Slashdot Mirror
Stopping the FUD
mackga wrote to us about the new LinuxToday Counter-FUD site. Good site to get information and destroy detractors -maybe we should link to it The Linux Myths and see who comes out next.Update: 12/04 11:52 by H :Also, thanks to Rik van Riel who pointed the The FUD Counter site.
Is it just me, or is this artice REEEALY boring? I mean, what the fsck is an FUD? An Elmer Fud(d)?
Linux has been by far the number one buzzword in the industry since about summer 1998. It is the trendiest subject for mainstream computing. Every journallist has flocked to it, and every single mass-cultural computer media outlet has published extensive, glowing press on it. Practically all of the main computer companies fully support Linux. Every where you go in the industry, you hear little about anything but Linux. Most computer stores have much bigger sections for Linux distributions than copies of Windows, and have large, elaborate displays, and lots of Linux books. Which detractors, exactly, are they targetting? There was the article Microsoft published a bit ago, the Mindcraft benchmarks (which as we all know were sponsored by Microsoft). So - I ask - what's the point of this? Who exactly is being targetted, aside from one or two annual articles published by the one single obvious Linux detractor? It sounds like they are living in about 1995, when there WAS a lot of anti-Linux sentiment out there, but there isn't now - it is by far the trendiest thing in the industry.
Hey cool! Linux has USB Mouse and Keyboard support. The two slowest-moving, most boring parts of USB. Linux also supports my Version 1 Microsoft BUS mouse from 1986 (the one with uncoated metal ball, green buttons, etc.).
Cool stuff. So retro.
Which means it's still better that your reply.
This may help a bit with the spelling.
' is used for contractions (represents missing letters)
they're they are
Id (subconscious) as opposed to Ego (conscious) as opposed to Superego (conscience).
I'd I would or I had
car's belonging to the car
cars one car, two cars, etc.
cute as in She is cute. (The final e is silent but makes the "u" long.)
cut as to cut with a knife or hatchet.
litigate as in to litigate a lawsuit.
legitimate as in real or genuine (very close to meaning legal)
we're we are
were we were is past tense of we are.
prefer as in choice
perfere sounds like you are trying to stick holes in something (perforate)
sense as in five senses or a hypothetical sixth sense
since as in Ever since
Also look out for:
it's it is.
its belonging to it.
they're they are.
their belonging to them.
Word has a Thesaurus (Tools,Language or Shift-F7). Use it.
Best way to learn spelling is by reading. Good books by good authors. Any subject.
When you write well, it sets a tone of anticipation, and any typo or inappropriate word clashes. Bad art.
To substance.
FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Church of Scientology trojans in the W2K defragmenter is FUD.
Snide remarks about Microsoft marketing are not FUD.
Granted, the VBA API is rich enough to include:
Options.VirusProtection = False
... supply the necessary shims so that the interfaces match.
"IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers."
Precisely. If you have control of the interfaces, you can do a clean design. If you do not have control, you do the best you can with what you have.
Still, I'm not sure what you mean by clean design. Single level global variables looks clean until things get complicated and it breaks down.
If you treat it as in functional programming, ie f(g(h(... ad nauseum))), each parenthesis is an interface.
The power is in the simple concepts. Face it, everything is a string of bits which is about as simple as you can get. Actually I prefer coroutines, preferably recursive, to pipes.
You might be able to do an integrated spell checker in emacs if it (emacs) is lispy enough. Me. I barely know Control-X Control-C to exit the thing. There are people who live inside emacs.
If you don't like command line, you probably will not like emacs.
WHERE IS A CURRENT VERSION OF THE SLASHDOT SOURCE? HYPOCRITES!!!
How do I say this politely....hhhmmm...are you retarded?
Grow up infant. There is no "fair share" in life. You are entitled to exactly JACK SHIT in life. If you want apps go write them but don't expect companies to start expending resources just because you want them.
It'll be a hard sells to schools, who appreciate customer service from their OS makers a great deal. Linux, with its fragmented authorship and lack of definitive center really seems to run counter to the whole mentality of schools. Habits, especially ones involving money, are extremely hard to break.
would probably make slashdot incredibly empty. 'my os is better becasue.. well, i say so.'
If FUD is really needed don't you think it should be left to those who will benifit most from it? Why isn't Redhat or VA Research involved in spreading FUD? Why is it the lone psyco who's getting so worked up about it?
Wait. Youre saying an OS should never lock up because of a badly coded application? Wow, i guess this doesnt apply to anything open source (example, gnome)
Hmm ... isn't pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft going against the grain?
OK, substitute "Slashdot community" with "UNIX Community". If Slashdot gets credit for anything, it's spreading the old, dying UNIX ideology (both it's good points and it's bad) to a new generation. I fail to see how many of the attitudes here are different in anything except maturity level.
I'll accept that Microsoft FUD is different. I've seen paid employees of the Microsoft Corporation announce at MS-friendly conferences and whisper in corridors a variety of lies, half-truths, and mythical ship dates. Those bastards are downright mean in a way that no other corporation I know of is.
However, in the real world, I know of very few independent people wasting their own time with Microsoft advocacy. On the other hand, there's a certain Linux AgitProp with a ferocity not seen on the net since "Team OS2" (and we know what a successful endevor that was). The jihad rhetoric is only making your enemies hate you more.
It's been said here by the more insightful many times -- make a product that solves the most problems at the lowest price point, and you'll have the market. That's what Microsoft did, and Linux is on the way there, or is already there in many markets. If you think you're "supporting" Linux by playing the FUD/Advocacy game on the Internet, think again, and then start supporting the product in ways that really count.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
How well does Linux run on a 32 processor system? Oh yeah, it doesn't. W2K does.
how would you improve the following?
the mmio* functins
the acm* functions
the wave* functions
or some based off COM like
the IHTML* interfaces, OLEDB, ADO?
Different "versions" of Windows API are incompatible with other "versions" of Windows API.
what's not backwards compatabile?
Everyone is going to have to recode for Windows 2000, because there is a fundamental incompatability with earlier code.
gee i ran acidtetris on win2000. it ran fine. this is a DOS app with VGA graphics. what the hell are you refereing too? you mean you have to learn new code to work with new fearures? NAWW?? ya THINK?
I can't believe you used their API as the basis for your defense. If you actually believe that Microsoft Windows API is really technically ellegant then you truely are hopeless.
sure nothings perfect. but with all becouse of backwards compatabily, there's some things that have to be kludged. things like "duel interfaces" in COM. ya that's a hack, but what are you going to do if you still want to support people who arn't up with the latest and greatest?
-Jon
this is my sig.
Sure show them first hand the system that you spent weeks configuring. Then show them the W2K box that was setup in less than 1 hour and supports more hardware and more software. Show them how well their digital camera works, plug it into W2K and download the pictures. Plug it into Linux and...nothing, just a usb or serial port taken up.
So, there's the truth. To really use Linux you have to have at least two systems. I'm sure the newbies will be pleased to hear they have to buy another computer just to "correctly" use the Linux box the geek up the street convinced them to setup.
To put your post in other words, if you had access to the NT kernel source code and build scripts, what are the odds you'd get a stable system?
On the other hand, I have hardware that's marvelously stable under Linux and NT, but will panic under Solaris 7. Does that mean that Solaris is a crappy unstable OS? No -- it comes down to hardware support, and Linux happens to have better lowend hardware support this side of Windows 98. My home NT machine will stay up for months, but at work the Celerons go blue when you click on the Start menu.
BTW, a blue screen = kernel panic, except that Linux runs less things in kernel mode, like video drivers for example.
(As a footnote, I think the stability of Linux is slightly exaggerated because the Linux OS vendors give you more integration services than Microsoft does. Simply, you get lots of shit in that RedHat box. If you were to take a base Linux OS install, and manually RPM hundreds of binary packages from vendors all around the world, you'd probably have the same DLL Hell that Windows can be. Not that that excuses kernel panics in NTFS.SYS.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Any OS is just a base for apps to interact with hardware, so in theory any os should be able to do what any other can. I don't think it's as easy as just porting existing apps over to Linux though, if it was easy I'd think there would be a lot more apps. If they have to be written from scratch whos going to do it? Who is going to duplicate Photoshop on Linux? No, Gimp doesn't really come close, it's good but 'it aint no photoshop'. Just look at how long it's taking for Mozilla to come out, and that's just a web browser.
You can choose to accept that, or you can turn a blind eye to evil.
I laughed for 5 min straight after I read this. I think what the man is trying to say is: This article blows, and what the "FUD" is a FUD?
If I had moderator points, I'd bump this up to a 5, so that all may have the benefit of reading it.
No comment at this time
In the sense you describe, a proper and good anti FUD 'site' would be:
A machine set up to ping-flood Slashdot. The resulting DOS amounts to FUD busting.
If you don't know what I mean, review all the clueless anti-NT "It bluescreens every time I sneeze" lies promoted here by the Linux freeqs.
Someday, god willing, I WILL get moderator points, and so help me, I will moderate posts like these as high as I can!
Hey cool. An honest Linux advocate who believes in a full pantheon of Good and Evil and admits it in public.
Yep. It's all black and white. Jesus told me so.
As far as I am concerned when people like MS want this "OS Cold War" to be over they need to put down their weapons. Until then they can't say "dont' complain about us spreading FUD if you are going to retaliate" After all, none of us Linux users really want MS to completely go away, what we want is our fair share of the apps and the market. Think about it, if some guy comes up to you and starts beating you up, are you the bad guy because you fight back? No. Well that's what we are doing. We don't have billions of dollars for marketing campaigns so we do what we can.
It is smart to shore up your defenses, if you can, when offensive momentum is going your way. If nothing else, the anti-FUD site is there to prepare us just in case.
One thing concerning Mindcraft is: why does Mindcraft stand in direct contradiction to all the other Linux vs NT comparisons which show Linux to be head and shoulders above NT? hmmmmmmmm...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
You c*nt--! His objections were perfectly valid and your reply sucks like a 2-dollar prostitute.
Linux has an integrated spell checker. Its called a shell escape and 'grep foo /usr/dict/words'.
/usr/dict.
For non-English dictionaries, there are always word dicts for Crack that can be installed in
Like whining that Windows is better, as it has 25 "filesystems" from A to Z, rather than 1 VFS, which has been heard.
It's true Linux doesn't have a "fully integrated spelling checker"; neither does any OS I know of. I think you are talking about applications, though (shame I have to work out what you mean; maybe you should have paid more attention in English class). For the record, though, a simple vi macro calling ispell works fine for me: :w^M:!ispell -S -x %^M:e!^M^M
map V
with the advantage that if I don't like how it works, I can change it -- something that would be harder to do if it were "integrated". I guess integrated features are fine for people who can't figure out how to set up their own working environment on their computer. However, the whole point of Linux is the "do it yourself" approach. For those that don't like that, there are software packages available, such as Staroffice, that take a more "mainstream" i.e. "works like MS stuff" approach. That's fine. People who prefer MS Word are fine, too: I wouldn't dream of slagging them off, any more than I'd cast aspersions on schools for backward kids.
As an aside You ghosted NT setups? Ewww! NT setups have a GUID for each machine, and when you ghost NT onto lots of boxes, and the same GUID is used, kiss stable networking goodbye under certain circumstances :)
OK nows there's a common FUD. Who hijacked HTML first? Netscape or MS? Errrr Nitscrape. Damned blink tags, layer tags, Javascript that doesn't conform to the ECMA standards ...
Who really cares about USB, though?
Quite a few of use, I run keyboard, scanner, MPEG3 player, mouse and a video conference camera all on USB. Why? I don't want to have to use a seperate IRQ for each thing, if I didn't I'd have ran out ages ago. So don't just dismiss it.
Choose an OS for what it's good for.
Thats the crux of the whole deal. I use NT at work for lots of stuff I can't use Linux for,
No operating system is the magic bullet we're looking for and the sooner we all realise this, and promote OSes based on their strengths and not comparing it to other OS's weaknesses the better. It will be better for the consumer and won't make us look like religous zealots.
A computer is a toy. You are a tool.
Lying is bad. FUD is bad. I hate both. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I some how advocate the use of FUD, becasue I DON'T. I was just making a point that FUD can shrink the future user base of Linux, which may not be a good thing.
Good PR showing the good aspects of Linux is a good thing and is not FUD.
The best Anti-FUD book I've ever read is something called "Science on Trial: A Case for Evolution." This book details every creationist argument against Evolution and proceeds to tear it apart until there is absolutely nothing left to so-called creation science (as opposed to creationism, which is a religious belief. This book does not attack religion or religious beliefs, only creationism as science).
/etc beats the heck out of searching through a sea of menus and waiting forever for the control panel to refresh its icons. In that time, you could type
/etc
This would be a good model for an Anti-TCO (total co$t of owner$hip), the biggest FUD term of all time, that M$ loves to coin. They want some dream world of 0 administration, which does not exist. The real FUD is that NT is easier and less costly to administer than Linux. This is bullshit. NT administration requires you to take M$ classes that cost lots of $$$ just to get a midsized network to act appropriately. With Linux, you have to learn just as much...and editing a text file in
cd
{editor of choice} whatever.conf
and do your little dance. Plus in Linux, you have much finer control over everything...and everything is usually in the same configuration file to get the same effect.
So the outline is:
1. Prove M$'s FUD to be rediculous.
2. Show how Linux can do many, many things in general purpose computing and specific application environments.
3. Show how it is much more believable that Open Source could create better software through natural selection than closed source. Link to an ESR paper.
4. Provide a FUD questions and answers section at the end to answer any cynical M$ bullshit question.
And there you have it.
The problem with this approach is that you win no converts. I read this book in a class and 4 out of 6 people dropped out...mostly Christian conservatives. (The author was an obvious athiest and sort of indirectly said that religion was stupid-just by his tone. His tone even offended me, a professed agnostic.) Oh well, who cares if stupid MSCE's* don't finish...we'll have fun writing and reading it:`P
* - I make no assumption that ALL (or any) MSCE's are stupid...this is only a joke people! (you know, like D(+)GMA.)
Actually, I was in charge of Windows system images for a large corporation a few years ago.
We would spend weeks configuring those systems too before they got ghosted onto hundreds of machines. And don't even get me started about the sheer and utter pain of installing a fully patched NT+Option Pack server.
Well how else could they telnet in to prove to their pals that the system hadn't crashed, even though Netscape had hard locked X?
I'd have to disagree with this to some extent, as I rarely notice the author of a post. Usually, I only notice the content, disregarding who actually said it. If the content is interesting enough, or makes me angry (as is so often the case), I reply and state my mind. But at no time do I look at the author of a post.
Probably the only time I notice is when an author replies to something I said to something they said, thus starting a conversation thread. I only notice that when I start getting a lot of posts on the same subject pop up on my User page, which I check to see replies to my posts.
In fact, I hadn't noticed Signal11's name until you pointed it out, and I just now had to scroll up to see that it was Dirtside I'm responding to. I think many people here judge based more on content, opinion, and general overall well-writtenness of an item rather than reputation.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
That's interesting, I hadn't considered that people wouldn't look at names. Although I doubt our two personal experiences (I look at names, you don't) constitute a significant statistical sample :), what I should have said was that when I read a post that is insightful, interesting, etc. I usually go back and look at the name to see who it was. (I also tend to read the sig lines at the bottom.) If it's flamebait or noninteresting then I'm much less likely to go look at the name. But I would be curious to know how people generally handle this. Maybe a Slashdot poll would be useful for once. :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
this site is interesting but it really lacks substance. I went there hoping to see counter fud or ways to stop fud but its not much more than a mission statement. Hopefully it will turn into something
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
POSIX requires the CDE API. Sure you could bundle the version of CDE for Linux just for the test, but that would be cheating a bit.
Right, I agree, that is still a useful resource.
:)
:) but I also remember to state my point of view, try to explain *why* I've come to these conclusions, and post comments, if I get them.
However, then another key point to stress is advocacy. And I could repeat that hundreds of times on slashdot, and still not get the message across.
I will write things that are anti-MS, (I have a "Microsoft Sucks" page on my web pages
It's also pretty funny when MS tries to fight the truth with propaganda. It shows their point of view very clearly. The "Linux Myths" page was a good one, but I think my favorite is probably this one:
"The macro functionality of Microsoft Office applications provides a
programming environment that allows customers and developers to extend the functionality of Office. However, malicious hackers have recently taken advantage of this macro functionality to create these harmful viruses. "
Come on! Hardly anyone in the media really has the balls to say how much Microsoft screwed up on this one. There should be a class-action suit against them just for this, for *creating* an entire category of viruses by not providing appropriate security measures. Sun never screwed up this much with Java, and that's a programming language built into a web browser. This is a frickin' word processor! Why can it format my hard drive? It's like if Emacs' E-Lisp had a built-in "root shell" feature in case you needed one, and the solution proposed was "Oh, just turn off E-Lisp if you think it might be dangerous..."
But, enough ranting. Sometimes it seems that Byte was the only magazine that *did* have the balls to say what they thought. It's a shame that we don't even have that anymore.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
At least they're admitting their bias here.
:) and even the magazines have gotten
This won't help for directly combatting FUD, because those most susceptible to it are also those who don't know
the difference. The marketdroids are pretty firmly entrenched in most of the trade rags, although the web news
sites have been much more savvy lately (probably because of their readership
better. (But I still want Byte back! They are coming back, right?)
However, one should not be too quick to blow the whistle or jump to the wrong conclusions. (c.f. the Mindcraft
Fiasco. Sure, the tests were biased and unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that there weren't also limitations
in Linux w.r.t. what they were testing.)
Anyhow, it should be interesting to see what they put up here...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Would you trust the rearranging of data on your hard drives to software controlled by the "Church" of Scientology? That is FUD. A bloated defragmenter is a marvelous place to put remotely activatable trojans, etc. Think about it. Do you feel safe with W2K?
The "Linux Revolution" is, I think, a new generation of Unix with the excitement of fresh discovery, a cool mascot, and by fortuitous chance, a useable word play on UNIX(tm).
"Was Ken Thompson engaging in anti-Linux FUD?" No. First, it isn't FUD. No Fear. No Uncertainty. No Doubt. Second, he has his opinions with, I am sure, more than adequate justification. Unix-3 (Linux) after Unix-2 (Berkeley *BSD) after originating Unix-1 as a doable alternative to Multics is just not going to make him say "wow!". Too much been there, done that with maybe a touch of Not Invented Here.
"Or will Linux come to eventually be recognized as a big mediocre mess?" Probably not, but if it is, there is always *BSD, or Linux learns from *BSD, as *BSD will learn a few things from Linux. If the "Linux Revolution" winds up with OpenBSD on every desktop, we have won.
Playing a bit of a semantic game, you _DO_ believe in the "Linux Revolution". The "Linux Revolution" is going from "No Unix" to "We have Unix". Your favorite unix at the moment just happens to be called NetBSD.
You make a good point. Linux does have better USB than any current 'server class' OS (with the possible exception of OS/2).
Which brings up the greater issue of comparisions between Linux (or Solaris or Irix or OS/400) with Windows 9x. What a waste of time. If you want to run a backass no-security OS that has been kludged to hell for Win3.1/DOS compability and game performance, that's your problem.
I respectfully ask all of Slashdot to limit all Linux versus Windows flamewars to NT4/2000. Forget about Windows 98 - ya'all should be beyond that, except for the occasional video game.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Both Sun and IBM make most of their money in areas of computing that Linux can't touch. They're both far more worried about DEC/Compaq and HP than they are about Linux.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Linux scalability?
A scalable Linux cluster machine is the 44th fastest computer in the world. NT isn't on the list, but the list only goes to 500. Clearly, since you say WinNT is more scalable, the absence of WinNT from this list must be some form of conspiracy perpetuated by those darn Linux zealots.
Just imagine the performance if you installed NT 4.0 on all them nodes.
--
This is my favourite Micorsoft advocacy page.
Yea, it's pretty senseless, but the masses belive
it. With a world of spin-doctors, the majority of
the people actually President Clinton is a good
guy too...these same people are the pointy haired
bossess and employees of the companies that MS's
spin doctors are speaking too...
People are cattle, need to be led
other major corporations say if its unfounded? People who are literate will know what's useful and what isn't.
OK, let's make the optimistic assumption for a minute that most people are clueful (or literate as you put it), if nobody bothers countering the FUD how will the clueful people know that it's FUD? The only way would be for these individuals to evaluate all of the claims for themselves. So if Microsoft were to say "Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world" do you expect every potential user out there to evaluate the hundreds of other operating systems to prove or disprove Microsoft's claim? Of course not - that would be terribly redundant and impractical. It would be useful for those who have evidence to counter those claims would present that evidence so that everybody else isn't stuck with the decision of either trusting Microsoft or evaluating a couple hundred operating systems on their own. So sites such as the counter-fud site allow people to become more literate about questionable claims made by others in a practical manner - you can't expect people to be "literate" if there is nothing out there to counter the FUD.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Be nice now.
Kludge is what Linux is all about, bucko.
Those other words are part of the Central Philosopy(tm) as well.
A Siege Mentality comes from an inferiority complex.
'Nuff said.
That site was probably the worst piece of crap I've ever seen. These lusers doesn't even provide some argumentation or evidence and seem to be worshipping that fat penguin in some kind of cult (as the rest of the linux users). Can't you just growup and realise that there basically is NO desktop future for that OS? There are not much good commercial apps for it today and probably never will. Atleast Windows fills its purpose by being easy to use and do what officepeople want - Linux doesn't. Get a life.
Marketing (or FUD) makes a huge difference, even when what the marketing people say is total crap. Talk is cheap but it does sell products, whether you're talking crap about your competitors or your bragging about your own product.
Its true that Linux will continue to improve whether its accepted by PHBs or not, but without good PR less people know about it.
One large software company that I can think of has successfully used FUD several times to beat out other software packages that where far superior. Linux is different than those other companies, as you said, we don't go out of business if we get ignored, but less people reap the benefits out there.
Imagine how much better the computing world would be today if we all used computers with software that didn't stink.
I've found, in my experience, that the best way to dispel belief is to show someone firsthand.
I'm always one to preach on what I find enjoyable about Linux, and yes, I'm not so easy to tell you the things that I don't like about it. The trick to this, is to do it in a manner in which you don't simply try to discredit the opposition. Most individuals, even M$ lovers, realize that it could be better (if nothing more), and most realize that it downright sucks. This leads to the belief that computers are difficult, and unreliable. Because people have come to endure this without question.
If I run across someone I know or work with that's into computers, and doesn't have any first-hand Linux experience, I give it to them. I let them play around on my system for awhile, letting them get into the joys that I so often experience just using my computer without it crashing. When someone realizes that it doesn't have to be the way it is for them, they start to change.
This goes a long way in swaying most people that simply don't realize there's a better way than Windows.
I understand that Linux wasn't originally intended for the masses, but it definately does have that avenue to explore before it can be taken seriously. With the advent and ease of use of RedHat 6.1, anyone that can use Windows 98 could just as easily be using RedHat 6.1. It's that easy. As they progress, and want to learn more, maybe put them into something a little less user friendly, and with a little more control. (Please no distro debates here, this is just my take) A good thing to do would be to put Linux in schools, as most people that use computers in high school, or even grade school, go on to use that same setup in real world after that. Also, people that learn it in school, wouldn't have to UNlearn their Win95 knowledge (which was the hardest part for me).
NT beats the crap out of linux in many aspects including total cost of ownership. OK so linux licenses are free but headache pills ain't.
Yeah, lots of truth on that page. And it is really backed up by evidence and facts. *sarcasm*
Linux ISN'T good so they need to make lame pages.
Methinks most of the anti-MS stuff is coming from NT monk^H^H^Hadmins. Linux and *nix users/admins seem more balanced. Anything but Microsoft comes from using Microsoft, not from using alternatives.
I fear that Linux won't let me run Photoshop, my favorite app. I am uncertain Linux will let me play my favorite games. I doubt that Linux will make me more productive in my work. The problem with Linux users is that they won't stop giving us Windows users a hard time about everything. I've never asked a Linux user to switch to Windows, but I've been chided dozens of times about how lame I am for running Windows. So, who's spreading the FUD?
What a great way to market Linux. "Spell checking is as easy as V :w^M:!ispell -S -x %^M:e!^M^M !!" For ease of use, I'll take MacOS or Windows any day.
Totally agree with you, dude. I'm sick of being shown vastly inferior Linux alternatives to everything I run. Goddammit, what's so evil about embedding an Excel spreadsheet in a mail message to my boss? Is that so wrong? Is using a Windows C++ compiler to make a Windows app so that I can sell it, make a little money, and put food on my family's table so friggin wrong? What the hell is so horrible about using CorelDraw to make my presentations? And, what the freakin hell is so bad about wanting to run Ultima Online, Age of Empires, and other games? You Linux people had better start writing some decent *consumer* apps if you want them to use Linux. Until then, LateX and Emacs aren't going to do the trick.
They certainly aren't reacting well to Windows 2000.
Except that no Linux user will ever admit this weakness. It is religion, and they have faith in an OS that your average user can't even install correctly.
Seems like chess got a lot more popular after the tantrums of Bobby Fisher.
Calmly, rationally. Boring. Boring.
David vs Goliath. Underpenguin vs richest man on earth. Stay tuned to this channel.
There seems to be some confusion between FUD and the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE, particularly if it has some plausible grain of truth, told often and loudly, is very effective. Humor and ridicule are probably the only effective antidotes.
M$ has a long, well known, and well documented history of standards hijacking and proprietarianism. See Java, HTML, and HTTP for just starters.
I see, then. You're against FUD, but you're against Microsoft even more? Fighting back doesn't necessarily mean adopting the same tactics that you despise in your opponent. Furthermore, those tactics can cause you to give up the moral high ground in the eyes of the people that you are trying to convince.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
It all depends on what you term 'FUD'.
I quit beliving in "The Linux Revolution" shortly after the Ken Thompson _Computer_ Interview where he poo-pooed it. That was shortly after I had started having fun with NetBSD, and a few weeks after I had finished enjoying the book "25 Years of UNIX" which has a lot in it about Thompson.
Was Ken Thompson engaging in anti-Linux FUD? Will he eventually realize he was totally wrong?
Or will Linux come to eventually be recognized as a big mediocre mess?
Unless you're actually under seige, in which case it's just common sense...
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
FUD this. I let the facts speak for themselves.
[will@darkstar log]$ cat dmesg | grep POSIX
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
That would imply to me that Linux was tested and found POSIX compliant...
My OS was posix compliant out of the box, without extra add-ons to buy and install.
0 1 - just my two bits
What got me was the comment that the Counter-FUD site "Will not attempt to be completely 'balanced'". Right there they lost any support I would have been willing to give. If all they are giving is hot air, then they aren't useful. No-one is going to believe them. Linux will be like MacOS, only without the pretty plastic to attract neophytes.
Look, for some people, Linux is not the right solution. It is still really for technical people only.
Say X crashes. The answer that comes up here and on the Linux newsgroups is to telnet in from another box, and kill the process. Hello? How is someone with a home machine, by itself, going to telnet in? And is the average person going to know how to run PS and kill?
The Zealot would call the above paragraph FUD, but it's a real problem that really happens. (It's my current problem, actually.) And pro-Linux "Anti-FUD" isn't helping anything. I really wonder if John Matthews is doing this because it's the only thing he can do: talk.
Well now, that's not really fud, is it?
At the moment, linux DOESNT have USB or DVD support, not in any distribution I've ever seen.
Yes, of course both are coming, and soon.. but it's true.. it doesn't have them.
why thank you.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Did you ever notice ESR is a libertarian, and ever see what they stand for? Its pure garbage, and is utterly illogical if you have any clue on how the world works, and has worked. They say, go destroy government until its an extremely small entity (ie, Articles of Confederation), and have business do everything (ie, healthcare). If consumers want better service, the free market will create it, etc. The problem is, that doesn't happen and the government ONLY got into those areas because they had to force it. Read something like The Jungle and its pretty obvious. I asked ESR questions on various things, and the only way he respeonded was to fix the broken links on his page I informed him of (its pretty dumb to go convert gif to png, rant about how great it is, and then just not bother to change the image links).
So free software community's leaders don't seem to really be about freedom in a way GOOD for everyone else, its all ego and personal power/success - no "community service" like they claim. Personally I think they're following the famed advice of a high-level nazi doctor (forget quote), basically being 'if you tell them the same lie enough times, eventually they'll believe it.'
It isn't against the grain to say these things on slashdot.
I looked over site in depth... I thought they gave a thorough representation of the facts and had some great ideas but something struck me:
Even though its there to refute FUD, this site is also one of the best collections of anti-Linux FUD out there. If someone was looking to support an anti-Linux stance (as opposed to becoming properly informed), this site is a major convenience. No need to do the research themselves, its all right there, including links to the original articles which they could report as sources.
I wonder if it might be better to take a more subtle approach by providing only the positive, factual anti-FUD, instead of repeating the myth/lie they're responding to.
^X^S ^X^C
It's not a particularly bad thing to say things that are "against the grain". Once people get settled into one way of thinking, they can get stuck there, and sometimes it's helpful if they see things from another viewpoint (even if the other viewpoint is wrong?).
On the other hand, a lot of people like to blow smoke out their ass and think themselves big and cool by dissing groups of people. "Nya-hah... they're all wrong, they just don't realize it yet."
Of course, I'm thinking myself to be cool for dissing all those mindless naysayers, so don't take me too seriously.
Oh yeah right. It implies Linux is better by pointing out FUD from competition. Thus your left saying, 'if they have to spread lies and try to trick me, Linux must be better!' That in itself is like spreading FUD, just a little nobler. You tell half the truth and rely on the ignorance and laziness of the reader. Pure FUD is telling a straight lie and relying on the same thing.
Personally, I have very little respect for the 'community' and the 'cause.' I only respect the talent of the programmers and their determination. Otherwise, its all a load...
didn't you notice te trend? They want corperations to write the decent apps, but to bitch enough so its under the GPL. Thus they do no work, likely refuse to pay much for the app and support anyways, but try to keep the pressure through rallies and other nonsense to keep media attention. So really its just a bunch of guys ontop writing software (which generally doesn't seem to be 'for the community,' but for their ego/prestigue), and a huge number of lemmings being casted to attack Corel, Microsoft, etc.
Moderate him up, please.
Basic strategy and tactics. Do _NOT_ use your oponents choice of weapons or playing field.
Advocacy good... Microsoft BAD! =)
...while Linux users certainly do root for the home team, I think that one of Linux's strengths is that there is lots of room for critism within the "community". Whereas, I have trouble conceiving that it would be acceptable M$ employee etiquet to openly critique some of the "functionality" that is inherent in Windows(TM). As long as we don't blind ourselves to Linux's shortcomings (we all know they're there) pages like this anti-FUD can only be positive.
...but more seriously, as a Linux community I also think that it is important we don't fall into the trap of fighting M$ propoganda, with what simply boils down to Linux propoganda...
-silent node
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg
Yes, you can use a USB scanner. I know for sure that HP's work, as I'm using an HP 6200c right now. The USB stack is under development right now, so I had to patch my kernel and rebuild it. USB Zip support is also in the latest patches. Check http://www.linux-usb.org USB printer support is already in 2.2.13, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Ah, well, shoot of the mouth first, research later; its the typical Slashdotter way.
Heh, good rebuttable. Its sensible, very sensible but there is the flaw in its operation. First off the comparison of the statement "Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world" isn't very good for an example. Practical but not very useful. It's not expected that every potential user would then go out and compare hurd,linux,bsd,beos(etc) to Windows 2000. However the user based on prior experience will be able to tell if 2000 is useful to him/her and if its the best or not based upon his/her uses of it. If the user hasn't used 2000 at all then for him/her to take a stand or foundation on the question of it being the best in the world is ludicrous. Not only that but IF it happens to be the best in the world a user that has had umpteen crashes with the system would most likely be skeptical of the statement. (Yes I pose extreme variables with the word USER because their are many different types of users). The user then might query of another viable operating system or whatever happens to be the topic of FUD in general.
I do understand where you are coming from though. Having a site up that knocks the statements of what suchandsuch(tm) says to make sure its not a bunch of falsities is good. It's how its gone about which makes the difference. Sites such as KMFMS (hope thats right) provide good information and I don't believe the Counter-FUD label is a good name for it. It reviews Microsoft's practices and what is true, to the user. Its not Countering Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Personally I think that we shouldn't be wasting our time. Microsoft is very harmless to us. Let them spout off whatever they want. I mean look at it this way if someone from the scientific community said they had found the cure for AIDS they'd be reviewed by their peers. We already do that. If Microsoft says that it's OS supports this and that and it doesn't Users who want to use this and that will know and it'll definitely be something thats made public.
FUD is everywhere anymore. All this FUD is because people find it easy to disprove others than to prove themselves. It easy really a sad state of affairs if you think about it. Of course, the Linux FUD is big and so is political FUD. You might know the political FUD better as mudd flinging or negative advirtisement. Why does anyone not want to prove themselves instead of disproving others?
Who really cares about USB, though? I haven't noticed that Solaris supports USB either, and if you complained about Solaris on that count, you'd be very rightly laughed out of the room as sounding like a spoiled 14-year-old. ("This E10000 sucks! It can't even run Rogue Spear!") Choose an OS for what it's good for, eh? We'll have USB support soon enough, anyway.
Oh, and as for USB printers, scanners, and Zip drives: http://www.linux-usb.com It looks like the answer to your question is "yes". (Looks like you might have to compile something. So sorry. I'm sure Linus and crew are working on the "read-users-mind-and-automatically-download-and-in sert-module-so-he-never-has-to-actually- even-think-about-working" patch that will soon do away with all that ugliness.)
From the Counter-FUD site:
Will not attempt to be completely 'balanced'--it's our aim to "locate, summarize, and link stories from the same mainstream press that refute the FUD points"--but we hope to never intentionally depict Linux as better than it actually is, or depict any Microsoft product as worse than it actually is.
The site's purpose is to counter FUD against Linux. In that sense it is not "balanced" since it's Linux focused. However, as the quote shows, the site will not try to make Linux look better than it is, or Microsoft look worse than it is. Read more carefully.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Microsoft is sending it's "troops" into sites like /. to help weaken the open source movement. It's sad to me, however, that these individuals would value $$$ (either employees of Microsoft or share-holders, I'm assuming) over quality software, and the vast potential for open source.
We run a university network of NT machines. We can bluescreen NT simply by allowing users to run certain buggy applications. THe OS should *never* crash due to a fault in an application. Even when my (development version 3.9.16) X server crashes in linux, I can log in over the serial port and restart it. An NT blue screen is equivalent to a linux kernel panic. I haven't seen a linux kernel panic since I was running an early linux/m68k on an amiga with a 33MHz 68030 overclocked to 42 MHz.
But it isn't working -- this should be obvious to anyone who follows the computer press. Why has the tide turned, the wind changed? God only knows.
/.ers) The press has been cowed by the force of /. anti-FUD forces, making them a little timid to take on Linux directly; some business arguments (e.g. Apache marketshare) have been persuasive, as have some technical arguments (e.g. reliability, suitability as a server.) The anti-trust trial has revealed some rather disturbing emails and courtroom behavior (e.g. the faked video.)
Why has the press turned against Microsoft? I have three hypotheses:
1) (Obvious) The press likes a story with conflict, an underdog, and one matching the latest trends (which they hope to parlay into expertise which can reduce the effort of writing a string of future articles.) The ramifications of Microsoft potentially losing a substantial share of the OS market to Linux are also a strong argument in favor of coverage.
2) (Obvious to
3) (Obvious to me, at least) Before Apple's recent recovery, the press, having used Macs for over a decade, were forcibly converted to PCs by management for compatibility, support, economic reasons. The press has felt the shadowy arm of Microsoft restricting their platform choices. Resentment lingers.
Which one makes most sense to you? All three?
--LP
I believe it was Peter Drucker that said the role of a business is to create a need. You might consider the example of the early automative wars when safety belts was non-existant. It was only due to one persistent soul who dragged the car manufactuers kicking and screaming over the costs and hassles of installation. From their point of view, it would have been seem as scare-mongering and market fracturing. People forget that the market is a dynamic process, in essense you are trying to shape and alter the desires of consumers. One can only look at Amazon, their job is flogging books/CDs/widgets but their business is altering (and ultimately controlling) consumer habits. In this environment, especially intellectual property which is inherently limited by the wetware (ability of our brains to acceptand understand the product), FUD is a key weapon. Don't buy x because it is not the "standard". Use y because it will make your company more competitive. If you don't invest in z, you will disappear where x,y,z can be substituted for e-commerce, i-retailing, or the buzzword du jour. In other words, FUD can be a way of motivating your market to take certain action (perferably in transferring money from their pockets to yours).
The software market is slowly being transformed and the real fight is over where the balance of power (and thus control over spending) goes. Between the IP manufacturers and bundlers or the consultants and service people. FUD is a powerful weapon, as it can be used to deliberately suppress a competitor's stock price and thus create an easy take-over target using overpriced script as technology currency. Is it good or bad? Depends on whether you are the predator or the prey. Certainly Wall Street brokerage firms are not complaining. Fear and greed are two powerful emotions that can motivate individuals and FUD feeds on these elements. While from an engineering perspective, the technical advantages may be obvious, unfortunately life is not like that and good-enough tends to rule the day. While Linux anti-FUD may be a counteracting force, at the end of the day it is just the same thing in a different guise in trying to convince the market that your vision is a superior model despite the billions of capital lined up with proprietary solutions. As for the truth, whether benchmarking or quality testing, does anybody really care anymore? And this is the sad part.
LL
After all, none of us Linux users really want MS to completely go away, what we want is our fair share of the apps and the market.
:)
Indeed. Because if MS did go away, there'd be no-one for people like the KDE team to copy application designs from...
... oooooh... contraversial
Sneezy
> Name your editor, there is probably an ispell module for it. I know that vi, emacs, and pico all have this,
Add the delightful What You See Is What You Mean editor/word-processor/text-formatter, LyX.
It also has built-in support for RCS, among other things that would amaze a world full of Windows users.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
When someone posts, "My linux box has been up for 10 months," that's anecdotal evidence. I don't think that this is about articles. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the anti-FUD page is to gather information from credible sources that use Linux to solve real problems.
i.e. NOT uptime quotes
If you chose Linux for a project, then you (or your manager, etc.) write an article explaining the decision process, what Linux did in testing that the competition didn't, etc. i.e. Real articles about solving problems, not open source propaganda.
In otherwords, if a reported wants to write an article, right now, they can go to MS's website and pull a ready to write article. Linux article writing is more work.
If tech writers can pull down 50 articles from computer professionals about why Linux or *BSD was used, or even why Solaris was chosen over MS, this provides amunition for writing an article without a MS slant.
Journalists rarely quote each other when it isn't a foreign policy piece (with foreign issues, there is usually more of a concern to get the word out than to not cite the NY Times), they quote people with knowledge.
The goal of the anti-FUS is(? or it should be) to gather expert testimonial. It doesn't have to be "hard evidence," an explanation that NT, Solaris, and Linux were all considered, and Linux was chosen, and why. A writer can then pull 25 quotes, easily, when preparing their piece.
Alex
Oh, someone said something bad about Linux. Must be Microsoft. People are obviously too dumb to actually have opinions that you disagree with. What ever happened to free speech and the right to an "unpopular" opinion?
Do you know what the word "litigate" means?
I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the ?Fountain Head?. Howard rook designed beautiful buildings
You mean Ayn Rand and Howard Roark, right?
seems to me that far too many folks on all sides of this get worked up over code that should be completely transparent. did you pick your OS because of it's kernel, or did you pick it for the apps that it can run? (please save us all some time and don't bother mentioning how *nix kernels are so much better than other kernels.)
sure, each OS has advantages and disadvantages, and we can all yap about them until we're blue. but that doesn't change the fact that an OS (or more appropriately, an OS kernel) is pretty useless without other applications.
But, I assure you, these kinds of posts are not especially insightful.
I forget the name of the particular fallacy employed in this particular post, but involves using "a grain of truth" and extrapolating to an absurd degree.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
Computers are tools, not toys. We need them to be reliable, dependable, today, and even more so when your grandchildren take their first trip to alpha centuri....you think we can do that by making our operating systems main goal be keeping up to date with the newest directx?
Industry is being dumb'ed down by this drivel..you're the same type of people who need a picture of the Big Mac combo meal #1 on the keyboard because the text of "Big Mac Meal is too confusing. Keep it up, your moronic spin doctor...
Dogpile
Fine. Take either, or both. That is my point. If using a computer is difficult for you, obviously you need all the help you can get, which beginner's OSes such as MS Windows and MacOS provide. It's good to see that you are "out" about your problems with computers. I hope you become more proficient with time.
If you were to take a base Linux OS install, and manually RPM hundreds of binary packages from vendors all around the world, you'd probably have the same DLL Hell that Windows can be. now you know why debian is better
When you see a Microsoft commercial, does tout its huge application base? the blazing SMP speed of NT? the slight margin of benefit that NT offers over Linux in samba networks?
Of course not! It's the baker who uses Office 2000 and Windows NT to talk simply and easily with his fellow bakers.
The focus for a desktop OS has been, will always be, and should always be, ease of use. Your average braindead AOLer doesn't want to go find some arcane URL to download a kernel hack and recompile their kernel. And, despite how you or I might feel, there's nothing wrong with a braindead AOLer. They drive the economy and determine who really controls the market.
I noticed at that LinuxFUD page (because that's what it is, for the most part.. the Linux community produces more FUD than Microsoft does, only Microsoft's gets seen by more people) one of their upcoming topics is that Linux works as a desktop OS. I hope I'm around when they update, because I'd like to see what sort of proof they have there. Sure, once you learn Linux, it's no problem to use it as a desktop OS. But Joe Blow doesn't want to learn Linux, and nor should he have to learn it.
I've never had to recompile my toaster.
Great, I can illegally watch DVD on Linux. What a selling point.
> Looks like you might have to compile something Unacceptable. A consumer operating system should shield the user from code. Until Linux does away with the need to recompile kernels, it will not be useable for the vast majority of PC owners. Kiosks and think clients, maybe.
Don't assume I'm not proficient. Mario Andretti would be an idiot to drive his racecar to work every day.
IS IT *FUD* WE SHOULD FEAR, OR THE *FEDS*?
THINK ABOUT IT, FEAR THE BEDS!
PS LAST PIST?
EZ LOLK WONED YAWIZANWN
_.......................__
||.....__...._._||_..||-\\..._...._._||_
||......_\\.(/_'..||....||-//.//.\\.(/_'..||
||__((_||_,_/).||_..||....\\_//.,_/).\\_
The final word; anything following is redundant.
It is an absolute statement of fact that most hardware manufacturers, including the DVD and USB people, do not support Linux. Every single person working with Linux, including it's most ardent supporters, would agree with this 100%. Thus this is not "FUD".
What is "FUD" is distorting the truth. And you have just done so. You have pretty much said "Linux supporters call anything negative said about their systems FUD". THAT IS NOT TRUE. READ THE PARAGRAPH I JUST TYPED and stop being a child.
I thought this sounded like a good idea, but I visited the site and left with mixed feelings. At least as damaging as FUD is an "I can counter any FUD with a reasonable argument that shows you're wrong" attitude that ends up labeling criticisms of The One True Way as FUD. I think the person or persons behind this site went over the top in this regard with comments like:
1.1 Fact: Open source software tends to be much better than proprietary software
which is hardly a fact at all. This so-called fact is easily counterable by any user of Photoshop, Visual Basic, Adobe Illustrator, Director, or one of thousands of proprietary games or edutainment programs. The usual exchange goes something like:
Linux Guy: You shouldn't use Photoshop! You should use The Gimp!
Person Who Uses Windows Because That's What He Has At Work: I like Photoshop, but if something is better then I'd be interested in seeing it. I can't guarantee my shop will switch over to it, though.
[time passes]
PWUWBTWHHAW: Well, it's a good start, but it doesn't have lots of the features of Photoshop that I've come to rely on. It also feels, I don't know, a bit crusty 'round the edges. Very 1988 Macintosh.
Linux Guy: But it's Open Source! It will get better! You can make feature requests, blah, blah, blah.
PWUWBTWHHAW: [slowly backing away] Um, okay, I believe you...
Could we please stop with all the blaiming of the "Slashdot community" for everything. To a certain extent there is no slashdot community, just a bunch of individuals posting their state of mind. It seems that in almost any thread there is a comment along the lines of the "Slashdot community" being guilty of some horrible sin (we are zealots, flamers, mailbombers, fuddists, etc etc), yet for some reason these posts always get moderated up by the very "community" that is guilty.
There is a huge difference between a slightly exagerated personal statement about NT's percieved suckyness in a comment, and FUD as practiced by Microsoft and their equals. For them it is an adopted, controlled, and intentional process of discrediting the alternatives to their products. For them it is about making money, and countering any threats to their means for doing so: and, in the case of Microsoft, barred by absolutly no proffesional ethics (and that's not FUD, thats the conclusion of the US legal system).
No one is sitting in centrally located boardrooms in the middle of "Slashdot community" and making descisions about how we ought to discredit Microsoft (or, at least, no one has told me about it). I doubt very many of the posters here have financial incentives for wanting to discredit Microsoft. A lot of anti-MS sentiment comes through here because the people who post here are people who use and love computers, and they feel legitimately fucked over by them.
Maybe sometimes emotion gets the better of truth here: but that is far from FUD.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
WHAT THE FUCK IS FUD?
THere is no doubt that linux desktops are a joke.
"worshipping that fat penguin in some kind of cult"
Notice the similarities between the Linux cult and the Church of Scientology? Both are cult-like movements, both have tons of rabid supporters, both strive for total World Domination, both have no qualms to use whatever means necessary to achive this goal. It's no coincidence that many prominent Linux figures are also well known scientologists.
But the fact of the matter is, while there is support for those things, pity the average person who tries to install them. USB works out of the box in Windows, without any kernel hacks. And what do you expect everyone to use, a development kernel? Sure, Linux supports those things, but not well. Meanwhile, Windows seems to be doing a lot better. It seems to be the story of Linux, you have to tweak the hell out of it and screw around with it forever to get it to work. I just want the damn thing to work, and Windows gives me that. But oh no, that can't happen in Linux FUD land, which /. seems to thrive in. Linux always has to be perfect, in everything. I use Linux, and love it, but I also relize how flawed it is at the same time.
On the other hand, if Roger Ebert showed up on Slashdot and started spouting about how much he disliked Dell computers, we wouldn't take HIM seriously for the same reason: within the Slashdot community, he has no reputation. People don't believe movie critics just because they're movie critics; they believe them because they've been reading their reviews for years and generally agree (or maybe disagree, but at least respect) them. (And, duh, obviously there are reviewers who you never agree with, think are idiots, etc., but that's the exception.)
I've been participating on Slashdot for almost six months now, and I don't post anywhere near as often or as intelligently as you do; I'm sure there are probably a couple thousand Slashdot readers who recognize your nick -- Signal11 -- on sight; I know I do. I doubt there are any who'd recognize mine. But the reason is that you have time and again given interesting viewpoints and opinions; I don't post very often and when I do it's usually not a discourse of any kind; most often it's a short response. (Well, not this time :)
Anyway, like I said, it's not a double standard; it's THE standard. If you don't have a reputation in an arena, even if you know what you're talking about, the people listening to you can't know that yet. It takes time to build up their respect.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
testing
Puttin' in time for The Man, eh?
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No it wouldn't. Here is the "integrator" of Linux/UNIX software: |
That's right, the friendly pipe. You might fear him, but you need not; he is your friend. He will help you the true power within your computer, and within yourself.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
That's the meaning of FUD Actually it is a piece of desinformation supposed to create FUD about what it is referring to. I guess someone should create a little dictionnary /. - english, cause it's not the first time /.ers use extensively an acronym that not everyone understands. Or at least put a reminder of the meaning in the subject.
I see, so does this mean all the anti-microsoft "FUD" will come to an end? Or is this merely a call to put an end to anti-linux fud?
OH YEAH! FUD ME HARD! FUD ME UP THE ASS!
Microsoft will not 'stop the FUD'. FUDing has been one of thier best marketing strategies(for them). One of the reasons MS got to where it is today is because they advertise thier product to be the ONLY safe, effective OS on the market. Having already proven itself to be without morals, the Microsoft corporation will not abandon thier best strategy on the ground of morals (or even facts, to the uninformed public). The only way to 'stop the FUD is to educate people about thier options. .sigs? we dont need no stinkin' .sigs. :)
Never go out to fight for freedom and justice wearing your best trousers.
"This is an argument I have a serious problem with." Me too. With the whole thing and the assumptions that seem to underly it. I'm not sure I can do this coherently, but here goes anyway.
...
...
"However, I have a serious problem with operating systems or application programs which prevent me from coming up with quick elegant solutions on my own."
I think you have hit on the crucial reason that Unix is still around after some 30 years, after better systems have faded into oblivion. Remember "Obstacle" System 360?
Disclaimer: I am NOT fluent in Unix.
Basically, he's looking for quick and easy answers to hard problems. Microsoft does put up a glitzy facade and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
>It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have
The juxtaposition seems to imply that an integrated spell checker is one of the "simplest things". Either that or he has immense difficulty with the simplest things. A basic rule of computers and automation is that you automate things that you understand thoroughly. You do not substitute automation for lack of understanding.
>the write once run anywhere crap
That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT necessarily "low-level".
>The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine.
This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces, and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW, jon_c, were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
>Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new.
That other people have MADE. Confusing consumption with production.
>Howard rook [Roark] designed beautiful buildings, they we're [were] beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision".
However, he used the results of committees, etc. for the actual construction, the tools used, the building materials, the design of the building materials. It's a dream. Without knowing Strength of Materials I can design a building and everything will be wonderful.
>For any two programs to work together they're [there] needs to be some ground rules.
Not really. You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so that the interfaces match.
>even things like command line parameters aren't consistent.
Sure they are consistent. HP and TI calculators are consistent. Just not with each other. Big Endian and Little Endian are consistent, but not with each other. The distinction between adding signed integers and unsigned integers can be made with the opcodes (IBM 360+) or with condition codes (PDP 11, VAX). It helps to reduce inconsistency as much as possible, but there is no way to eliminate it.
>it only took Sun a few years to come up with [Java].
After something like 10 or 20 years of Programming Language research. The stuff so that the language is useable without expediting such as Word macro viruses is "non-trivial".
I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition, the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes. However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
Name your editor, there is probably an ispell module for it. I know that vi, emacs, and pico all have this, which probably accounts for at least 95% of linux users' text editors.
How about Third Voice? That has the advantage of appearing immediately alongside the FUD...sort of a (oy, I hate to write this!) cyberheckler taking the wind out of the pitchman's spiel.
Its extremely useless. Whatever happened to the cream of the crop rises to the top? Sayings like that? Why even pay attention to what other major corporations say if its unfounded? People who are literate will know what's useful and what isn't. It grabs me that the linux community is trying to dumb down the OS with loads of crap in order to grab the desktop. Let's just keep doing what we do best and that's the ability to innovate freely and provide quality software to our community. Which in general happens to be literate and highly intelligent.
AT LEAST 1/2 of the posts in this thread prove out the knead for recognition of the deceptive rhetoricystic practices employed by the kingdumb of FUD. what to do about I.T. is a hole nether kwesteeon.
It would seam that j. public is at least somewhat awear of the situation, and it would also seam that he/she IS very open to alternatives available to the MS decade of deceit marketeering plan.
1 of the problems is that FUDbillygates has built an udderly incredible cash cow with the windose meganopoly. his ONLY means to protect it are: MS BS PR FUD, and sum bogus contracts (institutions, OEMs) established through the use of bribery, coercion, and FUD. it's (FUD) kNoT working like it used to, butt it still has life.
sew, I.T.s likely going to take a similarly monumental effort to get the truth about I.T. owt to the masses. appears that effort is well underway, but subject to the same pollutants that made FUDley whatever he is today. a real dali llama. i guess evolution is still happening. my impressions are that open-source is going to knead some very impressive open/honest "marketing" in order to save the universe from a future of pure FUD, and that love eminates from the home desktop.
Our FUD Factory is better than your FUD Factory because:
- Ours is Open Source FUD - anyone can add to it, yours is proprietary
- Our FUD is POSIX compliant
- Ours FUD Factory doesn't need to be restarted several times a day
- We don't have a FUD monopoly and the DOJ isn't about to close it down
- Ours is just plain cooler than yours
I dont care if I use MSFT or Linux. It's about getting the work done. It just so happens that Linux is WAY WAY more useful to me outta of the box then NT is. Do I use MS products, you bet I do, do I like it ? only if it works. Do I use Linux ? you bet I do. does it work ? sure it does.
I think that the problem is the out right untruths
that MS peddles. NT is NO WHERE near as advanced a UNIX/LINUX and I hate/resent MSFT for trying to say it is. The clueless EU's all think that MS is the only way and they deal with the problems that pop up using MSFT products. They all bought the MSFT hype and it stoped them from making an informed choice.
We need advertising regs to keep companies like MSFT from selling lies about what their products can do.
It is tempting to sit back and say "you be sorry" for using MS, but we all know what happen, our hands were tied by the PHB and now WE have to fix it or dust off the resume and move on. Let the PHB figure it out, it is just point and click right ?
The value of this may not be in reffering people (ie: your office IT purchaser) to the site itself, but rather to provide a common point from which to gather your ammunition.
...YOU go there, follow up the links, and forward him the information directly.
Suppose your manager is buying a bunch of MS FUD. Instead of sending him an email saying, "go see this anti-FUD site"
As an aside, I find it amusing how many IT "decision makers" I run into who take it as gospel if MS says it, but "obviously a vain and slanderous atempt at anti-Microsoft propoganda" otherwise. This anti-FUD site should be thought of perhaps more as a "portal" (hate that term!) to information, than as an objective provider thereof.
...just my 2 cents... (btw: I'd love to get "byte" back as well)
-silent node
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg
>Basically, he's looking for quick and easy answers to hard problems. Microsoft does put up a glitzy facade
./ bio.. or something as a .sig that gives people a little clear warning. I really enjoy posting here, but it gets more and more frustrating when people get so wrapped up in my grammar and spelling.
>and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look >too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
And basically that is a bunch of FUD. When it comes to my endorsement of Microsoft I'm talking about the API's and the SDK's. and that is defiantly not "glitzy".
>That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C
>per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT
>necessarily "low-level".
Yes assembly can be very productive, if you're proficient at it. but that like anything isn't it? I think you're picked on a side comment I made about how I don't agree with Java's VM implementation. Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully.. you guys have a real talent for picking out poorly worded text's and throwing them back in my face.
>This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the
>basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the
>pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces,
>and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW,
I agree pipes are great. I remember when I first used them I was awed by the power of such a simple concept. I guess when it comes down to it, this is a religious issue. Personally I don't perfere them command lines. There are some fantastic advantages to them. In some situations they are clearly superior. I could go on, but really this is a matter of preference.
>were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
I'll be the first to admit I can't spell jack. I wouldn't dare post anything with out typing it up in Word. My spelling is about on par with a 6th graders. Ever sense I was a child slacking off in elementary school I always figured I could get by on spell checkers. Now that I work in professional environments, I'm seeing what a huge mistake this was. It's become a thorn in every situation. Like when I write comments in my code I need to spell check it, when I write little one-sentence memos. Anything. Unfortunately when I post something people disagree with. I don't get to hear thoughtful responses to my points. I hear something like:
"Do you know what the word "litigate" means?"
arg... you know what I meant.
>You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so
>that the interfaces match.
IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers.
..and back to me spelling...
>I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition,
>the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell
>checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes.
>However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
I try to make my points as eloquent and clear as possible. Unfortunately my spelling is so horrific that I'll spell something SO wrong, that it's actually a word, therefore the spell checker misses it. Also sometimes I just screw up and agree with the wrong word as a suggestion on a misspelled word.
I think I need to put this in my
-Jon
this is my sig.
I think ESR, LBT and RMS sould shut up and code instead of FUDing every other OS.
Then the lame arses flameing zealots around here would have nothing to base their rant on and it would stop.
That would be good for the Linux community, and the world in general.
Sounds like you like attacking me personally. Which I find rather childish. Ironic no?
The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine. Id rather spends my time doing something actually productive, something original. Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new. This is the philosophy behind "code-reuses" and the main reason we don't all write our software with our own hardware. Drive car's we build from scratch, or write up insults to our fellow man on keyboards made of wood we cute down in our backyard.
As for the "fully integrated spell checker". This is something I've wanted for a long time. And you're correct no OS offers it. Their are applications for Windows that attempt at this, but don't integrate as will as I would like.
The point behind the post (since most of you seemed to miss it). is that linux is not all that great of an OS from a usability standpoint. It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have some type of integration for applications that would allow this, something I have yet to see (and I'm sure lots of people have something to say about this, but before you reply. Realize that this thread is about FUD. And anything about how lunux apps are "so well integrated" would be complete bullshit).
This is getting offtopic, but I do have a serious concern that integration will never succeed with Open Source software. There are to many people doing things the way they feel is best, even things like command line parameters aren't consistent. You get a bunch of great programmers out their doing great apps, but none of the work together at all, they isn't any standard, no consistent way of doing something (and this is in a general "big picture" sense people).
For any two programs to work together they're needs to be some ground rules. Some type of standard. And if you not willing to have a large powerful company (like Microsoft) come up with them and shove them in your face, you may be stuck with a bunch of people in a standards committee for years debating on it. a good example of this is C++, this took something like a decade to get standardized, and a lot of people have very litigate issues with that they finally settled on (things like locale come to mind). Then you have something like Java, it only took Sun a few years to come up with. and it's a pretty darn good language, mind you I don't thing the write once run anywhere crap is a good idea. But the language itself is yummie.
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the "Fountain Head". Howard rook designed beautiful buildings, they we're beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision". When a committee got involved it became a hogpoge of mixed ideas, some of this from one guy, and a little of this from another guy. And this does not good art make.
this is my sig.
I'd used Win3.x for a few years.
I'd used Win95, grudging, for a couple years.
I'd heard of linux.
I even tried installing an early version once.
(I've gotten a later version since that I've
had better "luck" with.)
I'd also heard of OS/2.
One day I had a copy of OS/2 given to me and a spare machine to put it on. After an admittedly irksome install I had it running. And run it did. And it kept on going, the puny 386 doing stuff I had never seen a Pentium do. Damn! I suddenly knew why the 'OS/2 zealots' felt the way they did. _It_just_worked_...for bloody freakin' ever.
But it was already a Windows (TM) world.
No big surprise there, really. Anyone who used both VHS and Beta when VCRs were still a new thing knows that VHS won on marketing, but Beta is missed by them.
The "seige mentality" is effective. I hear a certain Mr. Gates has it. That may be the point to make to avoid it. I prefer what an earlier poster said: We don't have to lie.
We can, and must, admit where linux has shortcomings. This is not about boasting or ripping down Microsoft, or SCO, or anyone. It's about letting folks know the truth. If they have the facts, theu can decide for themselves what OS is best for their application. It might be linux. It might be a bsd. It might be a commercial Unix. And yes, it might even be NT. Or, for the desktop, 95/98/Millenium. But wouldn't it be great if they had all the facts and made a truly informed decision?
Each is just another tool.
If the problem is a nail, use a hammer.
If the problem is a nut, use a spanner.
If the problem is a screw, use a screwdriver.
But there's no reason someone who has a problem and knows of a spanner, for example, should not know there are also hammers and screwdrivers.
You're complaining about the difference between quantitative and qualitative here.
The failure rate of Fujitsu drives is a number. 3/100ths, let's say, with a +-2% margin of error.
Whether "Thunder In Paradise" was a good movie is not a number.
This isn't a double-standard as much as it is two totally different standards. I would take your *opinion* on Fujitsu drives in the same way I'd take a review written by someone I didn't know: with a grain of salt.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
The problem is that a lot of the people here get all their knowledge of WinNT, say, from /.
This means that when they get out into the real world, and run into an NT person who knows what they are talking about (Yes, they do exist) the /. person is made to sound stupid. Since they are normally championing the Free Software cause, it makes the whole Free Software world lose a little bit of creadibility.
For instance, go and have a look at some of the comments on here about XML - stuff like "MS owns XML, and are trying to use it to takeover the internet" type of thing.
If someone goes and repeats that to someone who knows what they are talkign about they look stupid.
"I haven't seen a linux kernel panic since I was running an early linux/m68k on an amiga with a 33MHz 68030 overclocked to 42 MHz." You can easily kernel panic on boot if you forget to compile /proc support in on a normal i386 box like fsck did when he first started using linux and recompiled his kernel after not really knowing what he was doing. I have never seen a properly running linux system kernel panic like a properly running NT system blue screens. I'm not so sure that a kernel panic is like a bsod. Do this.. cat /usr/src/linux/Documentation/oops-tracing.txt | grep blizard ..to see what looks most like a bsod, again I have never seen this.
Lars -
First of all, most Windows installations are 95/98 or 3.x. They most definitely do *not* have a journaling file system, or anything even resembling one.
Secondly, WRT Windows NT, I *thought* NTFS was journaling, and said so in a thread recently. Many people corrected me, and pointed out that NTFS is not a true journaling file system, it only logs metadata.
NT5/W2K/WhateverTheFuckIt'sCalledThisWeek is finally going to have an actual journaling filesystem.
Likewise, Linux should get XFS before too long. Not with the initial 2.4 release, but Linus says it might make it into 2.4.x eventually.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
yeah, this is cool and stuff. Shoutouts to all the guys in #rit, except EnEsch, he's a b1tch.
So is nobody interested in creating a site that counters the FUD on /both/ sides admits the weaknesses of both OSes? Or do they exist and just not get mentioned on SlashDot due to a lack of pro-Linux bias?
linux is the win95 of unix.
I am sick of all this FUD! It's time to set the record straight: We all know that Windows crashes with every mouse click, never installs correctly, sends your credit cards to Microsoft, burns down your house and rapes your mom.
Linux, on the other hand, is simply the greatest OS ever and has absolutely no flaws. Using it increases your IQ. It is a known fact that all Linux users enter eternal paradise upon death.
Linux rools and Microsoft drools, so moderate this post up already
I am sick of all this FUD! It's time to set the record straight: We all know that Windows crashes with every mouse click, never installs correctly, sends your credit cards to Microsoft, burns down your house and rapes your mom.
Linux, on the other hand, is simply the greatest OS ever and has absolutely no flaws. Using it increases your IQ. It is a known fact that all Linux users enter eternal paradise upon death.
Linux rools and Microsoft drools, so moderate this post up already
You're such a brownnosing slimeball, you should run for president some day. Most of your posts are utterly devoid of any content, yet the moderators love you. And what's up with the "..." subject line you use for every other post? Maybe you should change your nick to Noise 11, reflecting the effect your posts have on the signal/noise ratio in a typical Slashdot discussion.
Linux has no DVD support.
How is this site going to help with that? By posting editorials? (In the words of Pvt. Hudson from Aliens, "Now what are we supposed to use, harsh language?")
TALK LESS CODE MORE.
It's a take-no-prisoners approach to this. Countering lies with the truth. And as the old cliche says, The Truth Hurts.
:-)
It's also take-no-prisoners because they're admitting a bias. Some people will call them on their bias, saying they should be more balanced. To that I say: "burp". Why? Because MS isn't nice to us, why the heck should we be nice to them?
The only difference is we don't need to lie to be mean
It seems to me that a lot of FUD comes from the Slashdot community itself. They scream bloody murder when someone states something wrong about Linux, but they themselves say blatent wrong things about the other non-Linux software. Especially against Microsoft and Apple. If you really want to stop the FUD then I would suggest starting with the Slashdot comments (and sometimes main story post).
Eric Anderson
I think anti-Linux FUD isn't coming only from Microsoft. SCO also did such schemes just few months ago. I wonder if SUN or IBM still try such trick against Linux.
-- We provide Zope consulting from US$ 25 hourly!
Okay, in this community it's assumed you have enough technical prowness to differentiate between "marketing hype" and technical specs. This means that when you talk with somebody, it's gonna get pretty boring if you just quote the specs. That means you provide anecdotal evidence. For example, I have had nothing but problems with Fujitsu drives. I had one crash horribly, and the other one wouldn't work correctly when it was installed with a tape drive. Word of mouth, in effect. This is dismissed, but a movie critic's views are accepted as a reason to, or not to, go see a movie? I could be wrong, but that sounds like a double standard to me.
Sounds like the media doesn't take outsiders seriously. Strangely enough, technicians don't take non-techies seriously in their area of trade either. Arrogance, or common sense?
Don't bother. He's quite obviously one of those people who really couldn't bear to admit that the OS he's used for years has been inferior all along, but doesn't want to admit that he doesn't like change, so figures out excuses for not using Linux. "Integrated spell checker" is so obviously lame that he must've gone though at least half a dozen already... I mean, no OS in existence has any such thing, and nearly every Linux editor and word processor has one. His type will go out kicking and screaming in a few years, don't worry.
No, that's simplistic. There is a tendency to repeat the FUD without fact-checking or contrary arguments, of course (just as in other areas of journalism). There are also some good pro-Linux pieces, even in the mainstream press. Particularly in the British computer press - if I had a penny for every time I'd seen a pro-Linux article or editorial I'd be a rich man! :)
If sources already exists, where is the need for this webpage?
They do exist, but they're scattered. The aim is to collect together the arguments in one place, and just skimming through it I find it very impressive. I'd advise you to actually read what your criticising before you criticise it.
We're talking about, in some cases, informing the people who think that...
- Linux has no GUI
- Linux has no tech support available
- Linux is strictly a hobbyists choice
etc. etc. And yes, there really are plenty of people who think like this. Surveys show that plenty of people in Britain still haven't heard of the Internet yet!Female Prison Rape in NY
You can't discount progress due to end-user input. Fighting FUD with facts and accepting constructive critizism can only improve Linux and all Open Source software. Adding additional functionality to Linux only gets to be a problem when we forget what we're supposed to be doing: having fun hacking the thing together!!!!!
I went through the noFUD website and saw, if you pardon my opinion, a mess. Partly that's because the authors chose to rebut the specific statements made by Microsoft or computer publications/pundits.
IMNSHO we are not going to get anywhere from this defensive stance. Instead we should attack NT, since Microsoft for too long has enjoyed the slave-like attitude from their installed ( = captive) user base: they complain, but have no energy to revolt.
In order to attack we should structure our strategy along several dimensions:
1. NT - Unix
2. Commercial - open source
3. Technology - implementation and practices
4. OS vendor - independent software vendors
This means that it is not enough to just argue that Linux is better than NT because of X, Y and Z. We need to specify that X means "generic Unix is better than NT", that Y means "technology Y is poorly implemented within NT", etc.
Granted, I have no deep knowledge of NT innards, but my guess is pretty much anything that is implementable in Unix can be ported to NT (c.f. Cygnus). Also, I have respect for VAX/VMS, so the "core technology" issue should be a toss. (Any other opinions?)
But, as many suffering NT users can attest, we can score heavily on the issues of poor implementations and programming practices that cause applications to crash and sometimes bring down the whole system.
On the issue of commercial vs open source, we need to point out the vices of EULA. Unlike e.g SUN or SGI, Microsoft does not provide any hardware advantages over the free Unices, but their licensing terms make the whole issue of "big corporate support" a moot point.
cosse da fxck ta faite la?
And basically that is a bunch of FUD. When it comes to my endorsement of Microsoft I?m talking about the API?s and the SDK?s. and that is
./ bio.. or something as a .sig that gives people a little clear warning. I really enjoy posting here, but it gets more and
defiantly not ?glitzy?.
Are you crazy? Are you a programmer who has actually looked at Microsoft's APIs or are you just spewing forth nonsense to make excuses for your defense of Microsoft? If you're a programmer of any measurable skill level and have examined Microsoft's APIs you will know that they are the biggest example of fudged, inconsistant, and incompatible mess that you've ever seen. Different "versions" of Windows API are incompatible with other "versions" of Windows API. Everyone is going to have to recode for Windows 2000, because there is a fundamental incompatability with earlier code. I can't believe you used their API as the basis for your defense. If you actually believe that Microsoft Windows API is really technically ellegant then you truely are hopeless.
Yes assembly can be very productive, if you?re proficient at it. but that like anything isn?t it? I think you?re picked on a side comment I made about
how I don?t agree with Java?s VM implementation. Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully.. you guys have a real talent for picking out
poorly worded text?s and throwing them back in my face.
Not much talent is required when we have examples such as this.
>You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so
>that the interfaces match.
IMHO that?s a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers.
Then you'd be surprised by all the "hack[s]" in the Windows APIs.
think I need to put this in my
more frustrating when people get so wrapped up in my grammar and spelling.
I can understand your issue with spelling, but I think there is a better solution. How about picking up a book on grammar and spelling and reading it. This is not meant to be an insult. I think it would help you greatly in many situations if you took it upon yourself to learn proper grammar and spelling.
In summary I think the only real argument to back up your endorsement of Microsoft, primarily their API, fails because it doesn't take a genious to understand that the problems with Windows are due to issues with their API. People complain about stability and performance. Why? Because Microsoft made mistakes, or based decisions on marketing needs rather than technical excellence, in the underlying API that makes the OS as a whole unstable.
The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me
by a machine. Id rather spends my time doing something actually productive, something original. Take tools that other people have used and use
them to create something new. This is the philosophy behind "code-reuses" and the main reason we don't all write our software with our own
hardware. Drive car's we build from scratch, or write up insults to our fellow man on keyboards made of wood we cute down in our backyard.
This is an argument I have a serious problem with. I don't have a problem with people who need "integrated" tools and don't have time to figure things out for themselves. My time is precious also. However, I have a serious problem with operating systems or application programs which prevent me from coming up with quick elegant solutions on my own. Windows, and the whole Windows philosophy, have this attitude, IMHO.
Take for instance a recent message on the OVForum. A list member asked about probes that could monitor DHCP traffic. Not much info was given as to what was desired to be accomplished, but I assumed that they wanted to monitor DHCP lease assignments so that they could asynchronously notify HP OpenView that an IP address on a DHCP client changed, thereby updating the network maps and keeping the network monitoring platform "in sync" with the network. I suggested a simple script, written in perl, that would take the output of snoop (on a Sparc) and parse the decode so that it could use ovevent to send a SNMP Trap to the management station notifying of the DHCP event. Since I'm a Unix bigot I mentioned several times in the post that if the user was running Windoes NT that (s)he's probably out of luck, since I don't know of a NT program that captures packets and can pipe it's output to a Perl program like I suggested. I got a reply, to me directly and not to the list, that basically said that if the user was runing all NT that they could take advantage of all the 3rd party apps that are available to monitor NT services and so forth. Either I didn't understand the original poster's needs or the person who responded to me didn't see the usefullness of asynchronous notification of IP address changes in a network monitoring platform. Needless to say, NT's "integrated" network capture program does not support "background" execution and piping to another program of the decoded packets, AFAIK. This, IMHO is a "limitation" of the platform and hinders people who have the ability to quickly construct solutions to problems from accomplishing their goals. BTW, that's another thing that the person who responded to me directly stated. That it would take an exhorbinant amount of time to write, test, and maintain the program, taking time away from network management to do "program development." Obviously, the person thought it would take much longer than I anticipate to move this solution into "production." If he knew that there already was a perl script on freshmeat.net that monitored the dhcp.leases file and asynchronously posted updates to bind then they would realize that not many changes, and hence time, would be required to implement this. I pointed out to the person, in a reply message, that in all probability more of my time would be "wasted" in searching for a commerical product that does the same thing, ordering it, waiting for it to be shipped, installing it, testing it, and possibly finding out that it doesn't even do what I need it to that to simply code the simple Perl script.
The point behind the post (since most of you seemed to miss it). is that linux is not all that great of an OS from a usability standpoint. It?s an
exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have some type of
integration for applications that would allow this, something I have yet to see (and I?m sure lots of people have something to say about this, but
before you reply. Realize that this thread is about FUD. And anything about how lunux apps are ?so well integrated? would be complete bullshit).
Linux is a great OS from a usability standpoint from my perspective. So is Solaris and HP-UX for that matter. In fact, any Unix "like" OS is generations ahead of OS's like Windows because they allow people with the skills the flexability to implement solutions for their clients much easier, and faster, than the alternative.
This is getting offtopic, but I do have a serious concern that integration will never succeed with Open Source software. There are to many people
doing things the way they feel is best, even things like command line parameters aren?t consistent. You get a bunch of great programmers out their
doing great apps, but none of the work together at all, they isn?t any standard, no consistent way of doing something (and this is in a general ?big
picture? sense people).
Instead of a bunch of great programmers doing great things the way they feel best would you rather have a bunch of mediocre programmers doing mediocre things in an integrated way? If so, you're sure to be happy in the Windows world. Besides, you totally fail to recognise the work of many "great programmers" who are working on both the GNOME and KDE environments. Are you saying that these systems are not "integrated" enough for you?
For any two programs to work together they?re needs to be some ground rules. Some type of standard. And if you not willing to have a large powerful
company (like Microsoft) come up with them and shove them in your face, you may be stuck with a bunch of people in a standards committee for
years debating on it. a good example of this is C++, this took something like a decade to get standardized, and a lot of people have very litigate issues
with that they finally settled on (things like locale come to mind). Then you have something like Java, it only took Sun a few years to come up with.
and it?s a pretty darn good language, mind you I don?t thing the write once run anywhere crap is a good idea. But the language itself is yummie.
Problem for you is that there are "standards" for "integrated" programs for Linux. They are the GNOME and KDE "standards", if you're talking about GUI programs which seems to be your focus. No, I don't want to have a "large powerful company (like Microsoft)" "shove [standards] in [my] face." You're FUD about standards committies taking "years" is just that, FUD. I don't have the actual dates, but I don't think it took too long to come up with the TCP/IP standards, or the HTTP standard, or any other "real" standard out there. I would much rather have intelligent people debate the merrits of various methods of implementation instead of having one "large powerful company (like Microsoft)" come up with standards that seem to benefit marketing and financial goals rather than the technical merrits. Your use of the C++ standard does not fit in with the topic, nor does Java. Both are programming languanges as opposed to protocols or programming standards that are used in application programs in order to provide "integrated" solutions. Try again.
I know I?ll get in trouble for this, but I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the ?Fountain Head?. Howard rook designed beautiful
buildings, they we?re beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his ?vision?. When a committee got involved it became a hogpoge of
mixed ideas, some of this from one guy, and a little of this from another guy. And this does not good art make. .
Sad to say that I've never read Ann Rand. May be this goes against some Holy right of passage that you find dear to your heart, but it's beside the point. I'd rather think of information technology as an area of engineering rather than art. It's when you get all those "artsy fartsy" people involved that things go to crap. Not because art is bad, but because the marketing people at corporations, where their sole purpose of being is to make a profit, know how to use art to influence end-customers, whereas engineers only have their intelligent and performance to rely upon.
I think either you're severely misguided or are just a different kind of person than I. If you can't see the "art" and beauty in a technologically perfect solution and instead prefer the speil of marketing driods then you very well may be beyond help.
If I understand them correctly, LinuxToday plans not to add any content to what is flatteringly called the "debate" about Microsoft FUD, but rather to act as a clearinghouse for guerilla and mainstream articles disputing the points made by FUD.
But isn't the founding premise of this website the notion that the mainstream media is monolithically accepting of anti-Linux FUD? LinuxToday is attempting to reach middle-managers and CEO's who are entrenched in the Microsoft lifestyle, and cite to these individuals commentary that suggests Linux is a viable commercial choice. But in order for that commentary to carry weight, it must be from a source recognized by the audience as an authority.
If sources already exists, where is the need for this webpage? If they do not exist, from where will LinuxToday draw its material? My fear is that LinuxToday will be unable to find mainstream articles supportive of Linux, and hence resort to editorials or excerpted opinions from the slashdot crowd. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such a site would devolve upon the credibility of the hoster, LinuxToday. I am no PHB, but I was not aware LinuxToday had a large and devoted following among that crowd.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
And it's Penguin season!
(Insert picture of Punky Penguin smackin' down Elmer Fud, Bugs Bunny style)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Why are Linux people sometimes so caught up with a siege mentality? "Oh no! MS is spreading FUD about Linux again! Hurry up guys, we need to counter their unfounded FUD, otherwise they may FUD Linux out of existence!"
IMHO if Linux is really that good, it doesn't matter what people say about it. One day its true value will be manifested. Talk is cheap. It's too easy to talk and spread FUD and anti-FUD. How 'bout something real, people? Let MS waste their time and resources FUDding away. If Linux is really worthwhile, people's opinion of it will not matter, as long as the Linux community continues working on improving it.
Although there is the need to educate people so that they know they have choice outside MS and so on, we shouldn't get caught in the crossfire between MS FUD and anti-MS FUD. Let them FUD all they want; let's just present the facts to people and not be unduly provoked by what those people say about us. One day, people who believed in the FUD and people who spread the FUD will realize that they were totally wrong about Linux. But by then Linux would have left them far, far behind and it would be their turn to play catch-up.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
If it's Linux FUD, it's not POSIX compliant.
Linux isn't POSIX compliant.
It just tries to be.
Clue: pony up the money to get Linux tested for compliance. Then that version, as frozen is POSIX compliant.
Windows NT, by the way, is POSIX compliant, if you add the proprietary POSIX API called Interix.
I think most people would only have sympathy for the goals of the linux community if it weren't for the religious zeal and obstinate intolerance with which linux believers preach their holy convictions.
I've got the idea that people, like the Ayatollah Stallman do more harm than good to the idea of Linux.
It simply scares off the silent majority.