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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
But it helps to have something to point those to who have been indoctrinated by FUD. Such a site could also serve as a training area and reference guide for people who wish to teach others about FUD. My intentions were similar when I created my kmfms website and I think it could work equally well with this counter-fud site.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
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.
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!
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.