Linux Geeks To Take Over World

B'Trey writes "According to this story by Rob Enderle of TechNewsWorld, Linux geeks are one of the most powerful forces in the world and are set to become the next Mob. Does this mean I get to wear a cool fedora and carry my distro CDs in a violin case?"

Comments

Commentary, not journalism

[ValourX]

Enderle does not make phone calls and get facts; he prints opinions. Opinions are not required to be logical or intelligent, and they can run rampant with untruths and stupidity. There's nothing inherently wrong with publishing opinions and commentary.

The reason why this is a commentary and not an article is because there are few or no facts to back up the majority of what Rob Enderle says. I personally consider that unprofessional, even if it doesn't technically break the rules.

-Jem

More Enderle FUD.

[Jaywalk]

Enderle has proven time and again that he is pro-Microsoft, anti-IBM and anti-Linux. He has as much as said so in his SCOForum speech. Furthermore, he has stated that he feels SCO will win because the case won't be decided on the facts of the case. His "analysis" of Linux needs to be read in this light.

My read is that this is a pathetic attempt to link "Linux" and "union" in the minds of IT management. The article is absurd on it's face. It relys on a redefinition of the words "Linux" and "union" in order to make it work, thus rending the entire ridiculous screed meaningless.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

-- Lewis Carroll, "Alice Through The Looking Glass"

This is WAR!

[Calibax]

Enderle seems to have declared war on Linux. There is so much wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to start commenting or when to stop. Linux supporters are not terrorists (in the main), but the article clearly portrays them as such.

At no time in history has a technology firm been as thoroughly attacked as SCO.

In 2003, SCO started a lawsuit against IBM, began spreading FUD, and demanded $699 for every copy of Linux. Their lies have been attacked, as they should be. SCO's business has suffered because of this, but that's just collateral damage. If you offend a lot of people, a large number of them will respond negatively.

their executive leadership has been threatened, and their ability to function has been almost completely eliminated.

That's what happens when you attack a community. But it was wrong to make physical threats. Please don't imagine that because someone made a threat then all people against SCO must all be terrorists.

In addition, companies using Linux technology and not complying with the GPL generally face a combination of legal and public relations exposures

EXACTLY. People who commit civil torts should face legal sanctions. Why is the article suggesting it's wrong to enforce a licence? Should Microsoft or IBM not enforce their licences?

Let's take the most powerful software company in the world, Microsoft, and imagine a scenario where they had a problem with a negative article. Generally they could call and complain

And that's pretty much what happened - a large number of people complained to the publisher and the advertisers. It is their right, isn't it? It's not mob rule to complain when someone pisses you off.

The O'Gara/PJ saga also demonstrates the lack of mature leadership.

There was no leadership... just a large number of individuals who expressed their views on MOG's article. Linux folks don't need no stinking leadership. Linux isn't a union or a political party.

Without strong leadership any organization with this much power can easily find itself with an image more similar to that of organized crime

I really can't see anyone organizing Linux folks on anything other than a technical level. Too diverse, too independent, too spread out across the globe, too focused on technical issues, too apolitical probably.

I have to wonder if this is just another round in the MS/Linux war. Enderle seems to have picked his side - the one with the money - and is attacking the enemy to the best of his ability. Fortunately, that's not a big threat.

Re:You still won't get a date on Friday.

[croddy]

I, for one, won't be joining any sort of Linux Labor Union. I was drawn to Linux-based operating systems because of the freedom and diversity they offered -- why would I join an organization that promotes a skill-set monoculture, restrictions on my work and others', and then charges me for it?

Open source hackers -- the old "cathedral" FUD notwithstanding -- have always been a collection of individuals who relied upon their own unique skills to bring new ideas to the table and to share them with others.

Perhaps this union would better suit the MCSE crowd.

Enderle's Subtle Axe

[_Sprocket_]

Dont' be fooled. This article has nothing to do with IT unions. Enderle's talk of unions is simply an attempt to establish some kind of single entity to attack, attribute certain shadowy powers to said entity, and even scare the horses of the CIOs who might feel guilty about:

In many companies there exists a huge difference in compensation between the management (particularly the CEOs) and the folks that actually make and service the products. There is also an increasing tendency for executives to treat employees (particularly IT employees) as disposable assets, and you have what appears to be an increasing lack of respect for the competence of management in the industry.

Linux, you see is an underworld agent threatening your profits. With that idea firmly planted, Enderle reaches for his current favorites in his arsenal.

SCO is a reasonable company besieged because they dared sue IBM. This is where Enderle gets to note DoS attacks and personal threats. It seems this alone has sunk SCO and not anything to do with their own buisness tactics or actual strength of their case against IBM. For some reason he also takes this time to mention Microsoft and point out that even this powerhouse is powerless in the face of such an onslaught.

Enderle also notes that companies who violate the GPL face union-like retaliation. And while it does point out "Linux" (which Enderle notes early on he doesn't wish to distinguish from other players) has managed to defend its license... the implication is certainly that this isn't business as normal.

Enderle's next favorite is the O'Gara incident. He generously describes the involved piece as an incomplete expose where O'Gara "implied, but did not prove, that PJ worked for IBM." What Enderle fails to note is that O'Gara also implied that PJ was a paranoid nutjob with generally frowned-on religious beliefs. The impression implied is that the Linux community apparently responded to unwelcome news rather than a personal hatchet job bordering on harassment. And again, Enderle gets a chance to trot out the DoS boogyman. Whats interesting is that he characterizes disapproving emails to advertisers supporting Sys-Con as an "attack". In the end, Enderle characterizes the negative response to this incident as power not even wielded by big corporations or governments. If demands aren't met, Linux moves against you.... and it would seem fits you for digital cement loafers.

You see - Linux is the new Mob. That is Enderle's subtle point. It's more subtle than his normal attacks. But it is a hatchet job, none the less.

One final comment - it's interesting how Enderle highlights the O'Gara incident as damning PR for the Linux community. The opinion is that if the community hadn't responded to O'Gara, the piece would have simply slipped past unnoted. But instead, it was picked up by major trades and gave Linux a black eye. Readers might want to question for themselves why the major news outlets picked this up and pay close attention to the players. Is this Enderle claiming that "suits are back"?

Re:You still won't get a date on Friday.

[berzerke]

...It would be difficult to avoid a descent into corruption and greed -- better just to avoid the union altogether.

No big organization is entirely free of corruption and greed and unions are no different. For all their flaws, they have done some good. Look at history. What were conditions in the factories like before unions? It was these horrible conditions that gave rise to unions in the first place.

Unions are far from perfect, but so is management at most companies. Just look at the US Airways story to see why unions are still needed.