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!
She's a prime example of how pro microsoft extremism in the course of her job has decimated her credibility. Her. O'Gara ( for SCO). Enderle. No one believes them any more.
Learn your lessons well.
You say
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Yankee" a derogatory term for American colonists whose political views were considered part of the "extremist fringe"???
There's an extremist fringe of Linux loonies who hang out on forums and are disrespectful and threatening because you disagree with them...That can hurt the Linux community.
On SLashdot?
Say it aint so!
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
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. --
she's pissed off because they call her DiDiot and her last name is DiDio? A 3rd grade schoolyard taunt gets to her? She complaing because she gets phone calls at 11pm. She lives in the public eye (whether she likes it or not, that's where she is) and her phone number is listed?
Tell me about death threats or stalkers and I'd say you've got extremists. Tell me about name-callers and heavy-breathers and I'd say you've got the nuisance equivalent of script kiddies.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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
This statement was dismissed too quickly by Ziff-Davis:
The fact is that major analyst firms earn their revenue in two ways:
1. Selling reports and consulting services to customers (IT businesses in this example) that describe the market, the vendors, and who's doing what.
2. Selling consulting services back to the vendors to help them position their product for various markets.
It's tough for the analyst firms to remain objective because sometimes they make more money from the latter business than the former. And in that case, the vendor can exhibit tremendous pressure to make sure that no negative remarks are made about their products or even steer analyst reports in the direction they would like.
(Investment firms had a similar problem until recent regulations required them to maintain a split between the side that provide investment advice and the side that does IPOs for firms).
Does this mean that Microsoft has paid Yankee Group enough money that they are saying negative things about Linux? Not necessarily. But it does call into question DiDio's statement, "I don't take any money from any vendor." I've seen at least one top-tier analyst firm (though not Yankee specifically to my recollection) who reported favorable market results for firms that paid a lot for their consulting services. And Microsoft has been known for exerting some pressure on companies it works with.
Any time you have an entity expected to be "objective" but who's existance depends on the largess of the firms it is supposed to be objective about, you must be wary of these conflicts of interest.
Just like how it's dubious to suggest the mainstream media is going to seriously bite the hand of the Republicans that feed it (read as, interviews, embedded reporters during war, or bigger media-consolidation regulation), the industry analyst firms can be just as susceptible to strong-arm tactics of vendors.
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.
Sounds like a nice group, I want animals to be happy too. Then one day they came around a KFC in my neighborhood and members yelled at families going in for dinner, calling them murderers and supporting animal concentration camps. They had a bucket of fake blood they threw on someone. Instantly, nobody gave a damn about their group. More importantly, people would support the opposite side just because they hate PETA.
Same think could happen with Linux. What got me interested in Linux was friendly people who really liked it, and wanted to share what they knew about it. What turns me off, I went to a Linux group meeting and had a dual boot machine, Windows 2000 and Debian. Someone gave me shit for having Windows on the laptop. Another dork, and I use the word dork because I think nerd is too nice; anyways, another dork starts laughing and saying how Windows sucks and how easy it is to hack into. I had my machine hooked up to the LAN, and these idiots decided they wanted to try and hack my machine. They even asked me to "ipconfig" and tell them my exact IP address. They thought I was an idiot. After 5 minutes I left. Fuck them.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
Maybe if Yankee Group asked the people doing the work and not the PHB's (who usually admit to not understanding the technology anyway), they would have gotten different answers. Perhaps its the frustration of the professionals who see their work summarized by higher-ups who don't understand it that is leading to such harsh criticism? DiDiot's pretty funny, too.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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!
Generally, when Linux is used, it is because someone wants to use it. This immediately puts people on the defensive when criticized about their decision. When Windows is used, it is usually because someone has to use it or does not care.
In many ways, this makes their zealotry a simple defense mechanism which will cause them to become unrealistic and unobjective for no reason other than they see criticism of Linux as an attack on themselves.
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.
I'm a huge OS X fan, and its done my heart good to see more and more acceptence of OS X at the enterprise level, but problems still exist, and until they are worked out, I wish the extremists would just shut up.
Chad Dickerson writes a column for InfoWorld, and a few weeks back he mentioned some issues he has with OS X. He had the nerve to mention that perhaps OS X wasn't meant for everyone and got a firestorm of hate mail. His blog offers more detail:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/dickerson/001225.html
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.
From the Wikipedia article on DiDio:
"The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'"
"I'm all for open source, and competition serves everyone's interest. But if Linux is really to take its place alongside Windows... then the vendors in this space cannot act like a bunch of hippies in a '60s commune or ashram. There really is no such thing as a free lunch."
She has a definite predisposal not to like open-source, right down to rejecting its philosophy and its ability to exist in a capitalist system... yet claims to be unbiased when her organization concludes that an open-source product inferior. She hates name-calling... but calls open-source developers communists and hippies.
As far as I'm concerned, she's getting what's coming to her.
And for proof of that, check out her video here. Now, Laura, tell us again how objective you are again. (I could use a good laugh.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The article is a little misleading. It seems to imply that Didio was first harrassed by zealous linux supporters with her TCO survey.
1 09 12770.html?oneclick=true
She doesn't mention her quick involvement in the SCO case, where she was one of the first and only Analysts to sign the SCO NDA and claim publically they had a solid case. She wasn't all to forthcoming to her 15 year friendship with everyone's fav marketing vp, Black Stowell either.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/10550
Quickly after that initial report she produced a report that critized Linux vendors for failing to indemnify customers, the exact same line Darl McBride was telling.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/31252.html
Then she produces a TCO report on Linux vrs Windows development that uses BEA and Oracle on the Linux side vrs IIS and SQL2000 on the MS side and reports MS is much cheaper then the linux solution. Which i belive is the one the article mentions.
So to say Didio was unfairly attacked because she objectively came out with reports that critize linux is quite wrong. She was questioned because of her seemingly permament bias against Linux.
If the source of this is not monetary, I'd hate to know what some Linux developer did to her to make it so Personal.
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.
I should know. The court appointed Psychologist told me I'm a nut job. She said that was the technical term for it...
IANAL... But I play one on
Laura DiDio is the one who agreed with SCO if I recall that Linus stole millions of lines of Unixware code and warned CIO's to stay clear from it.
Just take what she says wiuth a grain of salt.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Actually, at the time I didn't want everyone to know what I was really being called...but I've come to embrace it, as it's my only source of pleasure in this world.
Laura, how have you been since we talked on the phone? I'm hardly a terrorist, I gave you my name and position in the open-source community when I called you, and you know as well as I do the reason for that call, but I will re-iterate it here. If you call us ankle-biting terrorist car-bombers, we can and will make this a self-fulfilled prophecy. My intent in calling you was not to terrorize but to ask you why you would say such things about a productive and creative community? While it may have been 11pm there it was 7pm on the west coast.
Stick to your analysis and don't preach, it makes you look ever so slightly less biased. SCO found this out, you found this out, do not fuck with a community of people who have put their talent, and their names on the line to write code, and support the community. We have a thin, thin tolerance of people publically abusing us for no good reason other than that you seem to feel like it. I wonder, was William Genevesse (arrested for stealing the winows 2000 software and reselling it) ever convicted of being an "open source terroist" or perhaps and "ankle-biter" (I might agree with you here).
Truth be told you were dead wrong and instead of waiting for LAW ENFORCEMENT to do their job and arrest the cracker responsible for this, you launched a slur campaign.
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.
Certainly. I got it from an AC post that was first modded down as a troll. But commentary on it is "+4 interesting"? Mods...WTF?
Wow. Wished I hadn't burned all my mod points about the spammer. I've seen Bill Gates make presentations that are less enthusiastic about Microsoft or hostile to Linux.
The open-source community's basic problem, as far as Didio et al are concerned, is that it doesn't give the Yankee Group enough money. It really is that simple.
...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
First of all, I support, use, and sell Linux in my daily work. I also do the same for Microsoft products, Novell products, and Apple products (whatever fits a client best). I don't really have an OS dog in this particular hunt.
That said, in my prior professional life I was a corporate-type IT manager. For two different companies over an 11-year period. During that time an old college friend of mine went to work for Computerworld as a reporter, and through her I met and occasionally worked with Laura DiDio back when she was covering the Novell beat for CW (old Google searches will probably turn up a quote or two from me in articles of hers). I can't directly speak of her attitudes now, because it's been a couple of years since I've spoken to her (I've talked to her about stuff since she joined Yankee, though). Here's my take on Laura, and where she's coming from:
Laura is not a tech geek like most of us are. She's also not specifically a fanboy of any particular company or technology. Laura's strength at CW was in insight - she did a good job of seeing through the fluff that companies were spewing and getting to the "real" impact behind it. Covering Novell back when Microsoft was first starting to take a big bite out of their business, she recognized then that it wasn't the superiority of the product that was winning the battle for Microsoft, it was the marketing. She also saw what Novell was doing wrong, but wasn't in a position to do much about it other than point it out in columns.
As an analyst, I'd say her work (that I've read) is usually solid. I don't agree with all her conclusions, but remember - her job is to figure out what mainstream business is doing and is interested in. It's not to rave about one platform or another. And since mainstream business is on Windows, converting would incur costs and complications that don't exist if they stay on Windows. Some companies would save money by moving to Linux - some would not. Sometimes it's worth it for a business. Sometimes it's not. And sometimes she's spot-on - sometimes she's not.
The folks who post flames about her and other analysts who say anything other than "Linux rocks and Windows sucks" regularly are giving Linux a bad name, Slashdot a bad name, and the whole open source/free software community a bad name. There are valid criticisms one can make of some of DiDio's work. Flaming the messenger personally because you don't agree with her professional conclusions - that's just stupid.
Even Rob Enderle deserves better.
OK, maybe that's going a little too far...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Yesterday, Brent Noorda posted an open letter on Groklaw Brent Noorda Sets the Record Straight --here's a key quote:
While the information provided by analysts like Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio weren't incorrect, their statements represented speculation more fitting to a daytime soap opera than to the business section of a newspaper.
this refers in part to DiDio's many inflammatory statements, in particular one from the SLC Tribune on March 9:
No one could say for sure Wednesday, although Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio had some advice for those watching the fortunes of both Canopy and the Noorda Family Trust - two entities controlling hundreds of millions of dollars. "This is all about the money, and the ones most closely following the money are the Noordas' [four] kids," she said. "Who stands to gain the most? And what's the only thing that stood between them and the money?
"That was Ralph Yarro. So, good-bye, Ralph," DiDio added. "I don't think Yarro will be reinstated. I find that highly unlikely. . . They will just pay him off and send him on his way - but they won't countenance anyone who's a threat" to their monetary access.
People following the case know about Val Noorda Kreidel's tragic suicide a few weeks ago, and evidently, Brent Noorda felt compelled to address the out-of-bounds tactics of these so-called 'analysts.'
While it could be agreed that there are individual extremists among the pro-FOSS crowd, DiDio and her fellow neo-cons (Enderle, Maureen O'Gara) consider Groklaw itself to be a radical extremist site, despite the solid legal reportage done by Pamela Jones and company (so good, in fact, that SCO raided Groklaw's documents to seed their own prosco site).
While DiDio is crying harrassment, one could have a sense that the best defense is a good offense, as in she'd rather take offense than apologize for her own transgressions...
I encourage everybody who hasn't already, to check out Brent Noorda's open letter on Groklaw, and then decide for yourself who's the real extremist!
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!
Didio is just trying to discredit her critics:
the issue *isn't* that open source advocates are attacking her analysis.
the isue *is* that open source advocates have discovered that:
1. she teamed up with a microsoft gold partner to perform the analysis
2. they sent the survey to subscribers to a microsoft publication (a completely biased sample)
3. the analysis & survey don't match up well - a considerable amount of apparently unfounded interpretation occured.
So, are open source advocates sometimes excessive? Sure. But more to the point: Didio's analysis was beyond flawed - it was deceptive. And that discredits her as well as Forester.
My, that name sounds familiar. I remember her repeating SCO's unsubstantiated claims about Linux being stolen SCO code.
You mean people haven't been questioning their competence?
I think the problem that Yankee Group has is indeed that Open Sourcers are questioning their competence in inconvenient places like the offices of CIOs and CTOs, and if the direct customers for Yankee Group publications and analysis start hearing enough questions as to whether or not the products are a rational use of company funds, Yankee is likely to find their customers going to the competition or even bringing analysis in-house.
Yankee doesn't sell to end users, their only market is corporate/investor, and ALL they have to sell is their credibility.
They should concentrate on finding facts to analyze, not trying to spread more Linux-related FUD. The only credibility that sort of thing hurts is their own.
This isn't "Linux zealots hurting. . ." anything but Yankee Group. I'm sure the Gartner people enjoyed reading the article.
Tech Public Policy stuff
One of the quotes that helped Laura earn the name DiDiot:
"Within the open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and 'ankle biters' who are trying their hand at hacking. Some are even communicating with each other. So it only takes one or two of these groups sharing information to be able to pull something off. When you have this type of passion, it's hard to fight because these people are like virtual suicide car bombers."
If you can't stand the heat Laura, don't keep throwing fuel on the fire.
Even though Billy boy over there says that you can't get burned by being his shill, you might get an unpleasant surprise...
Brielle
As for Gimp and Photoshop, I just used both in the last 24 hours, both work fine for me. Having used Gimp more regularly, I'm starting to find that Photoshop is becoming harder to use instead of Gimp. The opposite was true in the past, as I always believed as many do that Photoshop simply had a superior UI. Now that I remember better where the tools are in Gimp, I'm starting to find that the opposite is true. And I'm finding that Gimp is using fewer resources on my Linux computers than on Windows. But that's just me.
The problem with Ms. Didio however is bigger. Are you aware that she has had more than just an analyst relationship with one of the SCO old timers, iirc? I'm not talking about a personal relationship ala dating. In the last few months, if I recall correctly, it came out either by herself or by another reporter that knows her that she has been in contact with Yarro for decades, and iirc, the relationship wasn't of analyst/exec, it was "friends" if I got that right. I don't remember the article verbatim, but the relationship to Yarro that was explained hit me like a bolt of lightening because it explained her bias about as well as Rob Enderle's relationship with Bill Gates:
Further, Ms. Didio has pumped out more than one "independent survey" that is a little less than independent. From exactly how the questions are worded, to using multiple choices that don't allow alternative answers, to using pro-Microsoft audiences as the target audience for the surveys:
Very true. For a current example, look at the significant pressure (withdrawing advert) GM has exerted on the LA Times, for what seems to me stating the obvious: GM is in trouble. (Where else but LA would you get pulitzer prize winning articles on the auto industry?)
So rather than take the advice, make corrective action, they , having seem to failed in their efforts to muzzle the reporter, apply pressure by withdrawing their advert. Yes, I agree it's a fine line - why advertise in a paper that writes bad reviews - however the possible impact on the Time's objectivity, or any other newspaper, is important. GM to stop LA Times advertising
Bill Moyers, before retiring from NOW, said one of the most critical issues facing democracy was that increasing control of the media by just a few companies (Think Murdoch and the Fox Empire).