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!
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!
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!
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?
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.
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
Some free insight for you: There are people that can't understand how something exists, if it isn't manufactured from the ground up to be bought and sold. Linux doesn't fit that mold, not in its entirety, and therein lies the problem, for them.
I mean, really. If we get the job done, why not act like hippies, if that's what we feel like? Does it change anything about the product? Is Hippy Linux somehow inferior to CorpDrone Linux, supposing all the underlying code is the same? It's a dangerous idea, this concept of being able to not be a serf, and still being competent to make what society needs.
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.
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.
For some of us the freedom is the goal and Linux is just a tool to help get there. What's annoying is that people who come into this community to get away from the lock in, disrespectfull treatment by software vendors, restrictive licensing etc. and the first thing they want to do is convince everyone to submit to the same crap over here. It's a bit like someone who moves into the countryside to get away from the city and the first thing they want is to put up street lights and mini-malls.
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?
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.
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