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!
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!
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.
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."
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
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.