Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reality On The "Purchased" Linux Reviews

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the can-I-get-fries-with-that dept.

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.

43 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Zone5 · · Score: 3

    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."
  2. Government oversight? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

    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

    1. Re:Government oversight? by Golias · · Score: 2
      If a software company pays them money to focus on certain aspects of a product when performing a review, they are obliged to take the money otherwise the shareholders can sue them for lost revenue. This is how free markets work: there is no place for weaklings.

      Not really. If a publication exists to review products, and takes bribes, and people find out about it, nobody will read them anymore. Bye bye, revenue stream. Nice knowing you, high share values.

      Shareholders can not sue a company for protecting their market. For that matter, they will never sue a company for turning down business that is outside of their scope. (If you are in the business of taking money from companies to issue press releases, that is one thing, but if you are a journalistic publication, then you are not in the review-selling business.)

      For that matter, when is the last time you ever heard of any stockholder trying to sue any company that they are part-owner of??? That's like going to court to demand money from yourself.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  3. Non-Linux Software by MattLesko · · Score: 3

    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.
  4. bought with free software by TheBrain_ · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Wait a second... by tbo · · Score: 5

    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).

    1. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      It's sad when a journalist's integrity costs three $0.30 CDs, a $3.00 manual, and a $2.75 cardboard box.

      I'm willing to give mine up for far, far less than that.

    2. Re:Wait a second... by sjvn · · Score: 2

      It's really sad that people can be bribed by a shrinkwrapped software package, a book, and a warm, fuzzy feeling from knowing Big Linux People, but hey, that's what these guys said they sold out for.

      As for ZD, how many times do we have to write favorable Linux stories, before some people finally get that, in my part of the ZD universe anyway, we call 'em as we see 'em. And, lately, that's meant we write favorable Linux stories because the Linux and BSD people get it right and others don't.

      As someone whose first story was on why MS-DOS 3.2 was a dog and who most recently called C# a bad joke, I've gotten really tired of readers who automatically assume I'm pro-Microsoft. Ask someone's who pro-Microsoft and reads me, whether they think I favor Microsoft. Just make sure they're not drinking at the time or be ready to get wet.

      Steven, Editor at Large, Sm@rt Partner

  6. Okay... by pb · · Score: 2

    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.
  7. Dear Taco by Greyfox · · Score: 5
    I would like to apply for the job of slashdot editor. Although I am not an english major, I do have a spelling checker handy and I'm not afraid to use it.

    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?

  8. Tucows article is just (-1, Flamebait) by efuseekay · · Score: 4

    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.
  9. We're getting good by dagoalieman · · Score: 2

    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
  10. somebody purchased an opinion?? by ribone · · Score: 5

    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!

    1. Re:somebody purchased an opinion?? by Enahs · · Score: 3

      Yeah. And Microsoft never bought a glowing ZD review. Right. At least, there's no evidence. *chuckles*

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  11. How do we know *THIS* article wasn't paid for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5


    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.

  12. Open source, no denero... by ChiaBen · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Open source, no denero... by The_Messenger · · Score: 4
      Well, now, let's see:
      • GNU/Linux, as everyone says (including Microsoft!) is very difficult to use, so you'd better buy $200 of O'Reilly books, just to be safe.
      • Linux users are loyal bunch, and will want to show their support. Tux t-shirt: $20. Tux sticker: $2. Being able to impress people at CompUSA with your mad L1nuX h4X0r 5killz: priceless.
      • Linux hackers love beer, right? 12 back of El-cheapo beer: $5.
      • Linux hackers love caffeine, right? 1 cup of Starbucks coffee: $20.
      • Everyone should buy 4 copies of Quake 3 for Linux, to show the gaming industry that there really is a Linux gamers' market. 4 copies of Quake 3: $160.
      • Linux users are oftn unemployed, whether because they became violent when trying to convince management to install Linux on their $20k Sun boxen, or because they skipped too much work going to oggle booth babes at Linux cons. So, of course, they end up selling their bodies on the streets. One night with a pimply, 20 year old Linux geek: $2.50.
      • Linux users all read Slashdot, and since a large proportion of them are moderators, they'll be smoking a lot of crack. (One $2 crack rock) * (5 mod points) = $10
      • RMS demands that 666 Linux developers sacrifice theur first-born child (or pet cat) to the Swedish God of Dance every year, on All-Hollows' Eve. Cleaning up all that blood (and buying new cats/children) is expensive. One new child = $15.75.
      • And finally, 99% of Linux users run Red Hat, "the choice of Windows users." (99% of Linux users) * $40 = a lot of money

      So, you see, the wheel is greased even if the software is "free".

      ---------///----------

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

  13. What About Journalistic Integrity? by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 4

    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?

    1. Re:What About Journalistic Integrity? by mickwd · · Score: 3

      Would installing ReiserFS give you Journalistic Integrity ?

    2. Re:What About Journalistic Integrity? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      > the journalists have the right and should be saying 'No thanks! I'd like to keep my integrity.'

      Unfortunately, net journalists don't need a reputation for integrity. They need clicks on their Web sites. That appears to be what this whole thing is about - certainly at ZD, and very possible at Tucows too.

      If the gods are just the phenomenon will be short lived, because the exchange of long-term credibility for short-term click counts will eventually render them readerless, and thus bankrupt. Meanwhile we've got to put up with it, and the best strategy would be to deny clicks to the sites that go over the top.

      --

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  14. But we can validate those reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4
    The thing is, for the most part a review of a product is written for people who don't use the product and are thinking of using it. However, slashdotters tend to me way more techie then the average person. There are quite a few of us who's knowledge of Linux is good enough to be a sysadmin at pretty much any company you could name.

    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:

    • Linux is vastly more stable than a windows system: true.
    • Installing Linux requires different skills than installing Windows: true, just be sure not to confuse "different skills" to mean that it's not as good.
    • Linux is vastly more secure than Windows: true.
    • To use Linux to it's full potential requires a steeper learning curve than what it takes to use Windows to it's full potential: Let's put aside the fact that Linux has much more potential than any Windows OS for the moment. This is partially true. If a newbie has ever had to edit teh Windows registry to recover from a crashed application then they know that there are arcane knowledge requirements for Windows as well. But overall, yes, it takes more work to make Linux dance and sing the way you want it to.

    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.

  15. Like Mindcraft ? by umeshunni · · Score: 2

    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.
    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 .com say about it. Most ppl relie on word of mouth that reviews in any case

  16. Not a FlameBait! by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5

    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
    1. Re:Not a FlameBait! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3

      > 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.

      Read the posts more carefully. I posted yesterday and explicitly said that there's no reason to think Linux company employees are any more ethical than other companies. What I don't believe is that free copies of free software makes effective bribes. The charge is ludicrous prima facie.

      Also, the original Tucows article was nothing but innuendo. The author said that certain unnamed reviewers reported reluctance to dis a product because they might not get any more free evaluation copies. They did not say that they were directly being offered bribes for good reviews. When the innuendo came in is after he said the above, when he made the bogus claim that the problem was "illustrated" by the fact that one reviewer got an e-message from a vendor after that reviewer made some negative comments about a product. He doesn't quote the message. He doesn't even claim that the vendor mentioned free software. Apparently there's nothing more to this than ZD-style sour grapes after being called out on a sloppy review. His petty revenge was to insinuate that Linux reviews are typically stacked.

      I would like to see him post the full text of the e-message. Then if Mandrake or some other vendor is being evil, we'll all know about it. And if not, he can eat his words.

      And in case he hasn't got the guts to post the message: Would whoever sent him the message please post it to Slashdot so we can see the facts rather than relying on vague, unsubstantiated accusations?

      --

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  17. They tell us what we want to hear by patreides · · Score: 2

    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.

    The same thing is probably the driving force behind reviewers on Linux- Mac- or Windows-specific sites, which we can all agree with turn /. discussions into flamewars.

    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
  18. Welcome to the "real" world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Re:slashdotted! by infodragon · · Score: 2

    There is a summary of the article on Linuxtoday.com.

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
  20. Rose-tinted specs and security by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Rose-tinted specs and security by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      Very true, You're correct that I probably should have said "Linux has the potential to be much more secure than the average Windows system".

      Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Linux by default is vastly more secure than the average default windows system, and has the potential to be vastly more secure than any Windows machine connected to a network ever can be.

      Merely saying "linux has the potential" is misleading, it implies that, by default, it isn't as secure as Windows, while the very opposite is true.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  21. "Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag by devphil · · Score: 2

    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.

    I know that /. 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.

    (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)
    1. Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3

      Ah, SCO really IS doomed. They have come a long way from the days when they used to send propaganda to Linuxers in the mail trying to "upsell" them to SCO kit.

      Sure /. is biased, as is ZDNET, and MSN, and the Chicago Tribune and Jason Earl, for that matter. We all have our biases our likes and dislikes. I read /. because my biases are more closely aligned with CmdrTaco's than Jesse Berst's.

      On the other hand, SCO Unixware is still doomed. Your biases may cause you to believe otherwise, but that isn't going to save Unixware.

    2. Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag by Golias · · Score: 2
      On the other hand, SCO Unixware is still doomed. Your biases may cause you to believe otherwise, but that isn't going to save Unixware.

      Thanks for the FUD. I'll get busy burning my O'Reilly Korn book right away, since all I need is BASH from now on.

      Sorry, but you still sound exactly like the Microsoft astroturfers who were proclaiming the death of Apple two years ago. You may not like it, but there are a lot of companies who still want to run UNIX (real UNIX, as in SVR4) on x86 systems. Companies like USWest (now part of Qwest), Seimens, etc.

      I use Linux at home, and lots of little mom & pop companies also use it, but the kings of the NASDAQ exchange live on Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Win2k, and yes... SCO. Deal with it, Pink Boy.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag by The_Messenger · · Score: 2
      You're my favorite poster this month. :) +1, Insightful. Great comment.

      ---------///----------

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

    4. Re:"Reality" comes from -- of course, a Linux mag by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Your warm fuzzies aren't going to keep SCO in the OS business. If so many of the kings of the NASDAQ still want to run SCO, then why is SCO flirting so much with Linux?

      Your example of the Korn shell is actually quite apt, because you will be able to use a variant of the Korn shell as long as you want, as it has been open sourced. You could maintain it yourself indefinitely.

      On the other hand, if SCO decides to stop selling Unixware SCO's Unixware customers are flat out of luck. They can continue to run the installations they already have, but their investments are literally investments in an evolutionary dead end.

      You may scoff at the mom & pop companies that use Linux (although I would bet that more Fortune 500 companies have Linux installations than SCO installations), but it doesn't change the fact that Linux use is on the rise, and Unixware is in a downward spiral. SCO is going to have to jump off the Unixware boat if they are to have any chance of survival.

      In fact, the mom & pop market is an order of magnitude larger than the Fortune 500 market. If Linux is doing well there, that is good news indeed.

  22. We have to power to choose by changos · · Score: 2
    We have to understand that we are free to choose. Does our will depend only on reviews? Do we have to buy everything an infomercial announces? NO!! This means that we have to be better agents of ourselves. I guess the time has come to review the reviewers. Now every time I read an article on CNet or ZDNet, or the Internet, I will have to look at their facts. Find out if their opinion is valid. I can choose to accept or reject their review. Who says that we can't send an email to the author and tell him that he is being biased. Instead of throwing blows in the air, let us choose for ourselves what we accept as truth.
    humbly,

    Changos

  23. That Stuff Happens, But Not Everywhere by Hoyt · · Score: 2

    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?

  24. Sure there's bias in reviews... by Spoing · · Score: 2
    ...it's the same bias the reviewer starts with before they 'report' on something.

    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.
    1. Re:Sure there's bias in reviews... by Spoing · · Score: 2
      Troll? Excuse me?

      How is this;

      1. Sure there's bias in reviews...

        ...it's the same bias the reviewer starts with before they 'report' on something.

        Very few people can be objective, even when it's supposed to be part of thier job.

      ...a troll?

      Sure, it's not a deeply insightful comment, but it's not bad, and it is a wee-bit thoughtful.

      I agree with the other guy ... I want an explanation for this one; tell me why this is a troll, for future reference. I just can't see it.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  25. And don't forget... by Shadarr · · Score: 2

    Old Man Murray Reading thier "walkthrough" of Deus Ex was the funniest thing I've seen in months.

    --
    Bite the hand.
  26. Restrictions by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2

    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.
  27. The History of Bribed reviews... by Felinoid · · Score: 2

    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.
  28. Uhh by Dungeon+Dweller · · Score: 2

    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...
  29. Re:slashdotted! by Enoch+Root · · Score: 2

    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.