[fc] FUD definition (was: Re: Proposal)

[Tom Hull <thull@sco.com>]

There seem to be two common definitions of FUD, which for purposes of
discussion here could be called:

 1) strict
 2) loose

Strict FUD is what the acronym refers to: fear/uncertainty/doubt. This
occurs when the attacker calls into question the future viability of
something. Such arguments may be somewhat valid if they are credible.
For instance, one may question whether a business that is not profitable
will be able to survive and support its product. Strict FUD is what the
author of the Halloween Document was referring to when he determined
that FUD could not work against Linux. The conclusion was that Linux
has such long term viability that any FUD assertions could not be
credible.

I'm not aware of many examples of strict FUD floating around. A couple
(for illustration purposes) that do pop up are:

  -- The assertion that Company X (e.g., Red Hat) intends to eventually
     co-opt Linux and convert it into a proprietary product.

  -- The assertion that Linux developers will become disgusted with
     companies that get rich based on their unpaid labors and stop
     contributing development work.

This type of nonsense is pretty easily disposed of.

However, the term FUD is also widely used in a much looser sense, which
seems to be: misinformation intended to undermine trust or faith in a
competitor's product. (In order to be meaningful at all, FUD cannot
mean any misinformation, since most misinformation is innocently based
in ignorance. This is probably just as true of marketing departments as
anyplace else, except that ignorance tends to become concentrated in
marketing departments.)

Marek Habersack wrote:
> 
> * Rik van Riel said:
> > 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.
> We should explain the acronym, the technique and in an veiled way imply that
> it's being used by Microsoft. But no direct charges.
> 
> marek

-- 
/*
 * Tom Hull -- thull@kscable.com, thull@sco.com, thull@ocston.org
 *             http://www.ocston.org/~thull
 */
-
Fud-counter:  Setting straight the facts
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web Site:     http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/