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."

Comments

true

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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.

Re:true

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Firstly, the survey comprised of asking executives questions about various issues, rather than focusing plainly on statistics. Moreover, DiDio added that companies usually did not keep track of the operating costs, and yet the study sought to equate the costs of running Windows with that of running Linux.

And, according to the article that detailed the survey, developing applications and securing servers were the two major cost differences. DiDio highlighted Visual Studio as a boon for Windows users in developing software, while completely forgetting IDEs that exist on Linux which help development, and are far better than Visual Studio.

To most Linux users, and those in the know, that reeks of bias. Most executives would be more familiar with Windows systems than Linux systems, because of their experience with the former. Moreover, it is highly likely that executives wouldn't have heard about Eclipse or KDevelop as much as Visual Studio, simply because of marketing reasons.

DiDio, herself, added that Microsoft's shift to a monthly security update cycle and increased efforts to combat security issues were the main drivers behind its new ratings. Linux's security program is not trumpeted as loudly as Microsoft's "Patch Tuesday" is.

She deserved the criticism for not pointing out these obvious flaws. Whether the "extremists" were a bit too radical is another case altogether.

Re:true

[Excelsior]

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.

The kettle called, it wants its color back. Laura Didio is the queen of OSS bashers in research analyst's clothing. Don't beleive me? Try a Google search on Laura.

She has made a career out of bashing open source because she knows it makes her one of the most well known technology analysts around. Read a bit about this woman and the reports she writes, and then tell me you don't see a trend. Whenever a long period of time goes where you hear nothing about Laura Didio, she throws out something controversial to stir the pot.

She's the equivalent of a troll - don't feed her.

Reputation of GNU/Linux Advocates

[Kethinov]

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.

The problem is

[Sycraft-fu]

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.