Re: [fc] Re: Proposal

[Marek Habersack <grendel@vip.net.pl>]

* Charlie Stross said:

> > > Here's a second question (same apologies apply): who are we aiming the
> > > FUD debunking at? Linux users? Journalists? Or the great unwashed hordes
> > Journalists, company employers responsible for software in their companies,
> > CEOs, managers, people devoted to Windows :)
> 
> Well yes, but that's not very precise.
> 
> F'r'xample: _I_ am a journalist. (Linux columnist for a small
> British magazine called Computer Shopper.) I'm interested in this list
Been buying it for years :))

> precisely because it looks like it'll evolve into a very good source of
> authoritative sources for debunking FUD, and this is of use to me. I'm
> a Linux columnist, not just a random computer journalist, and I don't
> need the virtues of Linux preaching at me -- I've only been using it as
> my main desktop OS since 1994, and I was a UNIX-head before then.
Well, then I think you will be one of the targets. It's been said over here
before that we want to provide a source of solid facts, confirmed with
testimonies, real-world examples, interviews, case studies etc.
 
> But by the same token, what _I_ need (juicy facts about how a particular
> study was rigged by Microsoft PR people, to say nothing about the
> release schedule for the ext3 filesystem and news about the feature set
> of KDE 2.0) is not what your average computer journalist needs ("gosh,
> you mean I've been suckered by an astroturf campaign?"  followed by
> "did you know that _real_companies_who_buy_advertising_ sell Linux,
> and you're pissing them off with this negative coverage?"). And their
> requirements, in turn, differ from those of a typical local newspaper
> journalist ("what, you mean Microsoft are taking jobs away from our area
> by stomping on one of our local companies?").
Why of course! It's not going to be another gossip-and-fairy-tales site, but
a source of professional and valuable information to fight FUD with facts
and proofs. If it isn't so, then this site would make no sense at all.

> These are three different pitches:
> 
> * Explanations and detailed technical debunking for people on the inside.
Agreed. But it targets both the outside and inside audience.

> * Political exposes to educate general computer journalists in the
>   dirty tricks pulled by marketing companies; high-level technical
>   debunking to back this up.
Agreed.

> * Social exposes for people who wouldn't know Linux from a kick in the
>   pants but who understand shady business practices. (Political exposes --
>   see above -- to back this up.)
Fully agreed.

marek

PGP signature