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.
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.;^)
Slashdot Mirror
Richard-Stallman-as-Marx. Richard Marx!
Wherever you go
Whatever you do
I will be right here
waiting for GNU
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