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.
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).
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?
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.
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