[fc] RE: Proposal

[Rich Jankowski <rich@saturnlink.com>]

On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Tom Pfau wrote:
> 
> > I propose that we not use the acronym FUD anywhere on the web
> > site.  We should just post the truth with pointers to the evidence
> > whenever we see FUD.
> 
> I think we should use FUD. The only way we are going to 'win' over
> FUD is by making the readers aware of the phenomenon so they know
> what to look out for in a press release.

I agree, FUD isn't necessarily "deception", it's making someone feel like
they are making a really bad decesion in going with the "other guys". I
use it all of the time in corporate IT, if management proposes NT for a
specific application, I'll usually ask what kind of compensation I get for
supporting after-hour crashes, how much overtime for driving into the
datacenter to reboot a hung machine, etc.

I think that if used with truthful statements, FUD will actually be pretty
helpful in promoting OSS/Linux.
 
> It's not just about fighting FUD on a case-by-case basis. We want
> to make sure that readers know what to look out for, that management
> is not as eary to convince by devious sales people as it is now,
> that people learn to have a more critical attitude towards the
> things they are reading.

I think when you reply line by line to their statements, it puts us on the
defensive, not to mention as many replies to their "Myths" document as
their were, it makes us look fragmented.

Truthful FUD, honest case studies of uptime, security, etc will be the
best way, IMHO.

Just my $.02.

--
rich jankowski
rich@saturnlink.com

-
Fud-counter:  Setting straight the facts
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web Site:     http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/