Slashdot Mirror
Is Media Attention Bad for Linux?
Ender_Stonebender writes "Yahoo's Internet Report news page has an interesting article on why why media attention could be bad for Linux development. They have a byline saying it's from salon.com, but I can't find it there. "
The Windows refund day proves that media attention can be bad. I recently rewatched my MPEG copies of the news stories on that, and realised that the person dressed up as someone from Star Wars just completly took any seriousness that the protest had. If Linux people want good media attention, they need to start acting like professionals and not people at Star Trek conventions.
-----
While, I think the idea of a survey of Open Source data-points (e.g. employment, work habits, motivation, etc) would be great, I don't get this. If you actually read Eric Raymond's writing, most of it is based on real-world experience with the projects that he has worked on and those that he has had direct contact with. Netscape, for example, provides a wealth of data in their release of the Mozilla source. How much work can be harnessed from the community? Look at the changelogs....
Same goes for things like GNOME. We know exactly how fast a given sized group of hackers can put together a large Open Source software effort, because we've seen it.
What we don't have numbers for, and I don't think that a survey can establish this any better than ESR can, is this: what happens if your company wants to create an Open Source effort around your product? Answering that requires the answers to these questions:
For example, if Sun opened up the source to their C++ compiler, I'm sure the GCC/EGCS folks would enjoy getting a look at how Sun handles some of the SPARC optimization, but I can't see a lot of developers clustering in to help Sun develop their product. It's just not technically interesting enough. It's not portable, it has less than 5 language front-ends and it just doesn't have the clout in the community that GCC has.
On the other hand, if Adobe were to open up the source to Illustrator, and really convince the community that they wanted to jump in with both feet, the way Netscape did, they would have a huge developer interest.
In the end, Open Source is not so much a "phenomenon". This is the way software worked pre-80's. Hiding source seemed to make about as much sense to most people as trying to hide how a lightbulb works. Now, we're coming full circle, and people are cluing in to that. The "Open Source Phenomenon" is just a bunch of people trying to figure out how to make the intervening 20 years of industry make sense....
It's not like excessive media attention hurts "Linux, the company". Linux is, fundamentally, an operating system that is built for the use and pleasure of those who develop it. For most of the developers, it's a hobby, and only a few (albeit a high-placed few) are paid to develop Linux. Most packages are built simply because a small group of people think it'd be useful to have software Foo, so they hack on Foo.
Even if Linux, the commercial proposition, died tomorrow, we'd still have a bunch of handy distros that are sold for the sake of convenience, but built for the love of the system.
Andrew Leonard has been pretty good at covering the movement, but the thing that he (and most others) tends to miss is that the traditional rules just don't apply to Linux. If they did, we wouldn't have gotten this far.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Is it just me, or did they just define what an open source evangelist is for. That's why we have Eric S. Raymond, Chris DiBona, etc. They are the media hypers -- they are the ones that are cool. I do OSS development a bit, and I know people that do it pretty hardcore -- I don't think any of them getting irritated when someone says, "Hey man! Great job, I have this problem though..."
I actually enjoy it a bit when I get feedback, even if they are reporting bugs/help, etc.
Linux will get media hype, that's a definite -- it just means that we'll have more evangelists, that enjoy speaking about Linux than writing code, which those people are just as important as the programmers.
I personally love it when people come up to me and say, "Hey -- I heard about that linux thing in and it looks pretty cool, but does it run on windows?" -- I often times wear nerd shirts (Including free shirts from VA,etc) -- then they get enlightened when I say that it is a replacement for windows, they ask where to get more info, and I give them a list of about 5-10 URL's to check out. Silly me.. aside from me I can't think of any developers that get their valuable time taken away. Thank you, drive through.
-= Making the world a better place =-
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I care as much about OpenSource/Linux as the next guy, but I'm sick of reading journalists and web-publishers telling us why something is the way it is. Here's the truth: Stuff happens in complex systems and to try to explain it using two or three examples (like Linux and Apache to explain Open Source) is silly. The computer industry is complicated and I guess I'm just tired of all this hoopla over stuff.
My point? If you like something, and you believe in it, then do it. Write the code you find useful and use the programs you like. Stop worrying whether Linux will overtake Microsoft. Don't lose any sleep over how the Mozilla project is doing. Use what works, and work on what doesn't -- Or don't. But talk is cheap and predictions are even cheaper.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
As far as I can see, there is _nothing_ to analyze about open source coding. It can be explained in a simple demonstration:
A: Hey, check out this (algorithm/program/driver) I wrote.
B: That's pretty cool, can I take a look at it?
A: Sure [mails foo.tar.gz]
B: oh man, that's a lot of global variables you're using there
A: I know, gotta get around to fixing that
B: here have this patch, I've managed to kill about half of the globals [mails foo.patch]
A: that rocks, thanks!
scale, repeat
-Laxative
Tux the penguin has nothing revolutionary going for him. It's just an implementation of Unix. It's a good one, but it's still comparable to Solaris and others.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I've worked for the last four years as a developer for media institutions, and I've seen how they operate. I've seen positive stories written about Linux, and I've seen negative stories written. However, I've seen very few stories written by people who know Linux.
I don't like journalism, and I don't like writting. But, I feel that it's important that I do write about Linux in the press, only because there are so few people that know what they are talking about. And to be honest, I don't see the situation changing -- not too many journalists are going to be picking up Linux any time in the near future. And, I honestly believe that when and if the initial hype over Linux dies down, the fact that few journalists know Linux will ultimately hurt the system.
So what's the solution? Well, I'll continue to write pieces occassionally for publication. And, if you can write, I suggest that you write articles as well. It's easy -- did you write good essays in English? If so, you can probably write for publication. Write a piece -- it's easier if it's something you believe in -- and contact the editor of some magazine. Ask them if they'll read your article. If it's any good, they'll run it. It's also easier to get published on the Web (and possibly more effective) -- paper's expensive.
Cheers,
Travis
Media attention on Linux is just that, attention. There are good and bad points, I have a short film on the subject. Would someone please get the lights?
Good Effects: Joe User walks into Software Hut and sees a box of {insert your fav. distro here} sitting on a shelf. Thinks "Hey isn't this that new OS everyone's trying?" Joe has just supported the Cause. Due to supporting the Cause, Mr. Software company sees Joe's purchase and decides to build more apps, thus furthering the Cause. Joe may see something in the OS that he doesn't like, and may learn programming to fix it. Joe gets that nice feeling of accomplishment, posts fix to a user group and gets mild recognition for his discovery.
Bad Effects: Joe User thinks that the install will be just like it is on Windoze and tries to use it on some non-supported stuff. Joe User is not familiar with the concept of checking for a more recent build or drivers. Joe User is fustrated by lack of boxed software and keeps on using Ms Windows. More people start to think that Linux can "Save the World" and get really upset when they find that "Yes, it breaks like any other piece of software out there"
As a community we really to need to make sure that the Media knows that Linux is not a cure-all, yet. It is an excellent option for someone who knows what they are doing and is not afraid to tinker. We must avoid the "Holier-then-thou" mentality that I see perodically affecting the Mac world. Most newbies are really skittish about not being comfortably in the majority where each need is attended to by some thing you are not allowed to change. This is a brave new world gentlemen, and we must see that the way is made ready for the huddled masses yearning to breath free. I ask each of you to take a newbie in hand and explain to them the ins and outs, don't send them packing off to a FAQ without an explanation. Remember, you were once new as well.
But, in all seriousness, whatever attention Linux gets at this point is good. Look at what John C. Davorak did for the iBook.
Media attention can be bad for Linux and the OSS community, but only if it deludes the community into playing by the media's rules. You see, you have to understand how the media operates.
Take political coverage, for example. In politics, liberals complain that the media is biased towards conservatives, and conservatives complain that the media is biased towards liberals. Both camps are missing the point. The media does have a bias, all right, but it's not towards liberals or conservatives -- it's towards controversy, which sells newspapers and attracts eyeballs. Thus, the Prime Directive is, if controversy exists, great; if not, find something that could be construed as controversial and put it front and center -- even if the controversy is artificial.
You can see this same dynamic occuring in coverage of the open source movement. Every journalist who wants to write about Linux wants to do so in the context of Linux vs. Windows. When will Linux push Windows off the desktop? This is the only question journalists care about. Why? Because it's dramatic -- and it's easy to get people to pay attention to a story with inherent drama.
The problem with this is, a story about Linux vs. Windows isn't, when you think about it, really about Linux. Linux is just filling the "designated MS challenger" role in these stories -- ten years ago it would have been Apple, five years ago Netscape, now it's Linux. It's an artificial controversy. Nobody here really believes that Linux is ready for the consumer desktop, right? What's important is that Linux is smacking NT around in the server space, Apache is wiping the floor with IIS in web serving, etc.
But the danger here is if people in the community start believing those stories -- and decide that Linux's destiny is to kill MS. This fits the media's agenda more than it does the community's, because it will stir up huge amounts of controversy around something that's basically very silly. And then, because Linux isn't really ready for the desktop yet, the media will declare MS the winner, and go looking for the next story -- and the bubble of interest in Linux will burst. It's the classic game from the schoolyard, "Let's You and Him Fight", writ large -- and just like in the schoolyard, it'd be a mistake to get suckered into playing.
Read my blog.