Slashdot Mirror
ACM "Crossroads" E-Zine Does Special Linux Issue
amit_kr writes "ACM electronic magazine 'Crossroads' has an entire issue dedicated to Linux. Perhaps more interestingly, 'Crossroads' is sponsored in part by Microsoft. Do you think they asked Microsoft before running this issue? :-)" Actually, Amit, most reputable publications - even ones many Slashdot readers think are "bought" by Microsoft - are pretty strict about keeping a strong "wall" between the ad people and the editorial departments. But the irony here is still fun - and the articles are excellent, too, and well worth reading, no matter who sponsored them.
Well, I went to the link and had a quick look around, in particular in the network security section.
Let's just say the word "firewall" doesn't feature in it once.
While I was expecting a relatively waffly & vague & uncertain report on "security", it gets marginally better further down. I'd go as far as to say that someone with a brain wrote the original and then it got attacked by the editors...
And they *must* learn to write HTML properly, as I refuse to read the stuff that scrolls off the right of the screen.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
A little off-topic, but it's nice to see the _Slashdot_ editorial staff inserting a reality check about the difference between sponsorship and influence....
God knows that _I_, at least, am sick of seeing AC's posting 'yes, but M$ bought them off' as 50% of the commentary on ZDNET stories, for instance.
--
However, my question is why Do the sponsors keep a wall between themselves and the publication? Here I always read the arguments that in order for the public to respect the publication as a legitimate source, there must be the "wall".
Let's face it though. Maybe I'm understimating the American people, but I don't think it matters. Often, I think that the sponsors would make a hell of lot more money if they did not keep themselves separated from the publication.
In reality, the majority of readers would not notice the omissions of the blurbs saying that "Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC news."
Eh, I'm tired. I know I didn't finish this thought, but hey, I guess you can probably tell where it was going.
14 digits of Pi are all we need.
The sad fact of the matter is that you'll almost never get a clean break between the ad sponsors and the editorial room, it's a simple fact when dealing with sponosored publications. If the opinions in an article upset sponsors, then you will lose sponsors, and their money.
The notion that you can get clean unbiased opinion from a sponsored publication is idealistic and naive.
Everything you read has spin, it's a fact of life and you should just accept it
So you think that "Crossroads" is just another M$ mouthpiece ?
Look who's behind Crossroads -- the ACM ! They've been around longer than Bill has had a TRS-80. It's impossible that an organisation like the ACM would ever allow themselves to be used in that way -- and if they ever do get to that state, then it really is time to man the barricades and defend humanity against the Redmond horde.
Paranoia is a good thing in moderation, but not everything is a plot by the M$ cabal (much of it is Murdoch's fault)
dingbat
Crossroads also comes in a print edition, and I got my "linux" edition a week or two ago. It's part of the ACM "Student package" deal. Pretty nice deal, btw: you get "crossroads", "communications" and a nifty @acm.org email adress.
Best part of it all is access to the ACM digital library, loaded with many of the most important papers in CS history.
And if you do as we managed, you convince your administration to sponsor the member fee :) - eivind (Norway)
Fair enough, at least they mention it, but to use Slackware as illustration is not representative of Linux as a whole. In particular, no other distribution I've come across still uses that nasty /etc/rc.d/rc.inet2 file. Since virtually all the other distributions use SysV style init scripts (and rightly so, IMNSHO), it would have been better to use that for illustrative purposes.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Damn right. Mr Murdoch (or is it Sir Rupert) makes Bill look like the girl scout winner of the Wet Blanket of the Millennium Award. Here is a man who decides national elections, by dictating editorial policy to his (many) media outlets. Bill really can't measure up.
Rupert Murdoch is the kind of person you might expect to find stroking a white cat and saying "So, Mr Bond, you have discovered my little nuclear weapons cache....". ... "with hilarious consequences"! (As they used to say in the TV Times)
Bill Gates would be in Whitehall, handing out the ordinary-looking briefcase containing a tuna sandwich and a copy of Penthouse, but which explodes when you enter the combination "MSFT", only it turns out that it will actually work if you enter any combination of four letters
David
Ok, lets presume there is a wall between the marketing and editorial side of the fence. The editorial side is still providing a service to its readers. As are the advertisers who subsidise each issue. Assume the advertisers of Microsoft-based software don't mind the Linux issue. The editors are still people who need to eat. They need to keep the magazine churning out copies, and getting them in the hands of the consumers. If their consumer base dwindles, they starve. Therefore, by positioning themselves as a windows magazine, they *need* to continue with the windows coverage as their primary focus. The Linux issue is a wonderful way to say, "hey, all you windows folks who keep wondering what this linux stuff is, here you go". And that is a service to their readership. Turning into an all-linux magazine overnight is not.
There is a *remarkable* trend in Windows magazines to praise everything coming out of Redmond. Why? Count how many pages of advertising in the magazine are for Microsoft products. Compare that to every other advertiser in the magazine. Do the math.
Remember when Windows95 first came out? Not one magazine gave the Windows 95 beta releases a glowing review, even allowing for the "not officially released" factor. They panned the dramatic shift in the user interface. They railed against the instability (but keep in mind, it's still not the real thing). They hated the huge increase in disk usage just for the base OS. And for no noticeable performance game. When Win95 was officially released, however, *every* magazine praised the glorious new interface, its relative stability inncrease over Win3.x (not saying much, i know). They shrugged off the disk usage factor by listing all the cool "features" it provided. There was a dramatic change in general opinion around the time it was officially released, as every magazine realized that there magazines future for the next few years was tied into how many people would be running Windows 95, and software written for it, and used products that the advertisers made for Windows 95.
The change physically sickened me, and I haven't bought a "Windows only" computer magazine since.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
I agree whole-heartedly. My faculty advisor where I go to college is a frequent contributor to ACM publications. Accusing him of being a Microsoft mouthpiece would be about as ridiculous as making that accusation of Richard Stallman.
Boring?
Remember that not all of us use Linux simply for perusing Slashdot and playing Quake.
I found the DSP Shell article really interesting. I sent a link to a machine vision company I used to work for.
...and my comment about Microsoft was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek...
of course! there is a "wall"!! i was just pointing out the irony....
didn't like the fact that i was made out to look like an idiot... which i probably am anyways *grin*
amit