Slashdot Mirror
Mindcraft Posts Linux Hate Mail
drwiii wrote in to tell us
that Mindcraft has posted a few choice responses
by Linux zealots. Quite offensive- don't read it you're pure of
heart. <SERMON> I get CC'd on this stuff a lot so I knoW
that these are not only real, but they are only scratching
the surface of the crap that lands in the INBOX of anyone on
the Internet who breaths anything that isn't glowing about Linux.
And I'm embarassed by it. Please remember that how you say something is often
more important than what you say. But in messages like
these, what you said was childish and offensive, and you make us all look like raving loonies.
This doesn't hurt Microsoft or help advance Linux-- in fact
it does quite the opposite. Please Please Please read
the Linux Advocacy HOWTO.
Bad advocacy killed OS/2, The Amiga, and still threatens the Mac-
don't let this happen to Linux.
</SERMON>
Those hate mails are certainly immature and should not have been sent. However it is quite unprofessional for Mindcraft to post these, as if they are trying to insinuate that this is the norm in the Linux community. Most of us do not send things like this, but getting flamed by idiots is part of life on the Internet, and Mindcraft is going to have to learn to deal. Mindcraft, your constant raving about the hate mail you've received gets no sympathy from me at all. Please try to act professional.
It seems the writers have little experience
with the fact that e-mail, especially a
strongly worded one, can just go off and
start living a life of its own.
This guy is right on the money with this statement. If you are going to send email to somebody with a traceable account (or post in usenet for that matter) don't say things you normally would not in public, or put in writing. The internet is a public forum, and many people don't realise this.
I spoke to a person in human resources who told me about a conference that she went to. One of the talks was on hiring senior level people. In the talk it was suggested that if the position was one of serious importance that the candidate was being considered for, it might be a wise idea to do a internet and usenet search for possible webpages, discussions, postings, and emails the person may have written.
Apparently they are already using this strategy in two other areas: for service companies looking to hire people to contract out, and for companies looking to hire contractors.
Almost all states do not require the keeping of information that pertains to why people weren't hired. This screening pratice apparently does not violate any known laws because there is currently no legal preceedence in this case. Plus it can be dismissed as the employer did not hire the person based on their views, but rather their communications skills (e.g. instead of "I tend to disagree with your viewpoint" the candidate wrote "FUCK OFF WHORE SEMIN DEAMON").
I always wondered why I got instantly moderated to -1 whenever I said something negative about Linux. So far today /dev/hda has thrashed solid for 3 hours and Linux has crashed twice, with the only consolation from Linux users being "Cyrix sucks. Get a real chip."
Even though those letters make linux users look bad, my lasting impression after reading it (and seeing the link from the main page) is the immaturity and lack of responsibility of mindcraft to display letters by people who actually wrote something worthwhile.
In any crowd you can find losers, especially considering the thousands that must've written in. I'm sure there were a number of "YeAh bizn1tch, NT ruLeZ, YOu RoCk." letters as well.
Others might not think so, but I think it makes mindcraft look worse to publish these letters. They're once again trying to undermine linux by making the users look like losers.
I'm not sure which is more childish - publishing the rantings of 8 year olds, or the rants themselves.
Really - who are they convincing here? I don't think many adults will be swayed by reading this - it's obvious the people who sent this material were not the brightest bulbs on the tree. Advocates of linux should just ignore mindcraft. They shot themselves in the foot, and now they're just trying to be vengeful and childish.
--
Do you have any notion, any concept of how stupid you look when you use terms like M$, MicroShaft, MicroSuck, Mickeysoft, Bill Gate$ and so on? It's one thing when we see the term once, but you look like a god damned warez puppy when you use them over and over. Not an ounce of logical thought shows through ... and isn't that what geeks prize? Aren't geeks always bashing people who don't use their brains?
Really, the only one I've seen lately that was at all clever was "Micros~1" (shouldn't it be MICROS~1.OFT?) Even that one will get old when it gets beat into the ground, then some more, and again, and some more, and beaten again, and then some more for whatever passes for good measure.
It's amazing how many people's minds you can actually CHANGE when you sound like you treat business problems and solutions a little more seriously than a Quake deathmatch.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Posting private emails in a public forum without the author's expressed permission is one of the more heinous violations of accepted netiquette anoyone can engage in. Whether it be USENET or a personal (or in this case corporate) webpage, it is clear that Mindcraft not only lacks the integrity to do a reasonable and well balanced benchmark comparison, they also lack the integrity to refrain from violating people's privacy by holding up private correspondence to public ridicule.
Do I approve of the flames these messages contain? No. Such immature flamage only hurts the image of Linux to those less clueful. Nevertheless, Mindcraft's abuse of the net in publishing the emails in question are far and away worse than anything anyone wrote them could have been. Perhaps someone should point Mindcraft towards a FAQ or two on proper behavior and netiquette.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I run a web page and even I get e-mail like that. And I don't even do anything offensive. I get e-mail telling me I suck, or that I'll go to hell. Blah blah blah. So who's to say that mindcraft isn't just posting their choice of e-mail to make it appear that Linux users hate them? I'm sure I could prove that people over 70 hate me by publishing just those hate mails about my disrespect for adults or something. Geesh.
If anything bothers me with this page, it's that the general public will swallow it, hook, line, sinker, and boat. Perhaps Mindcraft would like to publish ALL of their e-mail instead of being a typical information manipulator.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
These are just flames, not even atypical flames in the net-world. There is nothing unique about them, except that they are selected examples posted to the web for PR purposes.
I'm disappointed in the people who did this, but I think you have to be realistic - out of the millions of people on the net, -any- topic is going to generate a certain amount of flamage. There are always going to be a few who just -have- to vent, however incoherently. I hope everyone will try to remember that putting even one gratuitous insult in your e-mail, no matter how good it feels, is only going to get you lumped in with the people incapable of spelling or finishing a sentence without a four-letter word.
I'm also disappointed in MindCraft. These kinds of e-mails are not unique to them, and the only appropriate response is to click 'delete.' (Mailbombs are another story - then you contact a net administrator for action.) It's no more mature to say, 'My goodness, everyone come and see how stupid and foul-mouthed this person is,' than it is to issue gratituitous and foul-mouthed insults.
I'm almost tempted to collect an assortment of flames from MS-fanatics speaking against linux from the newsgroups and post them as a rebuttal, but that would be too hypocritical given what I just said. I don't know -how- to respond to this. It would be nice if nobody that supports linux would ever send flames, in newsgroups or by e-mail, but it's not realistic. I hope someone can think of some way responding to such things before the day Microsoft's inbox gets read - with appropriate 'bleeps' on the evening news.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
I've been doing this for years just for my own amusement, generally before a candidate comes in for a first interview. Sometimes it's quite interesting to observe answers to questions in relation to things that have been posted to the Net.
About the Mindcraft problem: it seems to me that people need to learn that this is just business. Ethics and netiquette are going to take a back seat when there is big money involved. This is a fact of life that people around here need to accept. I'm not about to start defending these messages as "typical net flames" and take Mindcraft to task for violating netiquette.
My mom always used to tell me never to write anything down I didn't want to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper. I think that's great advice. Next time you write to a feedback mail address or otherwise criticize a person or company, be aware that you have no control over that message once it's sent, and it could very well end up on a public web page.
Try not to embarass yourself and the rest of us, okay?
Is there any good way to call this discussion to the attention of the trade press? Anyone who has spent enough time on USENET is quite thoroughly used to the "degenerative" discussion. I used to spend a lot of time in alt.solar.photovoltaic (because of my strong interest in renewable energy). Almost every thread of discussion would eventually be taken over by the "no-nukes" and "more-nukes" camps. Hardly any discussion of photovoltaics at all. Luckily, through the miracle of the killfile, some of us had discussions. Good discussions.
I have seen childish Windows users write in exactly the same manner as the "Linux advocates" Mindcraft posted.
I tend to agree with Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. He was talking about fiction, but I think the rule can be generalized to just about everything people do; even to just about everything I personally do (you have no idea how it pains me to admit that! My ego is threatening to leave me!).
Given The Law, I reckon about the only thing we can do is:
1) Try to think before we type.
2) Try to imagine receiving this same message from some "brain dead twerp" (i.e., anyone who thinks differently than we do).
3) Speak out gently against uncivil conduct.
4) Rewrite. Often.
This marks the third time in the last week that a fair portion of a Slashdot posting's discussion thread has concerned itself with how we sound off. I am deeply heartened by seeing the goodwill of most of us displayed. I just wish there were some effective way to bring this attention of those who see us only as pack of wild animals.
Any suggestions?
I did a little browsing at Mindcraft's web page and found the three rebuttals they have posted to articles appearing on abc.com, Salon, and Linux Today.
Each of the above was an article that in one way or another questioned the accuracy of the Mindcraft benchmark tests.
The tone of their rebuttals actually approaches the inflammatory nature of the flames that they posted!
In these rebuttals they DEMAND that the sites in question (ABC, Salon, Linux Today) post retractions to their reviews, or at least add a link to Mindcraft's rebuttal to the text of their reviews!
What crybabies!
Mindcraft, me thinks thou dosest abide in a glass house!
...film at 11. :)
Doesn't the "geek" stereotype includes religious devotion to one's favorite editor, language, and OS?
I hate to imply that this immaturity is OK, but what did Mindcraft expect? If you go into the business of "proving" that one operating system is better than another, you'd better budget for a really good mailserver. A Windows vs. Mac comparison would have generated similar responses.
What good does posting these emails on their website do? It strikes me as a PR move to say, "See how immature Linux advocates are?" As another poster said, where are the emails which systematically point out where the study was flawed? If anything, this makes me think Mindcraft is choosing sides. A real testing and benchmarking company should be above saying, "See what jerks their users are?"
What if slashdot set up a page that includes nothing but the "Linux sucks. NT rulez" comments that show up here? Would the immaturity and foul language of those posts make certain NT advocates look like brats?
Having said all that, those responses were pretty childish. I'm afraid that their real harm lies in the fact that Linux is not a single company, therefore Linux advocates ARE its marketing department. I don't think those responses were very good marketing.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Some wrote off Mindcraft because it showed that NT outperformed Linux. I agree; this behavior is wrong and counterproductive.
Other people smelled a rat, and found one (or several). These people didn't complain because NT won, but because the test was entirely rigged. This response is entirely appropriate to the situation.
Eric Raymond collected the evidence and presents it here.
To summarize what you will find at the link:
The test was paid for by Microsoft (a fact not originally stated by Mindcraft). Was Mindcraft paid off by Microsoft? That depends on your definition; they were indisputably paid by Microsoft. But I trust no benchmark where the ones funding it have a vested interest in the results.
The hardware was optimal for NT, and pessimal for Linux.
The test used dissimilar Web servers. Apache was used on Linux, while something else (IIS?) was used on NT.
The test problem was specifically something that the Apache Web server was bad at; other Linux Web servers are better suited to this problem. While this is somewhat underhanded for an Apache test, the fact that this was supposedly not an Apache test shows the rigging.
The NT machine was well-tuned by NT professionals. The Linux machine was poorly tuned.
Mindcraft criticised both Red Hat support and USENET support. Later reports showed that they attempted to get tuning information from Red Hat's installation support line (which doesn't answer such questions; you have to pay for that level of service). They also showed that they made exactly one USENET post, which didn't contain enough information for a proper solution. USENET requests for more information were not replied to. In short, Mindcraft made no more than token attempts to get support.
Mindcraft's "attempts" at tuning Linux actually made it slower than normal.
While there is some mindless rage concerning this issue, there is a lot of well-documented righteous indignation.
--The basis of all love is respect
A lot of the "rants" I read on the Mindcraft page were zero-content. Effectively, they were all variations on "Windows Sux, D00DZ!". This is zero intelligence and sheer rage. If this is a war of Windows versus Linux, our goal is to get Bill Gates running around, screaming "Linux Sux, D00DZ!". Imagine what that would do for NT market share. Doing it ourselves doesn't help a bit.
One need not strike a balance between truth and diplomacy, because you can maximize both. My favorite way of winning arguments is being calm, collected, rational, and right. If I can achieve this, I can drive my opponent stark raving mad; anyone who is keeping score can see who the winner is. We can do that here.
Slashdot has been following the Mindcraft saga well. While there were some simple rants from both the Linux and Microsoft camps here, a lot of Slashdotters came up with some damning facts that made Mindcraft cringe. The best ones did so calmly and collectively, along the lines of "Hey...did anyone notice that they picked out RAID hardware with a bogus Linux driver?" or "Hmmm... Usenet only sees one post to the Linux boards as a help request," and "If they're pitting Linux versus NT, why are they only using Apache on Linux? For this sort of work, I'd choose another Linux HTTP server". Of course, we finished up with "Thanks, Mindcraft, you gave us some ideas on how to speed up Linux. See you next rev!"
That's why Mindcraft has been dragging it out, redoing the test, asking for Linus himself. They likely expected us to pointlessly rant (which some of us did). I don't think that they expected us to pick their test to pieces in an open forum. They were completely knocked off their game, and found themselves playing ours
At one point, Microsoft had a rant on their page calling the Linux community 'chicken' (not in so many words) for not taking Mindcraft on the offer of a retest. They seemed rather peeved at being denied the satisfaction of a rematch, even after they understood our reasons for avoiding it. You don't cut a deal with a dragon, and you don't trust Microsoft further than you can throw them.
The truth shall set us free. Even if the majority of people don't believe us because they listen to Microsoft, a few will become Linux shops. When they report their IT budgets, their NT-using competition will take notice. If they cannot see the truth, they can read the writing on their bank accounts. And if they can't even do that, then corporate Darwinism takes over--the company that can do the same job with fewer IT dollars is likely to take over the one spending more IT dollars.
--The basis of all love is respect
Dear MindCraft,
Thank you for publishing some of the correspondence you have recieved from
some vocal linux users. What I find interesting that all of the email you have
displayed have been offensive and immature. While any reasonable person will
admit that in any mass of people there are extremes in any direction, the same
reasonable people would not infer the behaviour of the group form the actions
of a minority.
Your inital tests raised several issues (and found some bugs, now fixed -
thanks!) about the imbalance between the setup for NT and Linux, details of
which can be found on any reputable news source, so I shouldn't need to
reiterate them here. The general conclusion you attempted to dervive from that
specific setup (NT is x times faster than Linux) was at best flawed, at worst
contrived. I could not fairly compare a mini falling over a cliff, and a
ferrai towing a trailer up a steep road, and infer that "a mini has better
acceleration than a ferrai" (even if it would have correct for that one case)
What I find most interesting is the similariaties between the emails you chose
to post, and your initial benchmark "results". In the benchmarking you drew a
general conclusion from one specific setup. In posting only the offensive email
you have recieved, I would infer that you are trying to create a general
impression that the only email you had recieved was offensive, which I find
hard to believe. Drawing a general conclusion from a minority of bad cases, is
one of the main problems many people had with your inital test.
You advertise as an independent testing/benchmarking company, and since you
are doing these tests at your own expense, I assume you are trying to retain
that image of giving fair and accurate results. If you are indeed interested
in giving a balanced view, I would encourage you to post a representive
sample of all the email you have recieved about these tests.
If, however, you are releasing the hate mail solely as an attempt at PR, I
would remind you of a saying of Salvor Hardin (see Foundation) "An atom
blaster can point both ways". By attempting to discredit the people who
pointed out the flaws in your benchmark, and failing, the flaws become more
and more apparent. The initial benchmark was unbalanced. The release of only
selected emails was unbalanced. Is "unbalanced" the image an "impartial"
testing company should be trying to have?
As a side point, IANAL, posting selected, offensive content, to try and
give the impression that all linux user are immature/offensive, and to provoke
a reaction from the less controled reader, could be categorised as "Flamebait",
but there may be a risk that it could be also described as incitment to
hatred. I assume you had different reasons for just posting the offensive
emails.
There are two sides to every story, and if you wish for people to
think you are a balanced company, you should give balanced views, and that
includes showing a fair sample of the emails you have recieved. (And sent as a
response, also, as we have no idea if these were a inital email, or as a
response to something you said to them)
In short, may the FUD you spread be Fair, Unbiased, Data
Yours, etc.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
if (thing == mine) {
print "This is fantastic\n";
}
else {
print "Horseshit. Total horseshit. And yo mama is a who' \n";
}
Ask any eight year-old, they'll tell you.
I remember reading on USENET about somebody who posted to both the Linux and NT advocacy forums a question about the merits of the 2 OS's handling of multitasking. He said that he got flames from both the NT and Linux sides on the matter--but far more Linux flames. Furthermore, he got more substance out of the NT people. For saying that, he got far more flamage concerning how he shouldn't have posted to advocacy forums if he didn't want flames (?!?) and that he was lying because he wouldn't show them the offending emails. You can't win against this sort of thing!! And that is going to turn people off about Linux faster than anything else!
People who say that we don't need to care and that flaming is ok as long as it's pro-Linux are sadly mistaken, I'd say. In business, it's PR and not merit that often wins the day because people don't have much patience to sit down and learn all the merits of one system over another. It is terrifying to think that there are people out there that are looking for valueable information in a non-confrontational way and get flamed to death for not being born with the knowledge! That, plain and simple, is unacceptable, IMHO.
I don't pretend to have solutions, but one idea I've seen floating around that I really like is that we take responsibility for this--like the adults we are. We should form some sort of advocacy group, very public, that won't flame and give us all a bad image. Anytime we need a statement to be made, they will make it in a professional well-thought manner. And what they say should be recognised as basically the final word--no need for flames, etc (we might hope). I fear that there may be a lot of people that could represent Linux well, but don't choose too. We need more people taking an active role that would also be a positive influence.
If this gets marked down, so be it--it'll only prove my point. Please! Prove me wrong.
ufdraco