By your reasoning Wine would be 'evil' because it interoperates with MS Windows. The fact MS does not believe in Unix (which is completely logical from a business point of view) does not mean that their customers agree. So they implement software to interoperate with unix (also completely understandable from a business point of view).
Who said any of this was "evil"? I agree - Microsoft creating environments that allow interoperability is a Good Thing. Too bad they don't do it more often (and with a greater concern for compatibility).
The point here is that Microsoft likes to push the meme that the GPL is viral. That businesses should avoid the use, much less development, of GPL code because of this. Yet they use GPL'd code themselves. I'm less interested in the hypocrisy of this situation than the fact that it presents an example of how patently false the "viral GPL" meme is.
well.. you have to find a golden middle between usability and quality in general, i must say that after many years i find microsoft products better quality than linux world products.
What about Microsoft quality has anything to do with Linux? And why do you think there is a tradeoff between usability and quality? The point that you're missing is that while Microsoft probably does not have a goal to create "crappy product", quality does not take a lead in their development process.
Just check changelogs of kernel and you'll think "how is this thing worked in previous version?!".
Yet it does work. The boon and bane to Open Source is that all the dirty laundry is out on display. The bugs. The infighting. The disagreements on development and direction. It is all done in the open. We only occasionally get a glimpse of this same activity existing behind to closed doors of proprietary software houses. But it certainly exists.
Of course, Linux kernel changelogs have nothing to do with Microsoft quality.
If they use GPL code, they lose a good chunk of what keeps them king of the market. They love the BSD license, because it gives them goodies for free (and they don't have to do anything in return).
The odd thing is that, for all their talk about the GPL's viral nature, Microsoft offers products based on GPL'd code. Dig around on their Services for Unix. But don't be suprised if it's not clear you're dealing with some GNU apps here. Microsoft modified their site. But the Wayback Machine offers some insight:
GPL Utility Source Code
The GPL utility source code for Services for UNIX 3.0 contains the base utilities diff, sdiff, bc, dc, cpio, gzip, gunzip, gawk, patch, csplit, nl, strings, rpm, and SDK utilities/libraries ld.so, gcc, gdb, g++, g77, gasp, objcopy, ld, as, ar, nm, size, strip, ci, co, diff3 rcs, rlog, and ident.
The GPL utility source code for Interix 2.2 contains the utilities bc, ci, co, cpio, csplit, dc, diff, diff3, gawk, gzip, gunzip, ident, merge, nl, rcs, rcsdiff, rcsmerge and rlog.
They don't call open source software a cancer, they call GPL a cancer and rightly so. GPL creates problems for everybody and in the future it will be one of the most limiting issues for Linux.
Yet Microsoft themselves are able offer a product that includes applications based on GPL code. Funny, that.
If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product.
What you're ignoring is the artificial barriers Microsoft puts up to ensure the success of their products. Embrace and extend. Lock-in. I've seen it in action and have to deal with it constantly.
While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.
I haven't seen anyone claim that Microsoft is intentionally making a "crappy product". However, it is plain that quality is not their primary concern. Yet the market can not properly adjust for this due to the engineered incompatibilities and marketing from Microsoft.
Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.
Microsoft did not make computing mainstream. Computing was going that direction with or without them. In fact, Apple had a major influence on personal and business computing. Although Microsoft did have a role to play in the commoditization of hardware (equal credit should be given to IBM and Compaq).
Making a product that people will buy is not "kindness". That's business. Just doing business isn't worthy of praise in itself. So when a Microsoft fanboy complains about Microsoft criticism in general... or someone puts forth "they're a business" as some excuse for any activity... one has to wonder exactly what they're defending.
Meanwhile, there are plenty examples of people making money off of all manner of illegal and questionable activity. It doesn't mean any of these businesses are providing a benefit to anyone but themselves. I don't wish to draw too much of a comparison between a grifter and Microsoft however, profit alone does not prove any altruistic behavior.
And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.
Actually - the whole point of some Microsoft criticism (and the infamous legal battles) is that customers DON'T have a choice. Choice implies there there are options. A truly open market will provide options. And an open market requires removal of artificial barriers.
Only on/. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it.
The devil's in the details. Sure - it all sounds good. But exactly what is being contributed under what terms? After all, I'm not going to get all manner of praises for releasing my own version of "Hello World" under the most restrictive OSI-approved license I can find. Likewise, Microsoft gets not free ride. IBM, Sun, RedHat, et al. get far more credit.
Individuals have expressed a certain theme each time Microsoft publishes something on Source Forge. The complaint is that Microsoft can do no right and if they had released some major software package under the GPL, they would still get bashed. The problem with this assertion is that Microsoft is not, in fact, releasing anything major much less using the GPL. It's a less-than-subtle point that Windows fanboys and zealots seem unable to grasp.
1.) Supporting a $100 O.S. for 6 years with official updates and patches. Quite a deal, one that you certainly won't see from redhat.
So what you're saying is they're offering fixes for a broken product over a 6 year period of time? Wonderfull. I've got a Honda CRX that had a defective seatbelt fastner in it. 8 years after the model date for that vehicle, Honda paid to have the faulty fastners replaced.
If you want a more self-serving reason, keep in mind that maintaining Windows users maintains Microsoft's influence. If users were forced to upgrade or migrate, there is an increased chance people will have to take the migrate option. And thus, Microsoft's mindshare decreases. Mindshare is the real coin of the realm.
The RedHat dig has a valid point. I'm not a fan of the fumbling RedHat has done reacently. And they certainly deserve criticism over some of those actions. However, your point is misleading. I can take any previous RedHat install and upgrade it to the lastest software available from RedHat at no additional fee. What I don't get is free support (but then - no OS vendor offers that).
2.) Allowing pirated copies of windows XP to install service pack 2. A clip from the article: "Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told ComputerTimes that [...] it was more important to keep user safe than to be 'concerned about the revenue issue.'"
Microsoft did the right thing here. But let's not kid ourselves. It was certainly in their best interest. The cost of allowing this service pack out despite any question of a legitimate license pales in comparison to the cost of bad press for vulnerabilities Microsoft has been getting over the years.
Don't get me wrong. You've provided examples of Microsoft doing generally good things. But these are hardly examples of Microsoft acting out of selfless kindness.
How are volunteer coders (i.e. non-employees) going to submit bugfixes if they don't have access to the source?
Hmmm. Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the "testing" and bug-reporting part. But then... that's the mode Fedora seems to be in anyway.:)
The power of all the volunteers in the world, and what do we do? We make a UNIX clone. Then we make a Windows clone on top of it. Nice.
And thank gawd for that. I like Unix environments. The odd thing is that as Microsoft continues to develop their Windows offerings... their environments are becoming more and more Unix-like.
A couple of years after Longhorn comes out, and GNOME/KDE decide to implement their.NET/WinFS/Avalon clones, I'll be grinnin'.
Then the GNOME/KDE folks can call it "innovation." Or is it only innovation when Microsoft does it?
He may not be quite as "technical" as some people, but most "very technical" people aren't so skilled at communicating their knowledge so others can understand them (especially when they have a small time window to do it in).
True enough. But it doesn't help if one communicates inacuracies well. Having said that, I noticed Leo and Patrick had an interesting strategy. During calls, if neither had an answer, Leo would keep everyone busy with banter while Patrick would frantically search.
It's the same problem you have if you try to get women to sit down with you and enjoy some show about hot-rodding cars. The majority of them are going to complain and ask you to change channels.
Actually - my girls are fairly tech-oriented. Though, not nearly as much as I am. The complaints were less about TSS and more about the personalities. Now days, I don't hear any grumbling unless Kevin is busy doing his dark hax0r schtick. Both individuals get (got?) jeers of "poser".
Re:And when you though no one could go lower then
on
Comcast Fires TechTV Staff
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
All Comcast is really doing is what cable companies do, look at what is good, and look for what needs to be changed. Sadly their rubric is the almighty dollar, apparently they wern't making enough money (or loosing to much, I don't know the figures) to continue as they were. So they restructured and let a bunch of people go.
I agree with your general point. However, I think you're a little off on this particular part. Comcast hadn't been running TechTV. Comcast bought TechTV and then announced layoffs shortly after. Whether TechTV was doing well or not may not be the issue (although they did take quite a hit during the dot-bomb).
I really feel that TSS is ruined without Leo there, and that it was even better than that before they broke up the staff.
To each their own. But I disagree.
I didn't mind Leo - but I certainly didn't find him as compelling as some seem to (he apparently has quite a following). I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he didn't strike me as all that technical. And the girls in my household hated him - changing to The Screensavers meant moaning and bitching in my family. Sorry Leo - but TSS is easier to watch without you.
Martin? A goof. I still find it odd that he was given a show. But hey - to each his own. Although I have to admit it was rather amusing when he interviewed Tom Green.
Patrick does great on the show. Nice guy. In to technology. Seems to get things right more often than not. Definately belongs.
Kevin Rose - would be better if he didn't try so hard. Yea. Hacking. We get it. Stop beating us over the head with it. And get your coworkers to do the same.
Will Wheaton would be great. He always seems to fit TSS when he appears. And I really enjoyed the time when he did a guest co-host gig with Kevin Rose. It'd be great if they brought him in.
Since Napster went down, we have all sorts of new filesharing tools to choose from. The bandwidth has changed for the average person also I would guess.
Fair points. I'll add a couple more things to consider.
A centralized system like Napster is far more effective than what exists now. When Napster got squashed, it certainly created a market of sorts for all these distributed, decentralized P2P applications. However, that decentralized has an averse affect on the selection and efficiency of the system. Although it is likely that one will still find the latest diva or boyband fairly easy.
Industry polls show that the number of file traders are decreasing. They claim this is due to "education" efforts. I haven't bothered to bounce those numbers against the estimates for Napster. But it could prove interesting.
Zero-day exploits have value. Not "day zero of release". We're talking vulnerabilities that are known before they are reported.
Zero-day exploit value is based on the likelihood of it working. Unknown vulnerabilities won't be patched. So assuming the attacker is able to touch the victim box appropriately, they will be successful. An unknown vulnerability is less likely to be looked for. So the attack itself is less likely to draw attention and once the attack is made, is less likely to be noticed. A machine being attacked is compromised and stays compromised.
There's also something to be said about knowing something that few others know about.
But an exploit's value is tenuous. The more it is distributed, the less value it has. The more who know about or have exploit code, the more often that exploit will be attempted (ignoring the increasing possibility someone hearing of the exploit won't simply report it themselves). The higher chance there is that someone will notice. Once they notice, they'll investigate. Once they begin that process, it is only a matter of time before the vulnerability is discovered. Patches are written and distributed. Attack signatures are put in place. The exploit has little worth left.
A "successful" virus is very visible. Any exploit a virus uses is essentially a throw-away exploit - going after the dross and making up for it by volume. Which fits very well with the viewpoint that virus writers are, at best, amateur hour.
Does this mean that malware isn't being written from vulnerability reports and reverse-engineered patches? No. Not at all. However, the idea that we'd all be better off with more secrecy ignores years of history where such secrecy was standard procedure. And the exploits still existed.
A company would likely (hopefully) provide a fix before a full disclosure of the flaw would be given, understanding that exploits will be released into the wild at some point.
Which describes the current "responsible disclosure" policy many have adopted. But that's not enough. There is now a mindset claiming that since attackers can reverse-engineer a patch, then the patches themselves are dangerous.
People hack Microsoft cause they're zealots that hate them, much the same way most/.ers do
Indeed. Microsoft has set themselves up over the years. There's quite a few who seem to be making a point. But doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Seen the talk about selling botnets? Spam? Hacking security systems used to be about challenge and learning. Now its as much about making a shady buck.
Microsoft has created a nice target. Partly because of the state of maintenance. Partly because of the tribulations of maintaining their systems. But none the less, a fertile ground for anyone who needs zombies to trade as a commodity.
Also, with Debian, Gentoo, Suse and most others the upgraded packages can easilly break because of changes in config files and structures.
Possible. But in my experience, unlikely. At least with Debian.
Every time a package wants to update a config file of some sort, Debian will alert you. The default is to keep the old file (in which case the new config is available to be compared at a later date). However, it also offers to show you the differences between your existing config and the old config. One can scan through this diff and make the appropriate decision. If the config is replaced, the old config is maintained as a backup.
In addition, the install script may help you out. I just recently updated Snort on one Debian box. New config. I went over the changes and decided to go ahead with it. Although I was thrown off that modifications for my network just weren't showing up. So I figured I would have to go back and make changes. To my surprise, the new config contained all my network-specific changes.
So is it possible to screw this up? Yea. Sure. I'm sure one could find a way. However, even during times where I blithely and blindly kept my old config, I haven't managed to do so.
This has been Apple's business model for years yet few complain.
Perhaps you missed the last 20-or-so years of microcomputer history where Apple went from the dominant business and consumer computer manufacturer to a niche player?
Granted - IBM had a good deal to do with that (even if IBM didn't exactly "win"). But much of the blame for Apple's fate lays on Apple.
I'd be full of shit, but it would be about as substanciated as some of the articles posted here on Linux lately.
The difference is that the insubstantial articles used to all be about why Linux will fail. Then there were a few insubstantial articles about companies experiementing with Linux. Now insubstantial articles about Linux gaining footing in corporate, scientific, and entertainment markets are fairly common.
Granted - it's all mostly dross. So are the majority of other technical articles (read: thinly rehashed press releases). But the interesting piece here isn't the content of the articles per se.
The interesting point is that there are possitive Linux articles - and they are increasing in number.
The reason you see this kind of linux propaganda is because slashdot, being part of OSDN, is up to its neck in interest in linux succeeding. Its not really a news site anymore so much as a big ad for linux.
Say. You don't suppose Slashdot expressed a pro-Linux bias well before OSDN got involved, do you? Funny, that.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said any of this was "evil"? I agree - Microsoft creating environments that allow interoperability is a Good Thing. Too bad they don't do it more often (and with a greater concern for compatibility).
The point here is that Microsoft likes to push the meme that the GPL is viral. That businesses should avoid the use, much less development, of GPL code because of this. Yet they use GPL'd code themselves. I'm less interested in the hypocrisy of this situation than the fact that it presents an example of how patently false the "viral GPL" meme is.
What about Microsoft quality has anything to do with Linux? And why do you think there is a tradeoff between usability and quality? The point that you're missing is that while Microsoft probably does not have a goal to create "crappy product", quality does not take a lead in their development process.
Yet it does work. The boon and bane to Open Source is that all the dirty laundry is out on display. The bugs. The infighting. The disagreements on development and direction. It is all done in the open. We only occasionally get a glimpse of this same activity existing behind to closed doors of proprietary software houses. But it certainly exists.
Of course, Linux kernel changelogs have nothing to do with Microsoft quality.
The odd thing is that, for all their talk about the GPL's viral nature, Microsoft offers products based on GPL'd code. Dig around on their Services for Unix. But don't be suprised if it's not clear you're dealing with some GNU apps here. Microsoft modified their site. But the Wayback Machine offers some insight:
Yet Microsoft themselves are able offer a product that includes applications based on GPL code. Funny, that.
What you're ignoring is the artificial barriers Microsoft puts up to ensure the success of their products. Embrace and extend. Lock-in. I've seen it in action and have to deal with it constantly.
I haven't seen anyone claim that Microsoft is intentionally making a "crappy product". However, it is plain that quality is not their primary concern. Yet the market can not properly adjust for this due to the engineered incompatibilities and marketing from Microsoft.
Microsoft did not make computing mainstream. Computing was going that direction with or without them. In fact, Apple had a major influence on personal and business computing. Although Microsoft did have a role to play in the commoditization of hardware (equal credit should be given to IBM and Compaq).
Making a product that people will buy is not "kindness". That's business. Just doing business isn't worthy of praise in itself. So when a Microsoft fanboy complains about Microsoft criticism in general... or someone puts forth "they're a business" as some excuse for any activity... one has to wonder exactly what they're defending.
Meanwhile, there are plenty examples of people making money off of all manner of illegal and questionable activity. It doesn't mean any of these businesses are providing a benefit to anyone but themselves. I don't wish to draw too much of a comparison between a grifter and Microsoft however, profit alone does not prove any altruistic behavior.
Actually - the whole point of some Microsoft criticism (and the infamous legal battles) is that customers DON'T have a choice. Choice implies there there are options. A truly open market will provide options. And an open market requires removal of artificial barriers.
The devil's in the details. Sure - it all sounds good. But exactly what is being contributed under what terms? After all, I'm not going to get all manner of praises for releasing my own version of "Hello World" under the most restrictive OSI-approved license I can find. Likewise, Microsoft gets not free ride. IBM, Sun, RedHat, et al. get far more credit.
Individuals have expressed a certain theme each time Microsoft publishes something on Source Forge. The complaint is that Microsoft can do no right and if they had released some major software package under the GPL, they would still get bashed. The problem with this assertion is that Microsoft is not, in fact, releasing anything major much less using the GPL. It's a less-than-subtle point that Windows fanboys and zealots seem unable to grasp.
So what you're saying is they're offering fixes for a broken product over a 6 year period of time? Wonderfull. I've got a Honda CRX that had a defective seatbelt fastner in it. 8 years after the model date for that vehicle, Honda paid to have the faulty fastners replaced.
If you want a more self-serving reason, keep in mind that maintaining Windows users maintains Microsoft's influence. If users were forced to upgrade or migrate, there is an increased chance people will have to take the migrate option. And thus, Microsoft's mindshare decreases. Mindshare is the real coin of the realm.
The RedHat dig has a valid point. I'm not a fan of the fumbling RedHat has done reacently. And they certainly deserve criticism over some of those actions. However, your point is misleading. I can take any previous RedHat install and upgrade it to the lastest software available from RedHat at no additional fee. What I don't get is free support (but then - no OS vendor offers that).
Microsoft did the right thing here. But let's not kid ourselves. It was certainly in their best interest. The cost of allowing this service pack out despite any question of a legitimate license pales in comparison to the cost of bad press for vulnerabilities Microsoft has been getting over the years.
Don't get me wrong. You've provided examples of Microsoft doing generally good things. But these are hardly examples of Microsoft acting out of selfless kindness.
Just think of what he WOULD have said about Republicans if he weren't polite.
Hmmm. Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the "testing" and bug-reporting part. But then... that's the mode Fedora seems to be in anyway.
Name a major software house who doesn't have this.
And thank gawd for that. I like Unix environments. The odd thing is that as Microsoft continues to develop their Windows offerings... their environments are becoming more and more Unix-like.
Then the GNOME/KDE folks can call it "innovation." Or is it only innovation when Microsoft does it?
True enough. But it doesn't help if one communicates inacuracies well. Having said that, I noticed Leo and Patrick had an interesting strategy. During calls, if neither had an answer, Leo would keep everyone busy with banter while Patrick would frantically search.
Actually - my girls are fairly tech-oriented. Though, not nearly as much as I am. The complaints were less about TSS and more about the personalities. Now days, I don't hear any grumbling unless Kevin is busy doing his dark hax0r schtick. Both individuals get (got?) jeers of "poser".
I agree with your general point. However, I think you're a little off on this particular part. Comcast hadn't been running TechTV. Comcast bought TechTV and then announced layoffs shortly after. Whether TechTV was doing well or not may not be the issue (although they did take quite a hit during the dot-bomb).
But otherwise... right now. This is no SCO-ism.
To each their own. But I disagree.
I didn't mind Leo - but I certainly didn't find him as compelling as some seem to (he apparently has quite a following). I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he didn't strike me as all that technical. And the girls in my household hated him - changing to The Screensavers meant moaning and bitching in my family. Sorry Leo - but TSS is easier to watch without you.
Martin? A goof. I still find it odd that he was given a show. But hey - to each his own. Although I have to admit it was rather amusing when he interviewed Tom Green.
Patrick does great on the show. Nice guy. In to technology. Seems to get things right more often than not. Definately belongs.
Kevin Rose - would be better if he didn't try so hard. Yea. Hacking. We get it. Stop beating us over the head with it. And get your coworkers to do the same.
Will Wheaton would be great. He always seems to fit TSS when he appears. And I really enjoyed the time when he did a guest co-host gig with Kevin Rose. It'd be great if they brought him in.
Fair points. I'll add a couple more things to consider.
A centralized system like Napster is far more effective than what exists now. When Napster got squashed, it certainly created a market of sorts for all these distributed, decentralized P2P applications. However, that decentralized has an averse affect on the selection and efficiency of the system. Although it is likely that one will still find the latest diva or boyband fairly easy.
Industry polls show that the number of file traders are decreasing. They claim this is due to "education" efforts. I haven't bothered to bounce those numbers against the estimates for Napster. But it could prove interesting.
Not at all. Your missing dollars are added to the "loss of sales due to piracy" column.
Zero-day exploit value is based on the likelihood of it working. Unknown vulnerabilities won't be patched. So assuming the attacker is able to touch the victim box appropriately, they will be successful. An unknown vulnerability is less likely to be looked for. So the attack itself is less likely to draw attention and once the attack is made, is less likely to be noticed. A machine being attacked is compromised and stays compromised.
There's also something to be said about knowing something that few others know about.
But an exploit's value is tenuous. The more it is distributed, the less value it has. The more who know about or have exploit code, the more often that exploit will be attempted (ignoring the increasing possibility someone hearing of the exploit won't simply report it themselves). The higher chance there is that someone will notice. Once they notice, they'll investigate. Once they begin that process, it is only a matter of time before the vulnerability is discovered. Patches are written and distributed. Attack signatures are put in place. The exploit has little worth left.
A "successful" virus is very visible. Any exploit a virus uses is essentially a throw-away exploit - going after the dross and making up for it by volume. Which fits very well with the viewpoint that virus writers are, at best, amateur hour.
Does this mean that malware isn't being written from vulnerability reports and reverse-engineered patches? No. Not at all. However, the idea that we'd all be better off with more secrecy ignores years of history where such secrecy was standard procedure. And the exploits still existed.
Which describes the current "responsible disclosure" policy many have adopted. But that's not enough. There is now a mindset claiming that since attackers can reverse-engineer a patch, then the patches themselves are dangerous.
Which completely ignores the fact that "hackers" tend to have their own communications channels.
Indeed. Microsoft has set themselves up over the years. There's quite a few who seem to be making a point. But doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Seen the talk about selling botnets? Spam? Hacking security systems used to be about challenge and learning. Now its as much about making a shady buck.
Microsoft has created a nice target. Partly because of the state of maintenance. Partly because of the tribulations of maintaining their systems. But none the less, a fertile ground for anyone who needs zombies to trade as a commodity.
Possible. But in my experience, unlikely. At least with Debian.
Every time a package wants to update a config file of some sort, Debian will alert you. The default is to keep the old file (in which case the new config is available to be compared at a later date). However, it also offers to show you the differences between your existing config and the old config. One can scan through this diff and make the appropriate decision. If the config is replaced, the old config is maintained as a backup.
In addition, the install script may help you out. I just recently updated Snort on one Debian box. New config. I went over the changes and decided to go ahead with it. Although I was thrown off that modifications for my network just weren't showing up. So I figured I would have to go back and make changes. To my surprise, the new config contained all my network-specific changes.
So is it possible to screw this up? Yea. Sure. I'm sure one could find a way. However, even during times where I blithely and blindly kept my old config, I haven't managed to do so.
There are always two - a master and an apprentice. And long ago, the apprentice became the master. ;)
Perhaps you missed the last 20-or-so years of microcomputer history where Apple went from the dominant business and consumer computer manufacturer to a niche player?
Granted - IBM had a good deal to do with that (even if IBM didn't exactly "win"). But much of the blame for Apple's fate lays on Apple.
Which is why outfits like RedHat and IBM offer their services.
The difference is that the insubstantial articles used to all be about why Linux will fail. Then there were a few insubstantial articles about companies experiementing with Linux. Now insubstantial articles about Linux gaining footing in corporate, scientific, and entertainment markets are fairly common.
Granted - it's all mostly dross. So are the majority of other technical articles (read: thinly rehashed press releases). But the interesting piece here isn't the content of the articles per se.
The interesting point is that there are possitive Linux articles - and they are increasing in number.
Say. You don't suppose Slashdot expressed a pro-Linux bias well before OSDN got involved, do you? Funny, that.
Sure, sure. And Doubleclick promised anonymity too.