 14:49:01 Are Linux reviews fixed? (articles,media) (rejected)
I am sure ZDNN isnt swayed by any companies. Nice to see them let mandrake have a rebuttal, espcially seeing as how ZDTV IS SPONSORED BY MACMILLAN WHICH SELLS MANDRAKE!!!!! You think ZDNN is going to bad mouth their sponsors?
_joshua_
Let me sort this out:
Write a good review of Mandrake, receive a copy of some free software.
So, I write a favorable review of Linux-Mandrake 7.0, which indicates I am happy with the software. Mandrake later sends me Linux-Mandrake 7.1....
Help! I'm being bribed! They're sending me free software!
(Linux is free software, see....)
If complimentary Linux reviews are fixed, then complimentary Wondows reviews are assuredly ab0rken.
After all, fixing Linux is what open source is all about!
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
I said something nice about Linux once, and I suddenly find that the internet is full of places where I can get it for free.
I wonder whether the same applies to automobiles? I have a glowing review of the latest Jaguar that I would be willing to publish somewhere. Anywhere.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I know someone who writes for linuxmall, a well known e-seller and reviewing site. They are currently being taken over by another company, and have been ordered, not nudged, not suggested, but ordered to write nothing but glowing reviews.
Now that I can believe. But free copies of free software in exchange for a good review?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> On the other hand, a free copy of Microsoft NT 2000 would at least provide some sort of motivation.
Well, maybe for people that actually wanted it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I don't see why something like this is so far-fetched.
Actually, I am willing to entertain the possibility that certain reviewers have a "box fetish", and crave having that $29.95 SuSE boxed set to put on the shelf behind their desk, rather than craving the free software itself. That could get expensive if you tried to keep your collection complete.
> Every time a pro-MS review come out, everyone screams about how they bought the review, either with bribes, free software, or advertising dollars.
No, we only do this when the review says something that we know isn't true. If we went on a rant every time a pro-MS review came out, Slashdot would be a heck of a lot busier than it is.
> With the new Linux companies, they could easily buy a review the same way.
Yep, big money tends to corrupt, and there's no reason to believe that persons associated with Linux are intrinsically more moral than persons associated with Windows. It's just that the idea of bribing people with free free software is a ridiculous concept. If someone at Tucows is on the take for free free software, then he's a dumbass in addition to being immoral.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> this all came from a single Tucows article
Someone on Linux Today suggested that it was a troll on Tucows to suckerpunch ZD. It would be hard to prove such a thing, but it was kind of funny to see the Tucows writer claim with a straight face that he got offers of free copies of Linux if he would gloss over its faults. I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye, and it will be interesting to see what the author says next.
> a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
AKA trolling. Yeah, that's my theory about why JB alternates between praising Linux and dissing it. The alternations keep both sides coming back for more; if he sang the same tune all the time, one side or the other would learn to ignore him.
Just think... all the trolls here may just be doing their homework for Journalism 101.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This kind of thing really annoys me. This was featured on the main ZDnet page for awhile. There were a lot of "talkbacks" flaming the article for its flawed content.
Altavista, who gets its "tech" news from ZDnet, also posted the article on its frontpage.
First of all, this all came from a single Tucows article which had very little evidence other than the one ancedotal incident with Mandrake. The ZDnet article also mentions Red Hat, but with no links to back up their accusations.
Second, and most obviously as others no doubt realize, Linux is free and the danger of this for Linux reviews is MANY times less than commercial software.
But the thing that bugs me most, is the amount of hits Tucows and ZDnet will get from posting this. As I wrote in their talkbacks, a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
Sure, if your time is worthless...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I am a freelance journalist, having written Linux related articles/workshops/reviews for Future Publishing's titles PCPlus and Linux Format and I can say, hand on heart, that I have never given a favorable review to a product that didn't deserve it. I have given some bad reviews to what I believed to be bad software and I have never been co-erced by anyone to alter the outcome of a review.
Journalistic integrity is obviously of the utmost importance, but we are just people and it is more than likely that you may not agree with our opinions. In the world of free software that's ok because you can still evaluate the software we are reviewing to see if you like it and not have to worry about feature limited demos, timeout, nag requesters, etc.
In my opinion, reviews of free software should be taken as a guide to what is available - it's then down to each user to determine if they agree or not.
To reviewers, if you are co-erced by companies to give good reviews then it seems almost certain that they are not confident in their products and probably don't deserve good reviews. There is no point encouraging people to use/buy crap software - the world has enough crap software already.
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
I've been writing as a professional journalist about software for 20 years now. Frankly I remember getting into software reviewing just so I could get my hands on lots of software.
But I've never "softened" a review in order to get more software. The idea is ludicrous. If you're a reviewer it's a full time job staving off the avalanche of software that comes your way -- whatever you write about it. No software manufacturer has _ever_ said "You wrote a lousy review so we won't send you any more software". They usually say something like: "OK, but we'll make sure you receive the next update, because you're really going to see an improvement." And you go: "Oh, shit".
What is at issue is the reader's attention span. A lengthy review berating some piece of junk just isn't very interesting, so the tendency is just not to write about it. And I suppose it's true that if I really like a particular product (Mandrake, say), I'm not going to get too hung up about any downside I come across, unless of course it's a show-stopper. I'll spend more time putting across the good points of the product and stand by for dealing with any problemettes from readers when they hit my mailbag.
There may be journalistic technical reasons for downplaying the downside, too. For example, I'm currently gearing up to enthuse in my PCW column about Lars Bernhardsson's very interesting window manager (http://www.fnurt.net/larswm). Yes, it has some problems, but 1) they're of absolutely no interest to anyone who isn't going to try out the software, and 2) they would actually be very hard to explain (many column inches) to non-users of what is a radically different window manager. So I don't expect them to loom nearly as large in the column as they have in my worktime.
el bid
--
el bid
It's the pot calling the kettle black. I quit reading any of ZDNet's reviews and most of their editorials. It became very, very obvious that the more money MS put into print advertising, the more ZD published glowing reviews. They even went so far, in one Linux/BSD/Windows comparison, to say (paraphrasing) "even though it's less stable, more expensive, less secure, and performs worse, we have to give the nod to NT."
Good reviews of free software encourage people to write more? It's a conspiracy for sure!
The Free DVD Case which is an Amaray(the best is the greatest thing in the world!) Even better then free AOL floppies, I can finally replace all those stupid Scanvo and Alpha cases I have. I just LOVE Aol.
Time for a slashdot poll on the issue then?
I would argue that the purpose of any review is to have a trusted authority give an opinion on a product or service. The opinion is just that.
Most peoples opinions are based on prejudices of one sort or another. Someone who is keen on free software is more likely to be intelligent enough to use it. Someone who is keen on Windows, is probably not a UNIX user (the platform of choice for most free software) and therefore probably going to pan most free software...
except napster, since that's about free beer and not free software.
John
What if you don't know anyone else who uses the product(s) you are considering?
If this includes the people who work in your IS department, then you hire consultants. First question you ask them(before you sign anything): Which OS do you prefer? Favored response: Whichever is best for the situation.
What if you don't have time to fully evaluate every option?
Then you're not doing your job. Get an assistant to foist the lesser half of your work onto so you can concentrate on "fully evaluating every option."
In the real world many business decisions are made on the basis of incomplete information and against tight deadlines.
In the real world there's a difference between acting professional and being professional. Acting professional requires things like nice suits and witty meeting banter, see The Courtier for a more complete list. Being professional has only one requirement: pure fucking competence.
Therefore I would submit that Angry Badger's post is dead-on. If you're making IT decisions based on reading PC Magazine or whatever, there's a real problem. They should have no weight whatsoever in your decisions. If no one you work with knows about the different apps you're considering, you need to go with a third party, one who doesn't push a given package right up front.
You can trust me on this one, my stepfather wrote that magazine article shit when I was in high school, and he's a complete moron.
-jpowers
-jpowers
While that's so, the Romans had an applicable phrase: caveat emptor.
James
Look at the difference. Magazine gets copy of Win2K and a big fat advert check. Reviewer thinks its shit but won't bite the hand that feeds him. Hah! he walks off with cold hard cash in his pocket, you the reader are stuck if you wer stupid enough to believe the review.
Now, a reviewer gets a copy of some free software. Is this shit? Well the promise of more shit in the future is hardly enticing, so really bad products will never get a good review. Does the product look pretty good? Ok, give it a little boost. The reviewer walks away with better software down the road.
But in this case, so does the reader who buys into the review.
The interests of the reviewer "corrupted" by the promist of future software is the exactly the same as the interests of the reader. The interests of the reviewer corrupted by money are opposed to the interests of the reader.
And, in point of fact, open/free source advocates are way more harsh on each other.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hmm ... kind of tough on your microwave. ... :)
I prefer drink coasters
This is a boring sig
Can you lend me Diablo 2? Since you beat it and all..
Warning: Offtopic, etc.
I'm sorry, sir, but i have to take issue with your simplified view of life.
Gnute, Gnutella, Freenet, Napster and their like are just a facilitation for crime.
Sony, BMG, Epic and other record companies are simply a facilitation for a producer with an already-fat paycheck to rob a creative and possibly brilliant artist of the proper proportion of their record sales.
Stealing from the poor and creative is the Open Market way.
Looking at your post, i can hardly believe you'd say these things without your tongue already poked through your cheek. "Getting rich at other's expense"? Good Lord, those are the very ieals this country was founded on (capitalism depends on labor, and labor recieves a very small portion of the proceeds).
That being said, i think you can rest easy from the fear of a flame war, since most people are too sick and tired of responding to nitwits.
---------
---------
Get back to me when my brain starts working.
Everyone has long suspected MSFT of directly or indirectly influencing software reviews in their favor. "Hmmm, this magazine gets half it advertising revenue from Microsoft, I wonder if this article is unbiased."
Especially suspicous are the ones that start out with a few potshots at MSFT, but end up recommending their stuff. I remember a classic one on WinCE a few years ago. It went something like "Well, MSFT just doesn't understand real-time, multitasking, and WinCE is a piece of shit, but you might as well start using it because everyone else will."
Backup case just in case the dog gets a little fiesty with one of my good cases.
trust the users who bitch. when i want to know how a piece of software or hardware performs i go to google and search for " problems". it rarely fails to give me a good idea of how well the software/hardware works.
When looking at everything in the software industry you have to take out the shining reviews and the FUD reviews. In the middle of thoes extremes is where you will find somthing close to the truth.
/. effect:)
But who do you trust? When it comes to Linux I trust my self. Right now I have a server that has been running for 95 days now! It is running Apache, VNC, DNS, FTP, SSH, MySQL, and many other things. Nothing has crashed. In fact when netscape pre6 came out I put a mirror and it withstood the
I trust my self. I trust the fact that my development cycle on Linux is faster than MS. I trust the fact that I can run more software with less hardware than I can with MS because I am doing it.
I trust the fact that Linux and most of the applications for it are more stable than MS crap because it has been running for 3x longer than MS ever has and under a heavier load.
I trust these things because of my experienc. Not because of some company praising Linux or Micro$oft.
If you are in doubt of which is a better product, review them your self. Or like I said discount the stunning reviews and the FUD then you may come to a somwhat truthfull conclusion.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
"I've always found ZD publications to be particularly hostile to Microsoft..."
Then pehaps you could provide a link to a review of an MS product they don't like.
War is necrophilia.
WORD, dude. What do they give them? The 'pro' version of Mandrake? OOOooohhh...
That was more or less exactly what I was thinking...all the vendors mentioned in that article allow their programs to be downloaded for free!!!! I mean, I guess that's not an option for some people, but still...
I think the real issue is that blind faith in the movement causes some people to write overly good reviews. I guess that's a 'real' problem, but it's one that tells you a few things...
Jesse Berst figured this out some time ago, and now it's spreading through the rest of the ZD editorial department. Publish something especially absurd or scandalous about free software, and the odds are good that the article will get Slashdotted and a few hundred thousand geeks will make life easy for the ZD marketing department.
It's especially amusing, considering they're one of the slowest loading sites out there.
I wonder if that's why they show up in the top 5 news stories on my.yahoo.com - do they pay for the placement? Because every time I click on a Linux story link from ZD, it's a thinly disguised attack on Linux, not an objective review. And, as a survivor of the Apple/MSFT and MSFT/IBM wars, I find this all quite laughable.
Will in Seattle
Sure Linux involves some nice ideals and a great bunch of developers. But now its a part of the software industry. Bias can exist because of a good product. But it will also be bought.
Any industry is littered with "product reviews" that are either thinly edited company press releases, or produced by publications/authors who shy away from the negative aspects of the product under scrutiny. This is where organizations with a thourough, fair, and unbiased reputation shine. Think Consumer Reports.
This is also the power of community forums such as Slashdot. Want to know if the posted story is marketing fluff? The technical community favoring sites like this are often all too keen to share with you their own insight. Burried in the midst of joking, rants, and half-baked opinions will be good arguments on various points concerning the topic in question. The truth becomes available for personal consideration.
Without going too far on a Jon Katz tangent - THIS is why sites such as Slashdot is truely "new media" and ZDNet is just another form of publication.
It looks like tocows is trying to get more readers. And what's better than stating that everyone out there sucks and is biased, except... US (tocows that is)! Even if we are offered free software for free, we will still write an unbiased review! We are just honest, unlike everybody else out there!- -------
-----------------------------------------
Jobs? Which jobs?
It isn't like you really need to trust reviews...because most of the time you spend reading reviews your looking for the best investment of your money...and in this case, the software is free, so the only investment is the downloading and learning of the software. And yes, that can be a HUGE investment, but it you would still need to invest that time into commercial software anyway.
If that short TUCOWS article had been posted to /. it would have been marked troll. Not having the /. moderation system to guide him SJVN swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
1000 SlashDot sigs
Wouldn't it be easier to 'buy' a review of a piece of software that you _couldn't_ download for free?
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
If you consider that every time a reviewer writes something that casts Linux in less than holy penguin light they will be attacked by more spam than a single mail order toner cartridge manufactuerer could dream of putting out. What would you do as a reviewer? Well, I think you light the holy penguin lamps. /2 switch in the Gnome command line. /. in which case moderate the drivel.
Let's face it, Linux has a niche of dedicated deviants who have devoted themselves to unsanitary living conditions writing letters to the editor of the Moose Jaw Times informing them that the comparison of Windows telnet to Gnome Telnet was unfair due to the lack of the
It is negative reinforcement, if you post something bad about Linux you better have some decent mail filters or you will be up to your nipples in poorly written flames till next tuesday.
The way some people fanatically push Linux you have to wonder why people are hesitant.
Be clueful before you press send folks. Unless this is
--
Za's Vid
P/.
************************
************************
What, me worry?
Yay! Another thing to microwave!
Ok, so the reviewers are getting free software from several major Linux distributions, like Mandrake and RedHat. Of course, they could also just download it for free. The idea that reviews are being bought with free software seems kind of, well, odd.
I knew that reviewers were cheep but horing themselves off for free copies of free software seems a bit overboard.
What seems really odd is that this same process doesn't seem to cause reviewers to not rip apart the latest version Windows.
Something smells rotten and I don't think it is the free fish that the penguins are giving out.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Like the other forms of criticism, the software & particularly in this case open source critics have to have the discretion and impartiality to say what they really think about a product, and not just "gee whiz they gave me this and ain't it fun" [1] but a balanced analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each item up for review. In other words, something akin to Consumer Reports, which goes out of its way to avoid entanglements with the manufacturers fo the products it reviews, accepting no handouts or advertisements. I think Slashdot could actually be a decent parallel to CU, in that few of us are actually on the payrolls (directly or otherwise) of, say, Red Hat. But our biases are a little too strong around here (like the godawful book reviews :) and I think somethign more objective is called for.
That or we could just learn to read these things with a huge lump of salt. That's probably easier anyhow.
[1] There was a great article in The Baffler a while back in which a reporter accepted a weekend trip to the American Southwest to go bombing around in a brand new Audi TT, courtesy of course of Audi. The Audi people didn't come out and say "we want you to write a good review for us", but they were pretty thorough about making sure the reporters had a good time, flying them in first class, putting them up in a four star hotel, giving them the car, a full tank of gas, and a pair of Wayfarer sunglasses, and basically just letting them go race around the deserts & mountains for a few days. Most of the journalists were regulars, working for Motor Trend type trade magazines, but there were others (travel magazines, etc) and then the Baffler guy, who wasn't writing about the car at all, but rather the whole process of it. Surreal stuff, and makes you wonder just how honest the regular critics can be even if they tried, which they might not do anyway...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
ZDNET is asking if reviews are bought and paid for???? That is fucking funny!
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Also, I would be curious to see how many people that use Linux first tested it because of a good review they read, or because they heard about it from friends or colleagues. Linux is lot more word of mouth than media driven. It doesn't have a PR department for one thing. (Excluding the likes of Redhat.)
I think reviews and articles are fine if you are trying to sell a boss-man on Linux, but I don't think anyone that actually uses it got it because the read a review on ZDnet or PC Magazine. Correct me if I am wrong, but that where you go to here about MS products, not free software.
- I like pudding.
Like I told Steven, the author of the piece, I couldn't see why this guy at TUCOWS was so shocked, simply shocked that this could happen. (Contrary to his identification of me, I'm not a senior anything around here :)
It's a risk in any kind of review journalism--but one I think is also mostly bogus. Do concert reviewers or film critics slant their opinions because they get free tickets? What about auto writers, who don't have to pay for the cars they test drive? No. Annoying is annoying, whether or not you paid for it. Plus, if you've spent more than a month reviewing software for a publication, you quickly find yourself deluged in review copies of stuff--most of which is utter dreck.
Goods or services that aren't mass-produced--for instance, a dining experience in a restaurant--are another issue. In these cases, you try to make sure you're just another customer to the vendor in question (i.e., show up at the restaurant unannounced and anonymously, then pay your own way).
Rob Pegoraro, Consumer Technology Editor
Almost unheard-of honesty... That's how I ended up liking Linux.
For all the great things which can be done on Linux, the hype ads do more damage than good.
I like the documentation which says "This is version 0.25 because, even though it does its main job well, it has problems, and may not work if you do X, Y, and Z, and my code in the second module looks like crap and really should be optimized..."
Beats a marketing slogan any day on my machine.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
One of the reasons for their success is their strict refusal of all offers of free products (nor do they solicit). They obtain their products as a regular consumer would.
Their procedures are briefly documented on their Web page.
Competent reviewers who wish to remain objective should adhere to these guidelines.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
The so-called problem of reviewers giving better reviews to products in order to get more free product from the vendor is a non-issue. The reviews are only as trusted as their reputation over time allows. A reviewer who too often glosses over or doesn't mention issues that burn real users will come to have his/her statements disvalued. Such a reviewer is not a boon to the vendor and will not get goodies for being an ineffectual reviewer. Also, the goodies are not bribes but products to be reviewed that the viewer may get to keep in exchange for their time and energy.
Does it claim to be? Do we expect it to be? Not really. I read this site because it carries stories that are often interesting to me, and because I either sympathize with or can filter out the biases.
--
Communication is only possible between equals
After reading these articles I chose to write a little letter.
It is interesting that you point out that these reviewers are getting
"Free" software from linux companies. Mandrake and Redhat Both fall mostly
under the GPL therefor the software is FREE to begin with. If these
reviewers are actually linux people and know squat about linux they would
know that there is little or no software that they should ever have to pay
for (I personally think this is the downfall of the linux corporate
community how can you honestly make money off something that is free).
I would be interested to know what kind of software they are getting for
free. It would be my impression that these tactics have been used in the
MS world for a LONG time. Getting expensive software (Office, Visio..) for
free would be great. I do not see the extreme benefit from getting (in
comparison) StarOffice, RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE for fee. (If you add up the
cost of all these products they don't compare to the cost of Office 2k).
You may in-fact have a point about bias software reviews but I don't think
that the reasoning behind them is getting free software for free. I think
it is more a lack of people to do critical reviews. If I use redhat and I
think it is great then why would I put out a bad review (I use debian it
is better!). I think there is a lack of people with the technical
expertise to evaluate linux software and then to have the desire to write
a review on it.
I mean, have you ever read PC Magazine, or "Smart Business(formerly PC Computing)" ? These are the same people who say the Pentium III is a better "bang for the buck" processor than the new Athlons/Thunderbirds. They're the same publishing company that sold Microsoft 32 consecutive pages for a "special advertising section" on Windows 2000. They're MS and Intel's bitches... always consider that when reading things published by ZD.
As for the tucows article, it raises a good point, but I mean... What kind of software is Mandrake going to give a reviewer? "Check this out, you get partition magic if you say Mandrake 7 kicks ass." Either the writer of that article is stupid, or just wants to stir things up.
SpamapS -- Undernet #Linuxhelp
Reviews in media today are inherently biased. Most reviewers already have the end answer in mind when they start their reviews. Look at the Microsoft proponents and the huge props Windows 2000 got from them. If you ask other outlets, Solaris 8 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then, of course, you have the groups that look at the Open Source community and Linux, either already fond of or seeing potential in the software, writing excelent reviews. There's really no way around it.
The reason why this tends to happen is that reviews for things like this are done by computer literate individuals of varying level of ability. They already know what OS they like, so they will look for strong suits in that OS. It's just a continuation of the old holy wars... (Mac vs PC, Win vs Unix, Win vs BeOS, KDE vs WindowMaker now...whatever.) Also, you can't have an outsider who knows nothing of these OSs review them, because they wouldn't have the ability, necessarly, to even perform a fair review even if they wanted to.
Where does that leave us? Take every review with a grain of salt, read as many conflicting points of view as possible, and in the end, determine for yourself what you like the most.
Mike
It took me a while to figure out what this article is talking about. When the author says "free software" what he means is _not_ the same free as the FSF. He actually means "getting commercial software for free" and not "free software like Linux." The problem with this whole thesis is that I just can't imagine that it's particularly true of Linux writers, because the amount of money you save by getting a free copy of RedHat or Mandrake is pretty trivial, since you can just download them for free off the net.
However, in the world of non-free software, where "review copies" of software can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, it gets a lot more tricky. I have had plenty of personal experience with people (myself included!) who want to write reviews of product X in order to get a free copy. And that can definitely influence what you write...
Can your IM do this?
Has anyone else gotten these?
Giving a reviewer free software creates an atmosphere of indebtedness?? Who would have thunk it!
MS does it, Novell does it, Network Associates does it, IBM does it. But they play it harder; Bad reviews mean they don't take out advertisments in the reviewer's rag, as well as give them software for review.
Big fricking deal, the distro makers sent copies of their latest and greatest to reviewers that had said favorable things in the past. Would you send your software to your harshest critic?
I wouldn't, and neither would you.
On the plus side; Only in the OSS community would people actually worry that their product was given unfairly good reviews!!!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Remember that a large percentage of reviews are bought -- larger than most people think. The way to get an unbiased review is to check out smaller sites, like HappyPuppy.Com for game reviews, to take only one example. The only time reviews can really be biased is with larger sites like ZDNet, whose reviews are read by a sufficiently large number of people that vendors have a strong interest in swinging them in their favor.
So when all is told, I suspect that Linux reviews are just as biased as nay others in the industry. Now that Linux qualifies as being in the "industry", this will happen more often until it is at a norm with the rest of technology.
P.S. Sorry if the spelling and formatting are bad -- IE (stuck with it) has decided to all of a sudden not refresh the screen, making it impossible to read wat I'm typing.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
of most of the media reviewers.
Wow, free RedHat.
I've built at least 15 redhat servers over the years, db, web, ftp, irc, hotline, firewalls, proxies... Never spent a penny on software.
What exactly would they be getting in return for fixed reviews again?
I'd hardly consider this news unless you discount all of the other markets out there where consumer products are reviewed. In fact, I would be very willing to bet that the current biases in place concerning Linux are pretty mild. Think about movies! When was the last time you saw a review "This movie sucks" attached to a VHS/DVD box. Reviewers get publicity and are better known and trusted if their names end up on movie boxes. Of course, they can't go too far, or things backfire, but movie reviewers definitely work hard to come up with unique reviews that companies will want to put on marketing material.
Jason
For non-free software? I mean, sure, I guess it would be NICE to have a boxed copy of Redhat, but I can download the nice, bootable ISO image of 6.2 from a really fast mirror. What's the incentive? Non-free software, on the other hand, I could see as a potential problem, particularly among smaller sites.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Rob Pegoraro, senior technology editor for The Washington Post,
responds that, "It's not that Linux is special; many software
companies see sending out evaluation programs as an extension of
marketing. Writers and software makers who buy into this, though, are
stupid, because it quickly becomes obvious who's in the tank for a
specific company."
Um... "Hey pot! This is Kettle calling... Guess what?!"
I've never read any Washington Post reviews (do they even review software?), so this may or may not apply to them, but considering that ZD has been seriously in bed with M$ for a number of years, their story on this can be safely dismissed. The Tucows article bears slightly more significance. With Linux being as cheap as it is for those who know where to look, one should look to more expensive software packages for the more skewed review. Also considering the easy excitability of the feverent gaming crowd, this seems to be a breeding ground for corrupted reviews.
I've stopped giving much credit to a review of anything. I like linux and prefer it to any other OS I have used. I still have windows on my computer for games. I do my real work in linux or ssh'ed into a *nix box. I often find myself looking for windows workarounds to do stuff that I like in linux. If I don't like something in linux, *I* can change it(it may take a while but I can do something about it). With Windows I have to throw my hands up in the air and wait for a certain company to get around to it.
When I say linux above I do not mean just the kernel but rather linux and all the gnu and other programs with it.
tucows says:
on ZDnet, this becomes
It's a very subtle change, but it's the difference between "sometimes it looks like something fishy is going on" and "Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE conspire to fix reviews".
I can see this as an error if it had been an in-person interview. But to quote a webpage wrong? What, did he go to one website, write it down in shorthand, and only then fire up his word processor?
But then, wtf is up with calling this news? What's Vaughan-Nichols saying? "I have no sources, but I read this other article by someone who actually does research, so I'll summarize it for you"?
But what am I getting all fired up about. I always knew ZDNet was the national enquirer of the computer world.
Who are probably not influenced at all by the millions of dollars a year in ad revenues from Microsoft when they write glowing reviews of Microsoft products. I'm sure they pay for all their MS software, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hey, if we're buying reviews now, does that mean we're as big as Microsoft?
-Denor
Really? Their web site doesn't mention that...
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
You think this is bad, think about how much free stuff pharmaceutical companies give to doctors...
Hey, Joe Sixpack, tired of Windows crashing on you? Here is a Linux CD for free, included with your favorite magazine and mailed to you with that junkmail you always get. The automatic installation Druid will partition your hard drive for you and install LILO so you can also boot to Windows as well as Linux. If you want games, Linux is coming out with them, talk to your gaming companies about supporting Linux. Pass on the Linux CD to a few friends, because after all, it is free. Help us put Microsoft out of business. By the way did I mention this CD also has a free copy of StarOffice and Quake for Linux? ;)
Access to preview versions is still necessary to release a good review at the time of release. If they don't have brains or access to CVS, is a different matter.
Stop the brainwash
There are versions of Red Hat not available for download. Maybe they send out versions with free support? Commercial Linux applications. They will always find ways to bribe the reviewers. And just 'cuz it's been going on before, doesn't make it right.
Oh.. Wanna know why they pick on free software? Cuz this means some of the Linux companies are attempting to suck integrity out of software journalists. And don't come here and say 'oh.. we know this would happen sooner or later'.. If you wanna be defeatist, go vote for the Shrub.
Stop the brainwash
I sympathize with your position, and remind you that this problem is a lot more widespread than just those who write bad tech reviews. I KNOW that Linux or OS/2 or whatever isn't perfect, and I'm interested to see what flaws there are, so that I can find a way to get involved, maybe by fixing one or two. So here's my suggestion to you.
Get/write some E-Mail filtering software. Provide it with a list of "abusive phrases" and have it simply replace them with some character (* is always popular). If a message crosses a certant percentage of replacement (say, 25% of the words? 40%?) flag it as probably offensive. So you get some stress relief by seeing someone's abusive rant reduced to a bunch of ****-ing *s, and you get less abusive E-Mail.
Yeah, this idea probably won't work incredibly well, but I think its a start. :) Now, we just have to hope that more people think before hitting the send button.
-RickHunter
.. I used to work fulltime as a test editor for a major networking magazine, and if I mentioned Linux in a negative sentence or wrote a bad review, I got loads and loads of letters with everything from a big 'Fuck you' to 'You're incompetent - get another job!' and the usual 'How much is Microsoft paying you?!'. This is, by the way, a behaviour that one other group of users share with parts of the Linux communitu, and that is large parts of the OS/2 user base... The first 3-4 times, you can handle this but whenever your email is flooded with mean and aggressive stuff, you tend to get fed up by it and either think twice before writing bad stuff about Linux, or not write about it at all.
-- http://z80.org - all opinions, all the time --
+5, interesting. but seriously
yes
Of course they are. Someone wants attention/free stuff/notoriety and so they find a way to manipulate the tests so that they are saying something new or interesting. That doesn't mean the reviews are invalid, though.
Lets say, for example, that I want to make OS A look good, so that the people who make A decide to give me stuff. Now I know that OS B is much better at most programs, but A is slightly better at a few. So I write a review focusing on how well A does with those specific programs. Of course this is motivated by my self-interest; there are far too few altruists out there to demand that reviewers write reviews purely for the sake of truth. But the review is still perfectly valid, in light of its scope.
The important thing to remember is that the reviews for the competitors are exactly the same. They will focus their reviews on what they hope to find. This happens in all industries, too. Take for example the movie industry. When was the last time you saw an ad for a movie that said, "Two thumbs down"? (Ok, probably the South Park movie, but I'll call that the exception that proves the rule.)
Anyways, my long-winded point is, reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt. Even if the reviewers are completely fair, everyone has some kind of bias, even if it is only in what kind of software they run. If you're a gamer, and they only use Word, they probably look at things differently from you. The reviews of Linux, both good and bad, are perfectly valid, and you should trust all of them, but you should also evaluate them from your own perspective.
(Why would you subscribe if you don't already use it?)
Simple. The idly curious. Lets say you never used linux before and have been curious about it. So you want to pick it up. Downloading and installing that way can be a pain in the ass especially if you don't have a CD burner. So you go to the local 7-11 and see this colorful cool looking magazine, Maximum Linux and look for the 7.99 price it includes a Linux CD, not just Linux software but the WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM. So you buy the magazine, maybe run to the book store to pick up Linux for Dummies or something liek that, or not... and go home and install. Granted, Maximum Linux's install instructions should have been more in depth but for 7.99 getting the OS, a magazine with instructions on installing it, and lots of other articles on the linux community and on using Linux, you can't really beat that as an intro for the idly curious non geek. ITs also a cheap upgrade for those of us who are stuck on a 56k connection.
And me with no moderator points.
Berst is the Andy Rooney of online news... I hate Andy Rooney.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
If I write a bad review of Windows NT, does that mean I won't have to maintain it anymore?
How could people feel obligated to give a good review in exchange for free, free software. Especially Red Hat!?!?!?!??
Are any reviews really unbiased! The reviews of hardware, for example, are usually done with equipment sent in from the manufacturer. Often systems that don't even cater to the same market are compared to make one system look better than another!
Furthermore, companies buy research from comapnies like Forrester! If you pay for something, don't you think they're going to tell you what you want to hear. Hence, you'll never see a glowing Linux review in a Windows magazine.
The process hass way more problems thatn just the prospect of recieving free software.
kick some CAD
Since Linux itself is free, I couldn't figure out exactly what the reviewers were really getting in return for compromising their journalistic ethics... then it hit me!
The FREE CD!
AOL has been doing this for years, sending me FREE CD after FREE CD!!
I just didn't realize that they were expecting me to give them a "glowing review" in return!
Boy, do I have a lot of writing to do!
They say that they were given the disto free, huh I got my free and I did not write any articals. I sure there is more to it than the free copy of the disto, but that struck me as being funny (ok just a little bit, but still funny)
It was questioned at the end of the article, but I think the point was lost (and maybe it was meant to be). This is not a problem with the various software vendors. Obviously if X software vendor sends me some software to review, they would like a good review or they wouldn't send it. And from the company's perspective, that (a good review) is what they should get, since I doubt very few companies actually feel that the product they are putting out is crap. (If that were the case, there wouldn't be any incentive to make it.) But as a reviewer you have an obligation to right an honest review of how well it performs the intended function and how it compares to its competitors. Now I can understand that since you got the product free you instinctively might want to write good reviews of the product (regardless of the products normal value), but what are the consequences of writing a bad review? Not getting the software sent in the future? Well, if the software warrants a bad review, why the heck would one want more free copies of it? Doesn't everybody already have a full set of AOL CD coasters.
I don't know what funnier ZDNET writing such a article. or all the comments replying to it. Its seems no one thinks ZDNET has any right to chastise linux Reviewers. I was impressed by the number of people who don't actually use Linux but were still angry at ZDNETS holier than thou's arrogance. I sincerly hope that someday a magazine will come along that will tell the truth. but until then "cavet emptor and merry Christmas"
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.
Not all distros are slack/debian, not all kernels are developmental ones. Installing the idiotware distributions is easier than installing windows or remembering to wipe your ass after you shit. Most of them have just as many point and clicky useless eye candy widgets as windows too.
Eh...
Ok, the guy's assertion, is that because the writer is getting a free copy of Mandrake, he's writing a glowing review of it, in hopes of getting another free copy.
This theory works if the software costs hundreds of dollars, like the software of certain competitors, but it doesn't hold up for mandrake, since the guy can already get that for free. Is the writer seriously saying that the books and extra garbage that comes in the boxed set is what is motivating a glowing review? What if they just sent him a CD-R. Heck, I got a copy of Mandrake with Maximum Linux this month. (Why would you subscribe if you don't already use it?) At any rate, the article's author is just full of shit, flat out. He wanted to write something that M$ advocates would suck on to like barnacles, and he did, but none of his points make any sense. No offense, but that article is total hack work (don't mean to crack on it's author, we all have to pick a position and fight it to write a good article sometimes I suppose, I remember college english.)
Eh...
Is slashdot free of any bias. I sincerly doubt it.
What's a Sig???
What possible incentive is it for someone to get a free copy of something that they can (usually) get at least a rough equivalent for by downloading it off the internet.
On another note that wasn't mentioned here, I think it should be pointed out that this is definitely not something that is unique to Linux. The windows world is the same way, as is the hardware world.
________
Disagree. The magazine thingie mentioned in the parent post is exactly how I got started on Linux, except that it was a German magazine (CHIP) and a Debian 1.3 CD. And I was pretty damn clueless to begin with, but I managed.
In a recent column, Chad Simonds, a Webmaster for Tucows Linux, proclaimed that, "A lot of reviewers" from several small Linux news sites "don't tell you about the bugs and compatibility problems in a program, because they keep getting free software in exchange for glowing reviews."
Uhm, isnt this free software we are talking about? One does not need to write a glowing review, or even write a review period, as the software is free anyways...
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
The hardware and software I've purchased based on positive establishment reviews (magazines, etc.) has been pure crap.
Stick to message boards and e-mail lists for quality reviews. But even then, it's darn easy for a company to employ a monkey to post "man in the street" reviews in online communities.
I would think the smaller sites are just as biased as the larger one, but for different reasons. The larger one's are biased because all they are thinking about is $$$. The smaller ones are biased because whoever makes them has strong personal opinitons. No hardcore Windows site will be compleatly honest when it comes to Linux, and I bet there are few Linux sites that would ever review NT favorably compaired to Linux (If NT was in fact better, which it is not)
I spoke to someone who wrote a review of some compilers for a magazine. I read the review long before speaking with him. He told me that the magazine changed the numbers on the score card. The review in the text did not match the numbers on the score card.
At SD94, Gene Wang was presenting to a very nice breakfast for the press people. One woman refered to a press badge as a beer badge.
This type of thing have gone on for quite a while. That is sometimes why you see a review that looks like a rehash of a press release and wonder, if the reviewer actually used it.
Fight Spammers!
Ok, I am not a hyper linux zealot, but there is one thing I am having a problem with here. Where is the evidence? Besides a free eval version of the software which has been standard practice, what are they getting? Who is getting it? This seems a little fishy to me. And something tells me that if it is some sort of payola scheme, then it isn't only the linux companies doing it. I'm not saying linux companies are above this sort of thing, but there does seem to be disturbing lack of evidence in these stories.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
The main claim of the article is that software was exchanged for a good review. If this is true, then a quid-pro-quo exchange has taken place.
The point is not that you can download the software for free, the point is that (if found to be true) the reviewers gave a good report FOR the software. And that, my friends, is bad beans.
Have you ever used Photoshop in a professional environment? Have you ever used Paintshop? One of them is clearly preferrable if you need it for more than just polishing up your holiday pics in your spare time.
And PaintShop 6 sucks compared to both Photoshop and PaintShop 5. It's got a very, very nasty interface, unlike previous incarnations, without the extra useful bits Photoshop has.
I'd say the ZDNet review of PaintShop is way, way too positive, but then I've given up on both PaintShop and PhotoShop for serious web-related work (Fireworks is all I need).
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Based on the distribution of advertisements and actual content, how large do you think the advertising department is compared to that of the writing staff?
Truth is, for most magazines (both online and offline), the actual content is kind of an afterthought, so they're hesitant to put too much effort and money into them. So the writers either:
- Rewrite press releases to make it seem as if they've tested the software/equipment/cars themselves. This costs far less time and hence money than actually testing something.
or- The writers get a computer with software/piece of equipment/car that's been thoroughly prepared by the manufacturer to ensure a smooth ride and hence an easy review. You didn't really expect that journalists who gloat over W2K/Linux ever had to install it themselves, now did you?
or- You've actually stumbled across the one magazine that does in fact test the software/equipment/cars they're sent, but in this case you'll notice as the reviews are always much less positive than those in other magazines.
I only recall, for example, one review of Corel Linux that stated that it was easier to install for newbies than most distributions, but still a long way off from being completely userfriendly (user meaning: my grandma). Game magazines tend to be an exception, as they're run by people who love to play games, which is why there were almost no positive reviews of Daikatana, for example (even though I've seen one magazine that claimed that John Romero was "setting new standards of excellence" hahaha).This is not news, this is stating the obvious and adding a conspiracy twist to it.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
About 7 or 8 years ago i was briefly on one of those silly saturday morning kids tv shows 'reviewing' vidoes & games with a few other random people.
:)
But at the time of filming it, sony had it completely sorted. I cant recall which game was in question but I do recall it was terrible... it was only a prerelease and didn't have sound or gameplay implemented. So sony sent along some girl with tonnes of free stuff, games, candy etc... and even the producer told me "You cant say that when the girl from sony is here!".
Whilst i kids programming probably isn't the peak of the bbc's journalistic integrity it certainly felt like we were being used by the games companies.
I did post onto the web and bbs's some slightly more accurate reviews tho
I used to work for a major computer magazine publisher, doing "objective" reviews and comparisons of software & hardware. There is this big software company in the pacific northwest that I'll bet you've heard of before that was one of our sponsors. On more than one occaision they were given editorial options on articles that weren't favorable to their products. I had the integrity to not participate in these shams but apparently many others didn't mind. This company would directly provide perks to the writers who were cooperative, mostly in the way of computer hardware & software for their personal home use (i.e. try doing the review again, we'll provide the hardware... oh and take the hardware home when you're done I don't think we could find a use for all that stuff).
Screw Micro$oft.
1. Every single claim is unsubstantiated. Not a single name of a single reviewer or place of publication. If you are going to make a factual claim, at least have the good sense to cite some evidence.
2. No motivation. There is no motivation to get a free copy of something that cost $30 (or even free if you want to download it).
On the other hand, a free copy of Microsoft NT 2000 would at least provide some sort of motivation.
cmdr taco. you must have no life if you beat diablo ii
We spend our lives learning, if you like learning life is hard. it can never be only the ups the downs will always co
aren't Windows articles fixed? ziff-davis has a strong bias toward M$. and then again, don't we always have to consider the source!!!
I wrote game and PC Hardware reviews for a couple years, before the site I worked for went bye-bye (allaboutgames.com). I tried to always write honest reviews, and I like to think I did.
It never seemed to matter if we trashed a title (or video card, etc.) or wrote glowing praise, the same companies would send us more to review. The difference was that good reviews would end up getting linked to from the product web site, where reviews that weren't complimentary were not.
At E3, I talked to one of the developers for a video card I had given a less than stellar report on (an original Riva card, incidentally) and he stated that although they would always rather read good things about products, if there are problems or shortcomings, they want to hear that as well. Game developers had similar feelings, and more than once, a patch has been created because several reviews listed the same problem.
I think it boils down to "there is no such thing as bad publicity". I think companies realize that every product has flaws, and moreover, no software pleases everyone.
Incidentally, there are very few games that just completely suck. I tended to go out of my way to find something about every bad title that was done well. Sometimes it was nothing more than the sound quality, but if some aspect is good, you need to say that, even if all the others (playability, graphics, storyline, documentation, and stability) suck. Likewise, I tried to be picky on titles that I loved. No game is perfect, either. So if one aspect sucked, I felt free to say so.
You have to be as honest as possible, or the readers of your work will just stop reading it. People aren't stupid, and if they get burned because they believe you and spend money on something that is not like you said it was, they spread the word.
Bottom line, I don't believe companies withold product from reviewers who are honest. I imagine most people who review software realize that.
Pick up a copy of Next Generation, (who do some of the best game journalism IMO), and see if they don't slam a few titles. If your supposition were true, they would soon run out of stuff to write about.
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
I am certain they fiddled their reviews. Kit sent out for review was built on a different production line to a higher standard (eg cables were tied up, instead of left to hang loose). The casing was usually of a higher quality, and the parts generally top range. Paying customers (particularly the genral public), got whatever junk could be piled together in a day - often hardware that had been used elsewhere.
I am also sure I saw one of the 'technicians' activly running benchmarks for one machine in the test-lab, and these benchmarks were to be provided to one of the magazines. Oddly, this company usually scored very well in the benchmarks - I wonder why. (Personally, I regard all benchmarks with disdain).
I walked out of the place after 2 days. Not only was I disgusted by the way the company worked, but they treated staff like dirt.
---
Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
ZDNet has no room to talk about biased reviews.
Exhibit A: Review of CyberSitter in PC Magazine a while back. Nothing but glowing praise.
Exhibit B: Recent reviews on the ZDNet site of various graphics programs. The hideously overpriced Photoshop received high marks, while the similarly-featured and much, much cheaper Paint Shop Pro 6 received a scathing review (from ZDNet staff, anyway; the staff gave it 2 out of 5, while readers gave it 4.5. What's wrong with this picture?)
Talk about the pot and the kettle. ZDNet appears to bias its reviews toward whichever company is buying the most ad space.
This is a Chao. A Chao says "Mu."
It's just that the idea of bribing people with free free software is a ridiculous concept.
I can see a bribe with free-speech software: in the past, the FSF sold the GPL-protected Emacs. So giving it to the reviewer as free-beer would qualify as a bribe.
--
LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
C'mon, everyone knows that ZDNET writes some stories for the express purpose of pissing off Slashdotters, so that they visit their site and generate more banner clicks. Why do articles like this get any attention?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I recall that when I bought and started using NetObjects Fusion 5.0 that I immediately had problems with it. The software was buggy in key areas, crashed itself, crashed the system, etc. I went on the NOF user groups and NetObjects was being dragged over the coals by a dozen or more people who accused it of rushing out a horribly flawed product. Then I read a Computer Shopper review of NOF 5.0. Nada on the problems. Either the reviewer only used the most superficial features of the product for about 10 minutes, or he just decided not to mention that it had major difficulties. Maybe most product reviews are untrustworthy. The only place I can recall reading truely critical remarks is Maximum PC. Those guys don't seem to pull any punches.
Anyone else see this as hypocrytical? I take any review with a grain of salt, especially in magazines as filled with ads as ZD mags. Ads are money to magazines, and you can be sure that if their products are not well reviewed, many companies would pull their ads.
I don't know how open-source projects might actually buy reviews, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it happens.
The only reviews I trust to be completely unbiased are from ConsumerReports, who don't accept any advertising. At least with them I know that I can trust the product I buy to be the best, and not just the one with the most ads in their mag.
Similarly in academia, an young assistant professor will review a new text by an established person `to suck up to him,' in the words of one of my professors. The only way to get honest reviews of anything ultimately, is to have a moderated forum, where reviews may be posted anonymously. I propose that /. start one, I would be willing to lend a hand, as would, I am sure, many others.
What say slashdotters?
--Sanatan
Am I the only one who sees the inherent problem with this? Probably not. But, Y'know... so what? The reason you don't see many bad game reviews by magazines is because if they do a bad one, they don't get games to review from the same company. It's not the promise of free software that's getting good reviews... it's the implied threat of _no_ free software if there's a bad one. It's the difference between bribery and extortion.
Besides, Icewind Dale is better
-Antipop
I sure should have seen this coming. Linux is vying so hard to stabilize its position on the Desktop/Server market, that when it comes down to the company, everyone is doing a little under the table deals and not just MS.
I dont call it a shame. But Linux being so powerful and stable, it doesnt really require this. Linux advocates should understand that every O.S has its bugs and flaws and all it matters is how much time it takes to correct it and put it out, and whether you have the balls to admit it or not. This whole thing could have stemmed from the fact that, Linux distros has a lot of hype to live up to. And they believe if one reviewer were to point out something wrong about it, then the over hyped Linux O.S would not be received kindly by the market. They are very well aware of it and they would do any dirty trick in their bag before they succeed. I am sure every company does this, not just the Linux distros, but all the more reason to them coz as I said, they have a lot to loose and they just dont have the courage.
Rapid Nirvana
The thing is, there is nothing new or strange about reviews being bought - it happens every day by huge companies like MS, Sun, Apple, whatever.
So I wouldn't be too surprised if it did happen with Linux.
But what bothers me is not that it might happen, it's that suddenly journalists are talking about the fact that it happens. I can't recall ever reading one single article (about computers) anywhere claiming that "Microsoft buys it's reviews" or "Big Company XYZ bought this or other review" - and yet suddenly a number of journalists are ranting that Linux reviews are bought.
Why the double standard? Where does it suddenly come from?
Perhaps those articles themselves were bought, by an entity with an interest in seeing Linux fail ...
Paranoid, maybe I am .. I don't believe anything I read anymore, except maybe if it's in a scientific journal .. :/ Just yesterday a local pharmaceutical company admitted to having paid lobby groups to lobby for cheaper medicines .. this sort of thing happens every day, and quite frankly, I don't know what is and what isn't believable anymore - so I just don't believe anything.
First, I've been writing reviews since 1984, when I purchased my first Compaq computer -- the sewing-machine version that couldn't take a hard drive. Yes, the lure to do reviews was "free" software...but I quickly moved to hardware reviews where you don't get to keep the product at all.
Reviewing platforms, or reviewing software cross-platform, is some of the roughest reviewing possible. Think about reviewing two different operas on two different stages and you get the idea.
The problem with all the reviews I've read that attempt to compare the performance of Linux and NT is that the assumptions behind the test methodology are geared toward either the Linux or NT model. That means you are trying to compare apples and oranges. The two are completely different beasts. Complicating the problem is that much of the performance testing methodology developed for the computing industry is centered around Unix -- very centered around Unix.
The most unbiased performance test suites around are the SPECmark series. I learned the hard way just how Unix-centric the SPECmark series of tests are when I tried to port them to the Macintosh OS -- indeed, I never finished the job. Indeed, I can't even see how to port the SPECmarks to the Windows environment because of the large number of Unix-isms built into the benchmarks. The reason? The benchmarks are actual live real working applications, designed to do a job and not just fiddle bits to eat up resources.
While I agree that the most unbiased reviews come from users, all the vast majority of them can tell you is that "Hey, it worked [didn't work] for me for what I do!" The vast majority of users don't have a clue how to do a structured evaluation of software or hardware...even slash-dot readers. That's why I was able to make a comfortable living for about ten years, writing reviews.
The only review methodology that might make sense is to develop a task, and have two teams configure systems to perform that task. Even then, you will run into variances because the teams may have differing knowledge levels of the systems they are trying to tune for the task. This is the big problem in SpecWeb marks, judging from the reports I've read lately on their sites.
Will there be a fair review? Right now, I think the issue is in doubt.
To the subject of "pay for play" -- in the fifteen years I have been reviewing stuff, I have been offered a number of bribes. None of the companies trying to bribe me ever met my price; hell, they never came close! Other companies have threatened me with lawsuits for what I wrote. None have gone to court, and all but one was settled out of court in my favor. (That one, I admitted that I did the review wrong, and the magazine and I came up with a fix that satisfied everyone.)
Of course I'll eat their food, and of course I'll listen to the PR flacks. That doesn't mean that I'll write a review based on what flacks tell me.
As a founding member of the Internet Press Guild (www.netpress.org) I subscribe to a canon of ethics that require me to write what I experience with products, not what someone tells me to day. That includes editors -- there has been more than one article I've pulled because an editor disagreed with my findings. IT'S MY NAME. Stephen Satchell Satchell Evaluations
I used to work for a hardware manufacturer that shall remain nameless. Whenever we would release a new box, we would not only give them to the reviewers, but were told who the reviewers were and how to contact them. Then if/when a problem arose (not with my stuff, of course) they were on the phone with the dude doing damage control. Some of these guys had exposure clear up to the exec-vp level on some products. Talk about service! You try getting that level of service when you buy the junk.
This has always been the case. Its not that they give good reviews for want of free software/hardware/etc. - they know they'll get that because they have circulation. Its that they give less than perfect reviews because they are not totally objective. And then there's the advertising revenue to consider, etc.
The only objective reviews are those published by those who care more about helping their fellow /.ers than the one trying to sell the junk.
Long live the free press!
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Linux is free...Review it yourself!
C'mon if any of you haven't been there the "The world's first gaming portal has to the most crazy and cynical BCFH(Bastard Critics from hell) in the business.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
When was the last time the advertising agencies and computer magazines realized that Windows has major flaws and is pretty sad for something that has a list price of $200 sometimes? Come on now ;-) We all know that big business buys ads and reviews. Everyone's doing it ;-)
Fruit flies like bananas... Time flies like the wind...
Scientists today released a preliminary report that finds that people are willing to do things in return for some sort of reward. It turns out that when people receive free gifts, they tend to take a generally favorable attitude toward the giver. Particularly shocking, said one researcher, was that celebrities on TV are often paid large sums of money to say good things about a product.
As a follow up report, the group plans to investigate whether politicians can be swayed by large campaign donations.
More seriously, do the authors of these snippets believe that reviewers who receive free copies of Windows software don't suffer from the same conflict of interests?
note: if i posted this twice by accident sorry, some weird browser stuff just happened!
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
I can get Redhat for free and I have nothing good to say about it....its just plain stupid ... now if they are getting free service thats different...
Stop looking at me.
I got to block zdnet from my machine. Tried of giving them cash for people like JB.
/. should copy his page first, then point to it to deprive him of the revenue, so he will just go away.
JB is just bad. He likes slashdot effects, because it keeps his web counts up. That improves his revenue, which keeps he right there pimping us for his profit.
Maybe
Either that, or a free copy of Windoze.
The real issue with most reviews (and I exclude those that have done detailed performance evaluations and are reporting on the results) is that there is just not enough time to do them. Most reputable companies are putting out products that you could not expect to find holes in without some prolonged use or a in set of very non standard circumstances. They can after all be expected to have done some decent testing before they ship.
Why then would one expect the majority of reviews with at most a couple of weeks trying out the software expect to come up with anything positive.
What really tests this sort of thing is actual experience in actual production environments.
That said, I don't think that reviews should be ignored. For me, at least, they have two uses.
Firstly, they are a useful prefilter, not on the quality of the product, but on the suitability of the product for your particular need. This is a often a helpful pointer before further analysis
Secondly, they fulfil an important emotional need. I often read reviews of software after I have bought it to get a sort of justification for the money I have spent. In these circumstances I don't want to be told I have made a mistake:-(
lets see macos beta-->10 windows 2.1-->2000 dos 1.10-->6.62 or whatever unless of course youre some type of moron
"I wanna fuck the system.... AHHHHHHH#@%%#@" ATR
What exactly is the force of a reviewer getting linux software for free? Why would I be excited about Mandrake sending me the newest version of whatever when I can download a similar (and possibly better) app for free?
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
The one thing I want to know, is was the guy at TUCOWS LINUX (Boy, isn't THAT a contradiction in and of itself (now go look up what TUCOWS stands for)) smoking Industrial grade crack, or was it just the cheep $3 crack.
Funny, the draw of "free" software and other incentives is exactly how Microsoft established themselves as the defacto standard for OS, word processing, and spreadsheet software. They paid for reviews, and offered "other incentives" to corporate customers and system integrators. (Lest any one think "kickback" is implied by the above, of course it is not, that would be slanderous!) This sounds an awful lot like the disingenuous "grass-roots" FUD campaign Microsoft has been running the past few years, xcept applied to Linux instead of the Justice Department.
Reviews are just another way of advertising, in some cases, and therefore has to be bought, which is unfortunate, as the reader is basically reading a lie.
Yes, but which is worse? Being enticed by vendors to produce shiny reviews, or having no choice whatsoever?
gitm
- The pen is mightier than the sword, the court is mightier than the pen, and the sword is mightier than the court.
You make an excellent point, but what I failed to mention (regardless that their bread and butter is selling linux products) is that in the past, the reviews had been higly objective and therefore valuable. I mean, think about it, you don't want to hype some piece of crap so that your customers buy it, then they discover it's crap, and they go to walnut creek forevermore. Objective reporting makes good business sense.
gitm
- The pen is mightier than the sword, the court is mightier than the pen, and the sword is mightier than the court.
Are reviewers induced to write good reviews by the implied promise of future free software?
I know someone who writes for linuxmall, a well known e-seller and reviewing site. They are currently being taken over by another company, and have been ordered, not nudged, not suggested, but ordered to write nothing but glowing reviews.
Let's hear it for objective journalism. Hip, hip, Hooray!
gitm
- The pen is mightier than the sword, the court is mightier than the pen, and the sword is mightier than the court.
It is ironic that we have an article by Jon Katz about how the new "Open Media" gets it so much more than the fat-old-slow-stupid-clueless-whatever "old media" and then in the same day, one that calls into question the very basic journalistic ethics of some of these very same "new media" people.
Yes, Jon, your darling "Open Media" gets it. At least the part about selling out.
To be anon and take that tone reveals much more about your willingness to take responsiblity for your inability to interact with others than about the previous posters intellect.
A better question is, "Is Jon Katz fixed?"
I mean, we wouldn't want him to breed, right?
-thomas
"And like that