[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [fc] fud-counter rationale posted
Marek Habersack wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just uploaded a short rationale document to the fud-counter site.
> Please take a look at it (http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/rationale.html)
> and throw at me all comments, flames, critics, everything. Thanks!
>
> marek
>
Excellent! A few tiny suggestions for improvements (?) though...
>
>
> Introduction
>
- Ever since the computers appeared in our
+ Ever since the computer appeared in our
- lives there had been competition on both
+ lives there has been competition in both
> the software and the hardware markets
- in that field. Firstly only few people in
+ . Initially, only few people in
> the world had the knowledge and opportunities to work with computers, write software for them, improve them. After several years the market grew big an spread into many areas of our life. The software business started to
- bring reasonable profits and such it turned out to be yet another
battle field of our times.
+ be reasonably profitable (for some), and as such became yet another
battlefield for our times. [Really not sure here...]
> As we all know, often the methods used in business are very remote from the rule of fair-play.
-rule of fair-play
+rules of fair play
> Many people would deny it, but it's the reality - people fight, and not always fight fair.
- not
+ don't
> The struggle gets more and more "cruel" as the money gets bigger.
Not sure about cruel here. Apart from not wanting to seem to bash
business too much (hey, we're trying to convince people in business to
listen to our arguments - alienating them is not too smart), it just
doesn't sound right to me. Also:
- the money gets bigger
+ the financial stakes become higher
> This site is devoted to fighting one particular way of fighting the competition - the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).
Do we really want to _devote_ the site to "fighting the competition"? I
personally would rather help with setting the record straight in a nice
polite way, and providing true information to help people make up their
own minds. After all, we don't want to stoop to their level. And, yes, I
know that if someone hears 2 opinions they'll usually make a balance
somewhere between the 2, and if one's honest and the other's propaganda
then the balance will be someway towards the lies, but that, IMHO, must
be a risk we run.
>
> How does FUD relate to Linux?
>
> Linux started as a home-made project of a student that wanted his PC to run something decent. After a few years a group of developers from all around the world created an OS kernel that turned out to be a very powerful, robust, reliable and modern software. With time passing by, more and more people learned about Linux, gave it a try and started to use it on a day-by-day basis.
>
> Being based on Unix systems, Linux at first shared their traditional text mode, command-line interface with no bells and whistles of the Windows.; GUI interface. Unix
- ; GUI interface
+ graphical (user[?]) interface
[the "I" in "GUI" stands for "interface"]
> systems were traditionally targeted at a more experienced, professional user audience.
- However, Linux started to make it into the home PC systems and users,
developers, everyone started to make it more friendly, more suitable for
desktop applications at the same time not sacrificing Linux power as a
server, multi-user system.
+ However, as Linux started to make it into the home PC market [_or_
"onto home PC systems"], users and developer began to make it more
friendly and suited to desktop applications, while at the same time not
sacrificing Linux's power as either a server or multi-user system.
> As a system that may be used on both desktop and as an networked server, Linux had to be reliable, secure, comfortable and easily approachable by both newcomers and proffesionals used to the traditional Unix
[typo] professionals
> systems. It took a couple of years, but right now Linux fulfills all of these requirements
[typo] fulfils
> while still adding features in each and every of the abovementioned fields.
not sure what you mean here - are we talking Linux or the GNU user
environment, software running under linux (eg StarOffice, xv), or the
various distros eg SuSE? This is something I feel we should be careful
about throughout this project...
>
> The very nature of the Linux model of development (Open Source) requires that many people work on its new features while at the same time testing the system and allowing many people around the world to test it as well. The only drawback of such testing model is its "unofficial" nature. In the business world the point of view of a man in the crowd doesn't really matter. What matters is the official lab tests, TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculations etc. This is something the Linux (and Open Source in general) community didn't provide since we felt there's no need to confirm something we are all sure of.
>
> With the growing Linux popularity came various comments, points of view coming from companies, officials, authorities all over the world. Unfortunately not all of them were
- good and approving for Linux.
+ accurate or well thought-out [? how negative should we be here?]
- More, there were many of them that pointed out either non-existing, or
mythical bugs in the Linux kernel and operating systems based on it.
+ Moreover, many of the weakness of (and/or bugs in) the kernel, the
operating environments or the open source model were either misleading,
quite outdated, or just plain wrong. It seems that linux and the open
source community have been considered easy targets due to our lack of a
huge legal department.
[In general here, has anyone given any thought to where we stand legally
in making statements about M$?]
As they would easily be countered by the
- As
+ Although
Linux community, there were no "official"
- were
+ was
proof that they don't exists,
- they don't exists
+ these problems don't exist
> while the "attacking' side had figures to support their points (in many cases made up, but what counted was the name put under the document, not its contents) from various sources.
Do we want to make this so confrontational?
How about:
+ or that the figures used were inaccurate or misapplied
?
>
> Why this site?
>
> As the attacks mentioned above started to happen more and more often, the Linux community felt that there is a need to counter the attacks by providing truthful facts to prove the FUD spread by the "attackers" is nothing but a FUD.
>
> We plan, and hope, to make this site a source of valuable information for professionals, journalists, developers, users and people who don't know what Linux is about. You won't find here anything but FUD - only
!!!! "You won't find any FUD here"
But again, we should settle the aims and outlook of this project, and
the tone we are going to use...........
firm proofs countering the myths and half-truths, explanations on
features, case-studies, testimonials and interviews with individuals
that have hard-life experience with Linux and that trust their money and
welfare in this excellent product of the GNU Generation.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Grendel
> Last modified: Fri Oct 8 15:40:34 CEST 1999
http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/rationale.html
In general, a good start (and better than anything I've had time to do
yet....)
Just my tuppence worth. Flame away, one and all :-)
Andy
______________________________________________
Andrew Gormanly
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College London Tel: 020 7679 3430
Gower Street Email: a.gormanly@ucl.ac.uk
London WC1E 6BT http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/
______________________________________________
-
Fud-counter: Setting straight the facts
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web Site: http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/