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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that most office computer users were perfectly happy with Wordperfect 5.1 or Displaywrite 4.xx or whatever was beside the point
I respectfully disagree. WordPerfect users may have loved WordPerfect, but the inpenterable nature of the interface drove labor and training costs up for busineses. "Word Processing" used to actually be a marketable skill, and not just because of typing skills.
GUI rightfully won because it was cheaper and easier for casual users. (How many current middle managers have their secretaries type memos, or even have a secretary? All of them used to in the 1980s.) Microsoft won GUI because they had a mature product ported from MacOS.
(Then again, it might just be my personal jihad against WordPerfect. IMHO, the 1980s would have been better off if we would have stuck with WordStar, because at least the key commands were on the screen, not the keyboard. Plus they made sense too, unlike like that Shift+F7 WP crap.
And PS, MS Word 4 for the Mac was greatest word processor ever. Rant over. )
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
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).
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.
So, today, MS and allied forces attempt to generate anti-Linux "FUD"; that is to say, they go about using tried and testing marketing techniques to discredit the opposition. 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. But it is certain that where the computer press lead, the computer managers will follow. And they are the people who will deliver the desktop.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Many NT monk^H^H^H^H"admins" have not had any appreciable experience with UNIX/Linux. So, their pronouncements about the "superiority" of NT are questionable, at best.
Most Linux and UNIX users, on the other hand, are likely to have had significant experience with Windows (even NT), simply due to its wide infect^H^H^H^H^Hdeployment. God knows, I've had to deal with NT for years, and know more than I really ever wanted to know about it, and its reliablilty/scalablity (and lack thereof).
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
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
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?
Did you click on the "next" link at the bottom of the page?
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.
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!
Can I use a USB scanner? A USB printer? USB Zip? Is this true USB support, or some kitschy hack? Also, I wouldn't call "hacking through DVD encryption and doing hours worth of work" DVD support. Can I buy a Creative DVD-ROM/mpeg board and have it work out of the box? No points allowed if your answer includes any of the following: "workaround", "hack", "recompile", "without", "beta", or "kludge".
As far as Sun goes I wouldn't worry too much about them. With Intel making Linux the first OS to run on the merced, or itanium or whatever they are calling it now, and IBM bringing it to the big computers, and SGI porting IRIS performer over, I don't think Sun FUD would have a big effect on anything, or any FUD for that matter. Linux is growing, it's growing at an incredible rate, faster than any OS in history. FUD tactics don't work against momentum like that. I mean all of the FUD has been put out and yet we still have another major software/hardware company bringing their products to Linux on a more and more regular basis.
Besides, it seems to me that SUN hates MS as much as we do. I think if they were looking to attack Linux then they would wait until after it has done all the damage it can do to MS. No since fighting two enemies at the same time.
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.