Slashdot Mirror
Slate Takes on Linux
alkali writes "The weekend edition of the Microsoft-owned, Michael-Kinsley-edited Slate has two articles on Linux, one written by Slate's chief program manager (i.e., a techie) and the other written by a staff writer without any particular technical expertise. No surprises, but the Redmond connection will probably interest at least the conspiracy-minded. "
I've spent a horrific 3 days instaling Win98 on my system. Install Win98, install patches, install new stuff, fire up directx, BANG! fall down dead. Format drive, start over. (It's a hardware/driver problem, but Linux and X run JUST fine!)
The big problem is that people don't install operating systems very often. OS installation can be one of the most painful experiences in computerdom. (With the exception of MacOS 7.x, 8.x, is is actually pretty easy)
Also, I hope that RedHat replaces FVWM95 with something else for 6.0. "Start button"? Sheesh.
Okay guys, next time -you- have a Linux tech support question, call Microsoft. Apparently they'll help you.
(From the second article:)
"So I telephoned the Microsoft Helpdesk. Even though Linux is supposed to demolish Microsoft, the Microsoft Helpdesk, which provides computer assistance to its employees, was surprisingly helpful."
These articles (I read both) are biased in lots of unsubtle ways. They are thinly veiled FUD, nothing more. I am impressed that the Slate editor mentioned on the intro page that Slate is owned and run by Microsoft and that the articles should (essentially) be taken with a grain of salt.
I mean, I try to remain objective about Microsoft. I try to just ignore them, repeating to myself that "Loving Linux does not necessarily mean hating Windows", over and over and over again. I keep trying to rationalize that Bill Gates is "just another businessman", and that Microsoft is "just another company". I really really do try.
But when I read things like these articles and like the Halloween documents and Gates' blitherings both during his DOJ trial deposition and during his recent book tour, I just get so F*&KING angry. It's not enough that they control the -majority- of the computing world, they have to control the whole goddamned thing.
Argh. It makes me so angry (said in my best Marvin Martian voice).
*grr*
- deb
Consider:
Now I must confess my doubts about the Open Source movement...Perhaps the greatest technological feature that Windows posesses is that it can handle programs as old as the first DOS applications. Linux will never do that.
Heard of this funny little thing called DOSEmu? WINE? I'd estimate that Linux is 80-90% of the way to running legacy code, if that's your idea of a good time (the last 10% being the hardest of course...)
Some critics say that Linux will fracture into a dozen different incompatible versions...
This has a little more substance--not because of the distributions but because of the possibility of people rewriting the system just to bite their thumb at the FSF. Aside from that, though, it's hard to imagine how such a schism could happen. The distributions are more compatible lately, not less.
Developers want to write code, they don't want to solve all the niggling little problems that users come up with.
He works for Microsoft, he should know. ;-) That said, the Debian bug tracking system is (IMO) a good place to start looking at how bugs in Linux programs get dealt with.
I think those are the only things he mentioned that haven't been hammered to death already.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
For a fair comparison, the two authors should have purchased their machines from VAResearch. I'm sure both normally use PCs with windows *preinstalled* at the factory. So of course the effort to get a Linux PC would be much more than they had to invest in Windows. :-)
Granted I'm not a novice computer user, but I've installed Linux on two different desktop systems (one with no OS, one with Windows 98 preinstalled) and on a laptop with Win 95 previously installed. You'd think I would have run into at least one of the problems they mentioned. Nope. All went smooth as silk (Redhat 5.2, no plug intended).
In my office I have a Win 98 based Dell and a clone box running Linux. Win 98 crashes, on average, about every other day. Really. Yesterday it crashed 3 times. The Linux box has *never* crashed. I've thrown Staroffice at it. I've thrown Oracle at it. I run KDE, Netscape, etc. Never crashes. The only time it went down unexpectedly was when someone cut the PG&E main power cable feeding our neighborhood. Even Linux has its limits I guess...
It's interesting to me that with Gates saying how Linux is "no threat" that his various media machines like Slate and mouth pieces like Mr. Muth are spewing out such an incredible volume of venomous verbage about how bad Linux is. It's been quite a biltz this week. They're saying it's over-rated, it's under-featured, it's over-hyped, and only for nerds. It has no GUI, it has a GUI that looks like Windows. It doesn't have the features of Windows, it runs "just about as fast as Windows".
:)
Oy! FUD, FUD, FUD, everywhere I turn, nothing but FUD. I think I definitely sense fear and apprehension on the part of Billy boy. It's good to have confirmation from the man and his machine that we're really on the road to defeating his much-cherished Empire. Just like the Visigoths in the 400s on their way to Rome, here come the OSS hordes to the door of the Redmond offices. They see us coming, and they fear us. They fear the freedom and truth we represent. Time is on our side, and there is not much they can do besides this FUD campaign to stop us. Linux, FreeBSD, and other OSS OSes shall continue to prove themselves superior in the trenches. It's going to be a fun year.
Yes, the techie works for Microsoft. Of course he will lean that way. But that doesn't mean that absolutely everything that he says can be thrown out as clearly biased or FUD.
The point I caught was his comment on testing the code. And its something I've brought up here in the past: lots of Linux programmers, not a lot of QA. I personally work as a tester - in Redmond, no less, though not at MS - and our job is just as important to getting a usable app out the door as the devs. Software testing is an entirely different discipline from software development, but I don't see any articles about testing open source code, nothing about blackbox vs. glassbox methods; heck, we're not even an option in the polls. Pure code review doesn't find all the bugs. Period. You have to have someone willing and able to methodically and carefully test every damn part of the final app. Not the debug version, it functions differently. Not scripting against the underlying structure, or at least not only that. Actually clicking the buttons, one at a time. Putting in just bonkers stuff in all the input fields. Race conditions. Stress tests. Sure, you've got the code in front of you, but nobody does any work with source. Test the *app*.
But testing isn't cool. Testers don't get movies of the week written about them. And some testing is flat boring. (Trust me, repeating the exact same test cases in 7 different browser versions will make you start looking at the nearby water tower and remebering that it takes 42 muscles to smile, but only 4 to pull the trigger on a decent sniper rifle. Which is why I'm the lead and make somebody else do it.) But untested code, no matter how clever the programmer, isn't going to conquer the world. And devs make lousy testers. It's just a different mindset.
-reemul
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Just stop posting them.
94.9%(guesstimate) of computer owners...
- purchased their computers with an Operating
- will never install any Operating System
- do not know what an "Operating System" is,
therefore, this and all other articles related toSystem preinstalled,
on a computer, including the one they own,
the installation of Linux are moot.
If these were among the first of such articles,
there would be no objection, however, that is not
the case.
Free software promotes freedom and sharing; if
you treat it as just another consumable item,
that is all you will get out of it. Go to a
friendly neighborhood Installfest rather than
buying the latest copy of Red Hat from Barnes &
Noble and installing it alone.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
The lady's install article was almost fair, and
an echo of things heard in the highly flamed
Katz install dilemma (I think she faired much
more admirably than Katz actually).
The "techie" article was, IMHO, one of the more
disturbing pieces of propaganda that I have seen
as of late. It reminds me of "Purple Heart" -
a WWII-era propaganda movie (one of *ours* folks)
aimed at the Japanese culture and war machine.
By the second paragraph he is already setting out
to portray Linux as confusing, different, and
something that Windows people don't have any
contact with. It appears to me that he is
targeting the average Windows user who has no
contact with Linux (to their knowledge) and
who wants their questions settled in an article
from someplace safe. He makes Linux immediately
seem confusing and alien. Good strategy. Many
of his finer facts are wrong, but within the
realm of plausible deniability. He sets out
immediately the "good guy/bad guy" duality
(Linux is made by one guy instead of a faceless
monolith, but really it's made by a bunch of
faceless organizations who can't decide on
names. Shreds of truth on both counts, but
the second one is where he puts his emphasis)
he uses throughout the rest of the article
to establish "objectivity" while he trashes the
system.
He continues on to draw upon the party line to
subtly attack the FSF's motives. Far be it from
me to side with a Microsoft instrument, but I
have to agree that I don't expect to see sellable
software vanish from the world in my lifetime,
but I don't think that's the point. I'll let
the debaters rage on that one -- I just enjoy
having a choice, being able to use good software
that I can muck around in with the code.
His description of Linux as merely a kernel to
which one could add a windowing system, etc. Is
the first point where I began to get disturbed
and decided to post a response. The author
slips from debatable propaganda/FUD and slight
confusion of facts into a not-so-subtle attack
on the (debatable) weaknesses of Linux with the
implication of "...and so the thing's useless. Go
now back to your homes and play with your Windows
boxes and enjoy your hair." You are free to go
now. The verdict is in.
Linux *is* short of application software when
compared to the Windows software base. To split
hairs one can install Linux without X, but if a
GUI is important to you then you would install
it. The implication that significant extra work
or (as with NT for example) extra purchases must
be performed to install the OS with what should
be considered "standard" features is another
example of fine propaganda techniques. The
implication that the web (similarly Internet) is
the domain of the average Microsoft user, and
therefore must have come from Microsoft, is one
that must resonate well with their user base.
So when the author says "I even installed a web
browser." He is masterfully drawing upon this
unspoken belief -- as one of them.
The basic premises of the article are what I would
call the "Party Line" of the MStocracy:
- free software can't win
- the Linux community is too disorganized to
stay around
- they started from 1 guy, but they have the
same corporate disadvantages as the rest of
the industry
- to get their free software you have to pay
- you don't get any functionality with Linux
- Linux is struggling to emulate Windows
- Linux is nearly impossible to install and won't
recognize your hardware
- the stability of the system isn't important
- Linux doesn't really perform any better/faster
- you can't run your old DOS/Win3.1 programs on
Linux
Any of these points can be the basis for a healthy
flame war or otherwise religious debate.
The propaganda techniques the author uses include:
- identifies himself as a member of the reader
community (here day-to-day MS users with little
known contact with Linux). This is
particularly ironic since his initial
credibility takes him, by definition, out of
that group.
- establish apparent objectivity by supporting
facets of the system which do not conflict with
the "party line" tenets
- establish that Linux is associated with a group
very different from the reader community
- make that different group seem overly complex,
strange, non-conformist. The important
psychological tactic here is that the
demographic of the reader group (due to the
way the article is targeted) is exceedingly
conformist, and will react adversely towards
a non-conformist representation.
- focus upon the valued facets of the reader's
current beliefs (Word documents are important,
printing is important...) and analyze the
competitor rigidly within this framework.
- make the reader group appear to be the
important group, the misunderstood group;
further highlighting the difference between
"us" and "them"
- resting upon the implied conclusions, show that
the enemy must necessarily fall since our way
must be superior to theirs
- allow the reader to believe that since "we"
drew these conclusions then the reader shares
some of the credit
- finally establish a feeling of membership in
the knowledgeable group by letting the reader
know that there are others (fools) around who
will still pursue the Linux phenomenon, but
"we" know better
A fairly broad array of effective psychological
tools. Well done, Herr Shuman.
roundeye
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"