Slashdot Mirror
Reality On The "Purchased" Linux Reviews
infodragon pointed us to a Penguinista article which does a very good job of addressing the issue surrounding the recent complaining by Tucows and ZD-Net that Linux reviews are bought instead of earned. It says pretty much exactly what I feel about the whole thing.
He make his points. You should always take what you read and understand why someone said what they said. Also you should always believe what you see
The article sums it up pretty well. Even if it does happen, it's nothing new, and nothing much to worry about. Journalists with slanted views or who are easily bought are pretty evident to those of us who can read between the lines. If a journalist pushes a product out of some agenda, like belief in Open Software, then that is one thing, and easy to determine. If it is due to their ethics being for sale, that's more negative, but equally apparent.
It all goes to show that the reviewer and any trust you have in them are as important as the review itself in helping you to determine its credibility.
Those who rely on reviews alone rather than doing some investigation in product selection dig their own graves anyway, in my opinion.
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
God forbid.. Unless journalists keep compromising their own integrity to the point where the government is forced to pass legislature making it punishable not to enclose materials received from parties involved in an article along with an article - unless it's secret information - which in such a case will not be enclosed to the government, but to a court..
Though the devil may be in the details, I think we as media consumers would benefit from such information. There are lots of opinionated media fare that result from PR stunts and PR packets and plain bribed editorial space. (Such as what is going on in the software industry. I would reconsider the reviews in the media if I knew that the winner always was the one offering the biggest benefits to the journalist)
Stop the brainwash
It's a given that non-free software reviews and press is generally bought...remember the news media 'reports' that helped hype Windows 95/98? Why are we surprised that a for-profit company wouldn't try and do the same thing?
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
dunno what the article says, cause it is slashdoted... but believing that someone will give a good review because they get free software from a company that gives away its software for free is just dumb. mandrake linux is free. all of the tools that come with it for free. you can download them all. now, it would be nice if they sent them to me... but they have no reason to... i dont review software.
Hold on here... The Tucows article says that reviewers are being biased to favourably review free software because Linux companies give them free copies of their software if they do. The software they're being bribed with is free, goddammit. I could see if they were being bribed with a full retail version of Electric Image or some other $10,000+ software package. It's sad when a journalist's integrity costs three $0.30 CDs, a $3.00 manual, and a $2.75 cardboard box. :-)
Are they really too lazy to download RedHat, or are they just too stupid. (Hey, this IS ZDNet we're talking about).
This was pretty stupid the first time; why do we have to have *two* stories on it?
;)
Oh... to make fun of ZD-Net, of course! They'll publish anything!
(Hey, let's get TUCOWS to write a really long piece on the corruption in and downfall of Microsoft; that would be *excellent* on ZD-Net!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Former salary information available upon request.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I like your new sig. A blatent example of this sort of thing is baby boomer politicians, most of whom have at least smoked a joint at one time in their lives. If cornered by the press about this, they waffle about how "everbody makes mistakes, etc." But then they turn around and propose harsher prison sentences on others who "make mistakes. *cough*GeorgeWBush*cough* I'm not a drug legalization fanatic, but this just pisses me off.
What do reviewers get for giving good reviews
on Linux? Free Redhat 6.2s? Free Mandrake Distro?
How about a free beer with Linus Torvalds?
Beside, non-biased reviewers don't exist. Recall the old adage : one man's Windows is another man's Linux.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Damn, there was only **2** comments on this article when I clicked the link. And guess what: SLASHDOTTED. Some could say we are more effective than the government on taking down sites.
:)
All stupidity aside: You know what?? I don't give a damn about the reviews. I read em, sure, but they don't affect my opinion. I just installed red hat in the past 4 days, for the FIRST time, and I can already tell you, most of those opinions aren't too far off. It does kick some major butt compared to our favorite m$.
Please consider the above with generosity, I couldn't actually read the article this time.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Wow, I couldn't believe this when I read it....
Somebody bought a positive Linux review? Somehow I doubt this would be the first time that an organization supposedly impartial was influenced by dollars in front of their noses. Let's face it, it happens all the time in this industry, otherwise why would we have such a problem with RDRAM vs. SDRAM. Every reviewer I've read comes to the side of SDRAM, but corparate marketing always tries to exert it's influence on the free market.
Perhaps I'm totally wrong and completely unjustified in my view, but it just seems to me that this is only what we should expect when dealing with large corporations (don't forget that CNET is a pretty big company too, and their word shouldn't be taken automatically... I wonder who owns shares of CNET (ZD)? )
Alright, I've hurried into my aspestos-lined jumpsuit now... turn on the flames!
It cracks me up. Really. The whole idea of Linux as being "independent" of Big Corporations. You do remember who owns Sladshdot, don't you? And Freshmeat? That's right: a Big Corporation.
Between the huge number of Linux web sites owned by VA Linux, Internet.com, IDG, and others, it's laughable that anyone could consider these sites to be less biased than say, CNet or ZDNet. They still have advertisers, and they are still responsible to their stockholders to bring in huge profits. I think it should be well known to Slashdot that they idea of a "socially responsible" corporation is laregly a myth. VA Linux wants to sell you Linux machines, and if that means promoting it in an unethical way, then ethics be damned. You will want Linux hardware.
But is it more than just the media? Think of how many Linux "celebreities" work for Big Companies: Torvalds at Transmeta, the huge number of people at Red Hat (Alan Cox, etc), Larry Wall working at O'Reilly ("the biggest parasite on Open Source", according to Bruce Perens). Are these people truly independant? It's hard to be when you know where that check is coming from.
I really think that this whole "no bribes here" attitude, especially coming as it does from the supposedly "community-based" Linux sites, should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Buick.
Slashdotted inside two minutes!
:-) Ciao...
Well, maybe there should be some minimum requirements sites that are linked to in a slashdot feature.
And just where does ZDNet think an open source product gets it's money to fund their vote buying?
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Everyone's pointing the finger at the Linux companies, forgetting the fact that the journalists have the right and should be saying 'No thanks! I'd like to keep my integrity.' Where are the articles indicting them?
This means that we are competent to determine if a review is valid or not. Let's look at the main points of a typical review of a Linux distro:
As professionals, we understand these facts. So if a review gives a glowing report on a distro we, because of our skill level, we would know if it's true or not. The points I made above are facts, no review is going to change that.
So what's the point of claiming that reviews are paid advertisments? How are you going to pull the wool over the eyes of the very people who are most qualified to decide if a review is valid? It just won't work, we'd know if a review was a lie.
Itsn't this whole thing only as bad as biased benchmarks, only less sinister and misleading. In the case of biased benchmarks, ppl may actually use those benchmarks in order to take important decisions as to what OS/(Web/SQL)Server to deploy and a favorable benchmark might mean millions of $$$ for the winner. .com say about it. Most ppl relie on word of mouth that reviews in any case
No-one goes by reviews alone when buying a product such as a word processor or a graphics package. We look more at features and familiarity and compliance with standards than what some stupid startup
It just sickens me to the core to see every linux advocate trying hard to prove that the modus operandi of every Linux company is right and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Though Slashdot boasts about being a free speech site, the moderators themselves are partial towards anything with an "x" in it, and would moderate anything else which has a "soft" in it.
Why cant you all just understand that no matter what company it is, whether they stand for Open Source or not, they are all run by people and people do make mistakes. I have heard a lot of them here saying that you cant bribe someone with an otherwise free software. Good point. however, do you think when you download a software for free from Corel, do you get everything thats part of the actual package that they sell on the market ? No you dont. Also, the company would give the journalist an opportunity to receive all beta version of software, which would be released in the market only months later, which would give him enough time to go through it, write reviews on the cool product and get some moolah. Tell me whether I am right or wrong in that assumption.
No one was questioning the stability or scalability of Linux here, they were just questioning the integrity of Linux companies and saying that they are not infallible as they portray themselves to be, just because they are Open source prophets. Understand that and just move on. Or else, stand around and shout its not true and realise the world has gone ahead and you are the only one standing on the curb.
Rapid Nirvana
... but free distros?
That doesn't make sense when I can purchase a copy of any distro including *BSD for $0.99 at Linuxmall.com.
ChozSun [e-mail]
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
...but if you are suggesting that RDRAM is better then SDRAM, and that the reviews in favor of SDRAM are 'bought', then you're wrong.
Well, maybe they're bought, but SDRAM has a much lower latency, and therefore works better with modern processors. RDRAM only gives benefit if you use it in a unified memory architecture, and that's only used for low-end PC's where the price of RDRAM makes it out of the question. On a high-end PC, where the extra cost could be justified, it may end up hurting performance a tad.
Every DVD review Web site that I know of gets the vast majority (greater than 90%, I'd guess) of the DVDs they review from the company that made the DVD. The DVD is not expected to be returned (which is why I was interested in reviewing DVDs for a Web site).
I still see bad reviews.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
It seems to me that every wide barrier in software/hardware, such as Linux/Windows/Mac, Intel/AMD, M$/{Corel, Netscape, etc.}, all have bitter rivalries throughout. The reviewers seem to be the vultures, gaining a reputation among each of these divisions. For example (I'm not saying ANY or ALL of these are bad), a reviewer can praise MacOS X, Corel GNU/Linux, and Windows 2000 all at the same time, not offend anybody, and gain respect in all three "houses" at the same time.
/. discussions into flamewars.
The same thing is probably the driving force behind reviewers on Linux- Mac- or Windows-specific sites, which we can all agree with turn
Thus I say that a reviewer IN GENERAL cannot be _fully_ trusted except in a comparison or something where thay have nothing to gain by lying (in the case of a comparison, the reviewer will have to offend somebody)
Anyway, seems to me the ingrained hatred just makes the reviewers more eager to please.
# debian/rules
In the music biz, new CD's are shipped only to "trustworthy" critics, i.e. those who are willing to write a good review. Would be critics soon learn that writing good reviews translates into a lot of freebies.
Does this hold true for game reviews as well I wonder?
There is a summary of the article on Linuxtoday.com.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Linux is vastly more secure than Windows: true
Caveat:Linux can be vastly more secure than Windows. Spend some time on any security mailing list, newsgroup or web page, and you'll discover that security is always a moving target. You'll also discover that any unmaintained system, be it Windows, Linux, any commercial Unix or even BSD can be vulnerable. A barebones Redhat 6.0 system without a firewall is probably vulnerable to script kiddies through several methods, especially given that there is a tendency to leave too many services enabled in inetd in the distros.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I agree with this, but wanted to ask a not entirely rhetorical question?
What do Windows reviewers get in return for "positive" reviews?
D
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
I think that all linked sites should have to sign a waiver so they can't sue /. when the slashdot effect brings there netfinity cluster to its knees
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
The headlines alone are enough to point up the truth of what this AC is saying. When ZDNet posts something, it's all rumours and scandals. When a Linux-friendly magazine posts something, it's "reality" and "the TRUTH behind " out the wazoo.
/. doesn't even bother pretending to be objective and unbiased, but this is no different from what "the enemy" does in their magazines. It's pathetic.
I know that
(Okay, just had to rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled "what happened to beer" spam.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
humbly,
Changos
I have written some freelance software reviews for MaximumLinux magazine (July/August and Sept/Oct issues). I had a problem with one product, PowerQuest's DriveImage Pro, and asked the editor, Bryan DelRizzo, how I should proceed since the review would be generally unfavorable. His response was that I should be truthful, point out flaws that would be problems for users and, if the product was misrepresented, don't let them off the hook. I felt he would support me in whatever opinion I had as long as I did a thorough examination of the product (i.e., I had to be correct in what I said and gather first-hand experience with the software). To be honest, I don't believe that the manufacturers would care too much about a bad review. If you look at some of the Mandrake 7.0 and 7.1 reviews, they weren't altogether puff pieces, but Mandrake put their own spin on each one when linking to it from the Mandrake site. I don't think the temptation of "free" software is enough to lie in order to continue getting more free stuff - after all, I get paid more for the review than what the software costs, so I could buy it if I wanted. Where's the incentive? Hoyt
What if the Hokey Pokey _is_ what it's all about?
http://www.somethingawful.com
Man - their reviews crack me up. Check out the one for FF8.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Maybe the Linux spellchecking software is in beta still. Heh
Very few people can be objective, even when it's supposed to be part of thier job.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
that every single one of you is replying without having read the article? The site was down when the article showed up on LinuxToday earlier (nice credit Slashdot, yet again not crediting articles and pretending you found them). Seriously, if you're going to say something uneducated, at least make it about the topic at hand and not something you pretended you read.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Old Man Murray Reading thier "walkthrough" of Deus Ex was the funniest thing I've seen in months.
Bite the hand.
I don't know how the rest of the worlds jobs work, however -- if I take free products from any company (Jackets, TV's, Trips, etc...) that I am planning on doing bussiness with -- I will be looking for a new job....(Can anyone say CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!)....Journalist's should have to live by the same code.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
But, for example, since I dont live in the US I cant buy a distro for that price, and since I am limited by my 56kps modem connection, I cant download a distro as soon as it arrives at the FTP servers.
So getting a Mandrake 7.1 disc without having to hunt for it through magazines is definetely a bonus.
No sig for the moment.
Obviously an employer will seek talented people. Since you did not define "truly independant", your concern about how hard it would be can mean anything. I see this burden as being slight. If these people were too lazy or weak to handle it, I doubt they would have accomplished the deeds that made them recognizable.
Just as another thought, righteous indignation does exist!
So long as human beings write articles, there will be bias. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying. We ALL have our biases. That aside, I think pretty much ALL the positive Linux articles in the non-Linux media is honest. Why? There is no incentive (read money) for them to do otherwise. Ziff Davis and most mags tend to be biased towards advertisers (after seeing them rate Packard Bell highly I dumped my PC Magazine subscription, as a tech, I know they were sh*t). But I digress. Linux companies as yet don't represent enough $$$ to be able to buy positive ZD reviews like Microsoft. In fact, this whole TOPIC, and the fact that ZD posted it at all represents ANTI Linux bias in the press. Have you ever heard an allegation made by ZD that mags reviewed Windows Y2K positively because of massice M$ ads?
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
Softare reviewer meets with Linux advocate in dark ally. Advocate talking in deep hushed voice wearing a trenchcoat...
"Got the goods?" asks the reviewer
The Linux advocate pulls out a laptop with CDrw drive...
Linux advocate: Got the disk?
Reviewer produces a blank Eraseable CDr.
The advocate puts the CD in his laptop... a few moments later the laptop spits out a new Linux CD.
Advocate: For your review...
Reviewer: Thanks... How did you get this?
Advocate: Oh I downloaded it from the FTP site...
Back at the revewers office someone delivers a free copy of Windows 2001 and drops it in his "Free review copy" box.
I don't actually exist.
For a LONG time restrants etc have been fearful of reviewers. A bad review could stink you so they believe.
But historicly reviewers have had the decentcy to refuse to be bribed. People who abuse the position lose respect and (unless it dosn't matter to the editor) a job.
1980s... Shortly after Commodores Founder left Commodore for Atari lot's of things got messed up.
One thing was Commodore sent press releases to mags. One mag reported that the press releases looked more on the vain of "say this or we'll cut you off" and a lot of mags took the treat sereously. This one mag however said how much the product itself stunk and accually ripped other mags for what was obveously inaccurate data.
Did Commodore carry out the threat? No.. It could have even been a compleate missunderstanding.
I do not believe this ever happend at Commodore again. (One time deal).
But later it did seem like a few "press release" reviews did start showing up in mags.
I rember one reviewer saying he WILL NOT review from demo relases games like to issue and many reviewers seem to throw away press releases. (CmdrTaco comes to mind but hardly alone in this).
It makes sence.. press releases DO NOT give the revewer an honnest grasp of the product.
(By the way Mandrake 7.1 sucks.. I got a free copy and THAT is my review... I hear good things about 7.0 but thats not what I had)
Then there is Windows 95 Beta. Someone gave a really nasty review. Microsoft desided to cut short the reviews by not sending him anymore CDs.
The short version of the review.. Win95 didn't match the hype.
So the short story... Linux gives away free software to people to BEG for reviews while Microsoft threatons to cut off reviewers if they don't get the reviews they like...
Linux is bribing reviewers... Microsoft isn't...
Ummmmmm yeah....
At least Linux is being original....
Bribing people with something anyone can get for free....
Thats pritty dang smart...
I say we get a patent on that....
I don't actually exist.
Doesn't this go against a lot of the philosophy behind OSS?
I know that theres a big deal to be made of the difference between Free Speech and Free Beer, but thats not the point. Anyone can download most (if not all) of any popular distro from FTP sites around the globe; mainly because its GPL, not because of marketing. The fact that vendors GPL-ise their own addons may be marketing, but thats not the point. The point is, if a particular distro gets a bad review, does anyone really think that they're going to stop giving out CDs of it and making the distro available via anonymous FTP and such? They can't do that, commercial distributions NEED to give out CDs as an easy way to gain market penetration.
I personally just think this is complete nonsense; I bought a RedHat (5.0) CD a couple of years back, and have since switched to Debian (getting it completely over the net). If someone says that Debian is buggy (for the record, I am not saying it is; I love it), people may herd like sheep to other distros, but Debian will not remove their entire distribution from the public because of it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that truly Free Software isn't subject to media bias, just because the writers of such reviews can get whatever it may be for free regardless of what they say about it.
Distros in general are solely judgeable on the quality of the linux system you end up with (in terms of options/features/optimizations packages are compiled with, and the arrangement and customizability/modularity of the filesystem as a whole) and whatever addons they may have added. Almost all of this is free anyway (I can only think of 2 examples of propriatary bundles: RH used to bundle Metro-X, and Corel probably bundles WP Office, both of which are available seperately, and both distros can function perfectly well without these components), so is it really fair to judge (read: FUD) a distro just because you get a beer coaster with the distro's logo printed on it?
I don't see how completely free distributions would be affected at all by bias of this sort; when I say Debian RULES, its because Debian RULES, not because I'm trying to secure free copies of Debian in the future. Keep up the good work guys! =)
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
The article wasn't PUBLISHED in LinuxToday, also, articles are submitted by /. users. Why does LinuxToday deserve a credit? Are they paying you for this? Did you get a free copy of LinuxToday for plugging them?
Eh...
Jesus Hemos Christ. It refers to the belief of many Slashdotters that the Slashdot editors are the closest geekdom knows to sainthood. It also refers to 'Jesus Hemorroids Christ', hinting at what most Slashdotters would also like to do to the aforementioned Slashdot editors.