Slashdot Mirror
Yankee Group Slams Linux 'Extremists'
AvatarofVirgo wrote in to mention an article running on ZDNet in which the consulting firm The Yankee Group goes after folks in the Linux community who have been questioning their objectivity. From the article: "Laura DiDio, an analyst at the Yankee Group who has been at the receiving end of much of the criticism from Linux advocates, claimed the radical elements of the community could damage the reputation of open source software."
She's not too far off - Everytime I see a story on Microsoft and Linux - I see the extremists belittle, spread FUD, and incorrect information. I've long maintained that if the best you can do is tell me FUD about Microsoft as a reason to switch - then there's no reason to switch.
One of the prime examples of winnowing me away from I.E. for instance, was that someone finally sat there for a moment and told me what Firefox could do - 10/15 messages back and forth - not a word or mention of IE, and I switched.
I'd like the same about Linux, but always get belittled for asking.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I'd rather people be excited about something they believe in (ie, Linux), rather than just another Microsoft-funded puppet.
DBA? Software Engineer? My company is hiring! Click
The reputation of GNU/Linux advocates suffers because the concept of all software being free is too hard for many of today's computer users to grasp. A lot of businesses make their money by hiring developers and selling software. This is a business model many of us would like to see die.
The big FUD statement we always hear is how is FOSS profitable if it's all being done for free? I always cite the Linux kernel itself as a model for the future; most of the people working on the kernel are paid developers. Companies like IBM sponser FOSS development. If every company which needs software to use worked in the same manner, the world would be perfect.
There are simply too many people who can't shake the idea that software is a "product" to be bought and sold. I've seen some pretty nasty things said to FOSS advocates. I've even seen some of the conservative opposition refer to FOSS as "Communism" and "Anti-American". Facing blatant ignorance and bigotry every day, it's no wonder that *nix people can seem condescending at times.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Here on Slashdot, every time some mention of new commercial software being released for Linux hits the front page, the zealots start up whining that, in true RMS style, it's "not free enough". Even if it's being given away as freeware.
Which is the problem, since it's "not free enough", the zealots simply dismiss it, and lets face it, the zealots are the ones helping spread Linux usage. It's stupid and it needs to stop.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Maybe no one on slashdot believes them any more, but your average IT manager probably hasn't heard of them.
My point being, that the analysts damage whatever they're paid to damage nowdays, if you've been following things at all lately.
C|N>K
I couldn't care less if they disagree with me I simply take issue with the fact that they are for-sale and claim to be objective.
They are high-tech hookers, for-sale to the highest bidder. Their opinions/results have no meaning under such circumstances.
Get a little professional integrity and you'll get the respect you seek.
A survey of senior executives was recently completed in which they asked the various senior executives how the quality of the food in the cafeteria has changed over the last year. The results indicate that the quality of cafeteria food has improved.
A survey of cafeteria staff was recently completed in which they asked the various staff how often senior executives eat cafeteria food. The results indicate that senior executives NEVER eat cafeteria food.
"As the study was carried out independently, DiDio said she had no influence on the results."
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Firefox is Free (as speech, as beer).Do you apply that same logic to Microsoft?
If Microsoft publishes some FUD, do you immediately switch to an alternative?
... and harassing this poor analyst instead of spending your time making Linux better?
Note how earlier today, the story on Microsoft creating software for police to crack down on child pornography was greeted on slashdot with paranoia and conspiracy theory. How it is purely a move by Microsoft to do marketing. It doesn't matter what Microsoft does, it's always a conspiracy with you guys.
How about Mono? Mono is an amazing piece of OSS. But because it was based on something Microsoft did, it's considered a fringe element in the OSS world by the linux guys. You can read about what Miguel thinks of pleasing the Microsoft haters in a recent interview -- he basically draws a bell curve... and that pleasing the hatas on the fringe isn't worth his time.
I agree with the Yankee Group and will add a point: Just quit with the bashing and make Linux more accessible to the masses instead of posting on slashdot claims of how much better it is.
What's funny is that anybody who disagrees with them is labeled an 'MS fan-boy'. Hypocrites.
"Derp de derp."
This lady is absolutely right. There are crazy zealots out there who hurt Linux while trying to help it. These nutcases are usually the types who have no social skills, no friends and no lives. It's very frustrating for them to know they are, and be, technically correct (Linux IS a better operating system from a CS standpoint) however at the same time have people not listen to them because they present themselves at nutcase shitheads.
It reminds me of the other day in the subway when this crazy old guy was yelling about the trains running on different lines. He was actually correct, but nobody listened to him because he was a crazy old guy.
If we could somehow shut up these zealots and let only the presentable and friendly members of the Linux community do the talking we would be much further along. But I guess that's not the way its going to be.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
One of the most important parts of any propaganda war is the concept of defining the terms of the debate. Usually, if you can define the terms of the debate, you win the debate. This is why the neo-conservatives are so good at winning propaganda wars, despite their positions and politics being so sketchy.
Here's an example: Politician A says, "My opponent supported a bill that would increase the number of kill shelters in their district. Therefore, my opponent supports the killing of puppies." Then, an asshole blowhard radio DJ who's probably in the pocket of said politician (although you can't prove it) gets on the air waves and screams "Politician B enjoys killing little puppies! His party is the cult of puppy death!" over and over again.
Politican B spends a good chunk of time refuting this charge, saying no, he doesn't actually support the killing of puppies, that he's very pro-puppy actually. But nobody cares, the debate has been framed, and in such a way that Politican B was destined to lose, unless his strategists are god damn geniuses at getting out of this predicament.
One of the ways to keep this from happening is to not allow your opposition to frame the debate. When they do, don't fall into their traps. When Pro-MS people go crazy saying "The Zealots! The Zealots Are Killing Linux! You Will All Die At The Hands Of The Zealots!" don't play their game and argue as though this were an actual issue in the movement, because it isn't.
I see a lot of people here falling into this trap, and saying 'Yes, they have a point, some people are too pro-free software.' This allows the opposition to frame the debate, and it takes a lot to undo the damage that it does.
As much as sections of the free software movement disagree with each other, it's important that we have unity, because exploiting these disagreements is part of the strategy of framing the debate. Basic divide and conquer. We'll be attacked for the elements among us who are less compromising in their belief in free software, because this is seen as a weakness among us. Not those people or views specifically, but the disagreement between the different factions.
So, all I'm saying is, before you post a big rant about how big of a problem these RMS types are, recognize that your words will be used against all of us.
Because linux is free (in some part speech, but in this case mostly beer is relevant) it's been able to develop a huge following of users and supporters. Any time a group of any sort gets that large, you end up with a more perceptible concentration of idiots.
To quote Twain: "The pitifulest thing out is a mob." The democratic nature of OSS development gives strength (in terms of control) to anyone who wants it, but you have to work for it. Anyone can contribute to the linux kernel, but only a couple thousand do. It takes a lot of work, and it's not an easy way to earn respect.
Criticism, on the other hand, is easy. It doesn't take to much effort to tare someone down. Especially if you do it in an internet forum where you don't even need to look them in the eye.
The only silly thing about the article is that these groups are somehow surprised that the internet is mostly full of idiots, and that the people with enough time to flame research groups are teenagers. You'd think they'd have done their research... well, we won't get into that.
It often degenerates into FUD. Like one of the most common ones I hear for why to switch to Linux is that Windows crashes all the time. Well, ok, maybe for that Linux user it did, I don't know, but for me it doesn't. It basically never crashes, even app crashes are pretty rare.
Now when someone starts off with accusing your chosen thing of having problems it doesn't, you begin to think they are full of shit. Maybe they aren't making it up, maybe their experience is different than yours, but they need to base their comments off of your experience, since you are the one they are they are trying to convince.
Another problem I find is trying to dismiss every problem Linux has, or somehow spin it into a good thing. Linux isn't perfect, nothing is. So when someone points out a flaw, and the Linux enthusist just tries to spin it as being nothing, or even a good thing, it again makes them sound full of it, and makes the rest of what they say sound less sincere.
So it's not a matter of never mentioning the other side, it's a matter of finding out what the person wants to do, and talking to them about how Linux would be a good solution for that. Sometimes that may involve pointing out things it does better, but you do that in a constructive, not a demeaning way. Also when a flaw is noted in Linux, acknowledge it, don't pretend it's nothing.
Generally I find that Linux people who are trying to convert someone take such a fanatical view of how cool Linux is and such a demaning view of Windows (complete with immature names like M$ and Winblows) that it's no supprise most people percieve them as extremists with no clue.
It's not zealous nonesense. By any standard she's a shill.
I'm not defending the people who call her didiot, or call to harass her. They're idiots, no question. But she's far from innocent on the zealot scale, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to point that out.
You say
In politics, the first rule is to define your opponent. It really doesn't matter what your are about, it matters how you get others to percieve the opponent.
This works as corporate marketing as well. Ads which are the most effective are ones that frame the competition as being idiots or ridiculous. The Coke vs. Pepsi truck driver commercials, etc.
This is strategy. Frame Linux advocates as fringe element types. Frame the open source movement as un-American, hippy idealism. Cast aspersions, and most importantly, PUT A WOMAN UP FRONT TO PLAY THE VICTIM ROLE.
Oh no, she's been flamed and horrible emails have been sent. Linux zealots are RUINING things. They are vociferously countering our FUD and constantly shedding light on our spin and half truths. We need to stop them!
This is a war. It's a war against a monolithic corporation which controls the operating system market with an iron grip, and is co-opting the mainstream press and buying favorable press. On the other side is the open source movement, now potentially aided by companies like IBM which will genuinely help it achieve legitimacy in the corporate and academic worlds. European and South American countries are realizing they get escape debt cycles by simply getting out from under the thumb of insane software license schemes.
In this war, you can expect every trick to be used. Linux users will be cast in the vein of the Simpson's comic book guy. Sarcastic nerds, nobodies, people who are wacko. People who hate capitalism and hate intellectual property law.
It's ordinary every day programmers contributing to something for the gerater good vs. Madison avenue types running bought and paid for marketing campaigns. You need to defy them by refusing to be defined by them. You need to recruit other people to the benefits of OpenOffice and OpenVPN and Linux and away from corporate juggernauts who will try and FUD this thing to kill it.
I'm sure they tell each other that. Particularly on
Or does that ONLY apply when the subject is Open Source?
If you're going to be biased, then don't complain about how others are biased. That's just hypocritical.
Which is the main problem with DiDio. She takes anything SCO said as gospel and discounted any contradictory evidence presented.
Do you need me to remind you of the "obfuscated" code that SCO was showing under NDA that she signed and then wrote about how it looked as if SCO's case was air-tight? Hmmmmmm?
Having invested so much in a heavy-handed SCO shill (DiDio), the Yankee Group finds it now has a huge credibility problem on its hands.
So now the Yankee Group wants to blame a nebulously-defined class of scapegoats ("Linux extemists") while it tries to recover.
Face it Yankee: Even Gartner did not make the same factual and ideological mistakes you did. Having your wagon hitched to SCO must be no fun right now and no doubt it is hurting business; THAT is the fault of noone but DiDio and her boss.
It's rather facinating that the article quotes some rather infamous sources. Mi2g's security analysis has been constantly criticized. Laura Didio's analysis of OS issues, and even the legality of code in the SCO case has also been under constant question. Google around; criticism isn't hard to find. It's not that the opinions of these analysists are unpopular; they're simply suspect.
It must be very convenient for them to have a few zealots around to distract from the question of the quality of their work.
...damaged the reputation of Linux, then there's little chance they ever will. Linux adoption has increased every year for at least the last five years and the rabid voices were loudest in the early days. I don't see how they can halt the momentum at this point.
"This is an error that pops out pretty regularly when using a particular mode of communication with FoxPro"
I can see how that would be irritating.
Before I joined Microsoft, I was an independent, and I cautioned clients against using Access about 95% of the time they brought it up simply because they usually wanted to throw it at problems for which it was never intended.
As with any technology, avoiding errors and doing well with the software requires an understanding of the terrain - I'm not saying that your problem is trivial or insignificant, but I've never seen it before.
Sometimes, it comes down to particular installs.
Anyway, your story reminds me of the frustration I used to feel whenever X would shit itself, drop me to the command line, and refuse to start again.
Trying to get help from the h4x0rz in the user groups was like pounding my head against the wall.
There are problems on both sides of the fence.
"I hate Microsoft"
Wow. That's a bit of a strong sentiment.
I certainly don't hold the entire OSS world for every problem I've ever had with open source software (and the problems have been many).
Interesting.
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
You're absolutely correct on every point.
And that's why people hate these clowns like DiDio - because these clowns are fundamentally vicious assholes who think nothing of lying and stealing and using the state to crush their opponents.
Back in the 1960's, one of the Situationist International people made the point that the hot violence of mobs and riots - so often derided as mindless violence - was precisely the right antidote to the cold, malicious thwarting of human potential which the state and the corporations DELIBERATELY engage in for their own benefit.
And as Bush and his cronies have demonstrated, these kind of people will kidnap you, torture you, and kill you and everyone around you to get their way - and then smirk about it at press conferences.
Unfortunately for them, so will I (leaving out the press conferences). Worse, I'm willing to wait for the right technology to perform a "Final Solution" on their asses.
Meanwhile, you are correct that the appropriate response is to keep producing good stuff and show it to people. Things will keep getting better if we do.
And that's why, as someone else posted, DiDio is "squealing like a pig" - and so is Bill.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I upgraded the motherboard in my computer that was running Fedora Core 2 at the time. The new motherboard had all different hardware: network, video, chipset, etc. The upgrade process went like this:
- Remove hard drive from old computer.
- Install hard drive in new computer.
- Boot new computer.
No drivers to load or find. No configurations to twiddle with. No interaction required from me except to confirm to Kudzu that the hardware changes happened. I have never had a motherboard upgrade or fresh install of Windows go that smooth.
My brother-in-law upgraded his motherboard in a PC running Windows 2000 like this:
- Boot with new motherboard.
- Watch previous drivers attempt to load and crash the system.
- Reboot to Safe Mode.
- Remove previous drivers from Device Manager.
- Reboot.
- Watch "found new driver" messages come up one at a time and require a reboot after each one.
- Guess wrong on the network driver from the motherboard driver CD and have the computer crash.
- Reboot to Safe Mode.
- Remove incorrect network driver from Device Manager.
- Reboot and choose correct network driver.
- Reboot.
- Try three different sound drivers rebooting each time.
- No sound. Is hardware broken?
- Reboot Knoppix CD. All hardware works fine except for video mode. Sound works fine. Proved hardware works.
- Reboot to Windows and hunt for sound driver on internet.
After killing most of a Saturday, I sent him home with his sound still not working. None of the sound drivers on the included CD or that we found on the net would work. But it worked fine in Linux.
I chuckle to myself everytime someone says Linux is harder to install than Windows.
PETA Should be put on hold until we can actually take care of humans, the other species are not as important.
What's funnier is the continual stream of posts claiming a single borg-like hivemind on Slashdot, that punishes you if you dare to say anything the slightest bit negative about Linux...
Continually modded up.
Yeah.
Hypocrites. Every last one of us.
If you want to turn this into a black/white Windows/Linux issue (which it most certainly is not), I daresay there are more pro-Microsoft posts on this site these days than otherwise, which makes me think there are more pro-Windows folks here than not. However, a goodly lot seem to be compelled to end their posts with "now this will just get modded down due to Slashbot hypocrite groupthink".
Guess what, Checkers? That sort of 12-year old boy prattling deserves modding down, because it's just pure flamebait.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.