Posted by
Hemos
on from the poking-the-pundits dept.
Several readers have written in with a great
rebuttal at ZDNet, adddressing the recent Metcalfe articles attacking Linux. Calling this change the Post-FUD Era, it does a great job of dissecting the new attacks on Linux.
Richard-Stallman-as-Marx. Richard Marx! Wherever you go Whatever you do I will be right here waiting for GNU
Sometimes you need to reply to crap
by
evan_leibovitch
·
· Score: 4
Not all the readers out there are smart enough to understand the message intended by ignoring someone who spews. If someone has an audience that buys his arguments, and no rebuttal comes, this silence could be interpreted as an inability to rationally rebut the original spew.
I stand behind my decision to confront this stuff rather than pretend it didn't exist. Yes, it draws more attention to the original spew, but that attention comes in the context of ridicule rather than authoritative opinion. And it was important (to me, at least) to call attention to the kind of spew that people will start encountering when recommending Linux to their employers or clients.
There are times when you let a ranter flail away in silence. Other times -- especially when the speaker has an audience -- that it's necessary to sound the BS alarm before anyone gets sucked in by sophomric namecalling masquerading as cleverness.
PS: This is not a pissing match between ZD and IDG, it's me alone calling attention to something that happened to come from InfoWorld. I have a lot of respect for Petreley and other writers at IDG.
Evan
-- - Evan
Re:Is anyone else sick of _hearing_ about Linux?
by
deity
·
· Score: 3
How about:
"And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good--Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Every once in a while, someone out there in the Real World tells me "Oh Linux is great, but the corporations and the masses aren't buying into it." I can talk until I'm blue in the face, and I usually do a pretty good job of showing why Linux really can take the server/desktop space, but recently I realized that what we should focus on, more than anything else, is actually doing the work. Not talking about doing the work, but actually doing it--writing the code, providing the support and documentation, and helping others install and use Linux.
Linux has gotten damn far on these principles, and as long as millions of people are using Linux and developing Linux, it will continue to surprise the naysayers.
Oh boy this Metcalfe now he makes a lots of senses finally someone who knows what he talks about he must of read my web sites pages I am quite convincing but I dont know if Metcalfe is quite as smart as I am I am very smart not as smart as Bill Gates but no one is that smart Bill Gates is really smart.
I think it's quite an accomplishment that Evan Leibovitch even understood what Bob Metcalfe was talking about. Usually I don't even get that far. Most of the time Bob Metcalfe makes as much sense to me as Jerry Pournelle.
Now THAT is a frightening thought: get Bob Metcalfe and Jerry Pournelle debating each other on any subject. The winner will be the one who is the first to bore the other guy to sleep. --
"Journalists" on the internet tend to repeat themselves, go around in circles, or produce articles that are fourth-hand rehashes of articles that appeared two week earlier in another forum. Furthermore, credibility of a "journalist" is not always based on what they say, but is sometimes based on who they were. This latter aspect is becoming more/will predominate as people realized that they can make big bucks off their good name.
The fundamental question is what should one do. For instance, one could attempt to discredit them via flame wars (that doesn't work) or by insightful responses (doesn't work when dealing with the clueless or money-grabbing scum). Or one could simply ignore them. Given the nature of the internet, one could also polute the various newsnet groups with mindless comments.
To me, the best way to respond is to ignore them in most cases. These people want lots of hits on their web site. The are used to being in the limelight; ignoring them is a way of saying that what they say doesn't even rate an response. Sorry, but if you are a pseudo-nerd, you know what silence means. OTOH, a good nerd would be oblivious to such an insult.
Don't publicize the pathetic meanderings of a bunch of old farts or clueless newbies. Discipline is the key. Attack where you want to, don't respond to meaningless counterattacks. It is the disadvantage of youth (and an advantage of youth) to respond to a threat with an equally potent response. Okay, but do you want to be the agressor or the resondee? Most of you might heard of Sun Tzu. I also recommend that you read the Five Rings by Miyamato Mushashi.
Remember: Discipline. Kick them in the nuts while you smile at them.
There are three aspect of any public discourse that are worth consideration:
ethos: The personality of the speaker, although this could be extended to mean his/her reptation and so forth. Bob here has a reputation of being aa blowhard among geeks, but who knows about the "suits"? After all, he *is* the inventor of ethernet. His opinion carries weight because of that fact.
logos: The logic of the argument. It used to be argued that logos was the most important aspect of any public discourse, but not so much any longer (one has only to look at advertisements one sees on TV and their effectiveness on their viewer to see this). After all, it's widely known among technical folk that a homogenous NT network environment is only asking for trouble (viruses, cost of ownership, security, and so on). But that doesn't stop the army of MSCE's out there from convincing CTO's nationwide to deploy them. Bob's logos is weak here. We know it, but not many others do. This is a problem
pathos: The emotional appeal of an argument. This is the ringer here. Bob is appealing to the emotional tug strings of its readers (his use of the words "communist", "anti-American", and other examples are strong indicators of Bob's emotional appeal... he knows what buttons to push). This is why Bob's arguments against Linux are far more dangerous than the FUD from days past we've seen. Emotional arguments carry far more weight than logical ones.
In the past the Linux community has been very good at fighting logos-based FUD. We've fought back with logos-based counter-FUD. It worked. Linux is pretty popular now, and the technical arguments against it are starting to look weak. Now the emotional arguments are starting to rear their ugly heads.
How to counter this? I hate to say it, but logos-based counter-FUD probably won't work here anymore. It's like trying to fight a rapidly spreading forest fire with a garden hose. We could watch with helplessness as the flames start igniting, or we can bring out the big guns...
Marketting, marketting, marketting. Expos (we got those already), Local User Groups (got those, too), and small to medium sized businesses (three for three) are key here. Organization is key here. Linux is already well-equipped to handle the flames with a few sparks of its own.
And ignore Bob. Inventor of the stuff I use in my home network he may be, but his reputation has soured with me. I don't care about his opinions anymore, since they've long left the pasture and headed to the hills once he started shooting his mouth off. Though that won't stop me from spouting off on him every once in a while.;^)
Is anyone else sick of _hearing_ about Linux?
by
Victor+Ng
·
· Score: 4
Raise your hand if you're sick to death of hearing how Linux will : a) kill Windows 2000 b) be killed by Windows 2000 c) change the computing industry d) remembered as y2k hype Doesn't anybody just use Linux without the pressing need for telling everyone how the experience went?
Use Linux, don't use it. I don't care. It works great for me, so I'll keep using it.
There's nothing surprising about seeing an increase in negative coverage of Linux in the media. This is a standard sequence of events that seems to take place repeatedly: 1) press discovers brand new "next great thing"--years after the clueful first learned of it; 2) press waxes enthusiastic and explains the "new thing" (incorrectly) to the hoi polloi; 3) writers realize they're practicing pack journalism and start to print negative articles about the no-longer-new thing.
This is all aided by the staff curmudgeon. Most every sizeable publication has one, a columnist whose job it is to stir up controversy. (Not that the editors would put it that way. He's just "opinionated.") The first one of these I recall seeing in the computer press was Dvorak, back in the early 80s. Metcalfe seems cut from similar cloth.
So you don't need to assume a vast right wing, er, M$ conspiracy to explain what we're seeing in the press. It's the norm. Expect to see more negative coverage of Linux from the muckraking side of the media in the next few months. Them it'll die down as they move on to goring someone else's ox.
Slashdot Mirror
Richard-Stallman-as-Marx. Richard Marx!
Wherever you go
Whatever you do
I will be right here
waiting for GNU
Not all the readers out there are smart enough to understand the message intended by ignoring someone who spews. If someone has an audience that buys his arguments, and no rebuttal comes, this silence could be interpreted as an inability to rationally rebut the original spew.
I stand behind my decision to confront this stuff rather than pretend it didn't exist. Yes, it draws more attention to the original spew, but that attention comes in the context of ridicule rather than authoritative opinion. And it was important (to me, at least) to call attention to the kind of spew that people will start encountering when recommending Linux to their employers or clients.
There are times when you let a ranter flail away in silence. Other times -- especially when the speaker has an audience -- that it's necessary to sound the BS alarm before anyone gets sucked in by sophomric namecalling masquerading as cleverness.
PS: This is not a pissing match between ZD and IDG, it's me alone calling attention to something that happened to come from InfoWorld. I have a lot of respect for Petreley and other writers at IDG.
Evan
- Evan
How about:
Every once in a while, someone out there in the Real World tells me "Oh Linux is great, but the corporations and the masses aren't buying into it." I can talk until I'm blue in the face, and I usually do a pretty good job of showing why Linux really can take the server/desktop space, but recently I realized that what we should focus on, more than anything else, is actually doing the work. Not talking about doing the work, but actually doing it--writing the code, providing the support and documentation, and helping others install and use Linux.
Linux has gotten damn far on these principles, and as long as millions of people are using Linux and developing Linux, it will continue to surprise the naysayers.
-k
http://www.freeyellow.com/members7 /geraldholmes/ <- this proves the commie red nazi socialist pinko stuff.
I think it's quite an accomplishment that Evan Leibovitch even understood what Bob Metcalfe was talking about. Usually I don't even get that far. Most of the time Bob Metcalfe makes as much sense to me as Jerry Pournelle.
Now THAT is a frightening thought: get Bob Metcalfe and Jerry Pournelle debating each other on any subject. The winner will be the one who is the first to bore the other guy to sleep.
--
"Journalists" on the internet tend to repeat themselves, go around in circles, or produce articles that are fourth-hand rehashes of articles that appeared two week earlier in another forum. Furthermore, credibility of a "journalist" is not always based on what they say, but is sometimes based on who they were. This latter aspect is becoming more /will predominate as people realized that they can make big bucks off their good name.
The fundamental question is what should one do. For instance, one could attempt to discredit them via flame wars (that doesn't work) or by insightful responses (doesn't work when dealing with the clueless or money-grabbing scum). Or one could simply ignore them. Given the nature of the internet, one could also polute the various newsnet groups with mindless comments.
To me, the best way to respond is to ignore them in most cases. These people want lots of hits on their web site. The are used to being in the limelight; ignoring them is a way of saying that what they say doesn't even rate an response. Sorry, but if you are a pseudo-nerd, you know what silence means. OTOH, a good nerd would be oblivious to such an insult.
Don't publicize the pathetic meanderings of a bunch of old farts or clueless newbies. Discipline is the key. Attack where you want to, don't respond to meaningless counterattacks. It is the disadvantage of youth (and an advantage of youth) to respond to a threat with an equally potent response. Okay, but do you want to be the agressor or the resondee? Most of you might heard of Sun Tzu. I also recommend that you read the Five Rings by Miyamato Mushashi.
Remember: Discipline. Kick them in the nuts while you smile at them.
There are three aspect of any public discourse that are worth consideration:
ethos: The personality of the speaker, although this could be extended to mean his/her reptation and so forth. Bob here has a reputation of being aa blowhard among geeks, but who knows about the "suits"? After all, he *is* the inventor of ethernet. His opinion carries weight because of that fact.
logos: The logic of the argument. It used to be argued that logos was the most important aspect of any public discourse, but not so much any longer (one has only to look at advertisements one sees on TV and their effectiveness on their viewer to see this). After all, it's widely known among technical folk that a homogenous NT network environment is only asking for trouble (viruses, cost of ownership, security, and so on). But that doesn't stop the army of MSCE's out there from convincing CTO's nationwide to deploy them. Bob's logos is weak here. We know it, but not many others do. This is a problem
pathos: The emotional appeal of an argument. This is the ringer here. Bob is appealing to the emotional tug strings of its readers (his use of the words "communist", "anti-American", and other examples are strong indicators of Bob's emotional appeal... he knows what buttons to push). This is why Bob's arguments against Linux are far more dangerous than the FUD from days past we've seen. Emotional arguments carry far more weight than logical ones.
In the past the Linux community has been very good at fighting logos-based FUD. We've fought back with logos-based counter-FUD. It worked. Linux is pretty popular now, and the technical arguments against it are starting to look weak. Now the emotional arguments are starting to rear their ugly heads.
How to counter this? I hate to say it, but logos-based counter-FUD probably won't work here anymore. It's like trying to fight a rapidly spreading forest fire with a garden hose. We could watch with helplessness as the flames start igniting, or we can bring out the big guns...
Marketting, marketting, marketting. Expos (we got those already), Local User Groups (got those, too), and small to medium sized businesses (three for three) are key here. Organization is key here. Linux is already well-equipped to handle the flames with a few sparks of its own.
And ignore Bob. Inventor of the stuff I use in my home network he may be, but his reputation has soured with me. I don't care about his opinions anymore, since they've long left the pasture and headed to the hills once he started shooting his mouth off. Though that won't stop me from spouting off on him every once in a while. ;^)
He's only as controversial as we make him.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Raise your hand if you're sick to death of hearing how Linux will :
a) kill Windows 2000
b) be killed by Windows 2000
c) change the computing industry
d) remembered as y2k hype
Doesn't anybody just use Linux without the pressing need for telling everyone how the experience went?
Use Linux, don't use it. I don't care. It works great for me, so I'll keep using it.
Pragmatic Man
I feel a song coming on....
Pragmatic Man, Pragmatic Man
Doing the things a pragmatist can
What's he like? It's not important.
Pragmatic Man
Is he a suit or is he a geek?
Does he reboot NT every week?
Or does his server run at its peak?
Nobody knows. Pragmatic Man.
With apologies to They Might Be Giants.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This is all aided by the staff curmudgeon. Most every sizeable publication has one, a columnist whose job it is to stir up controversy. (Not that the editors would put it that way. He's just "opinionated.") The first one of these I recall seeing in the computer press was Dvorak, back in the early 80s. Metcalfe seems cut from similar cloth.
So you don't need to assume a vast right wing, er, M$ conspiracy to explain what we're seeing in the press. It's the norm. Expect to see more negative coverage of Linux from the muckraking side of the media in the next few months. Them it'll die down as they move on to goring someone else's ox.