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

[D Clyde Williamson <dclydew@interhack.net>]

Tom Hull wrote:
> 
> 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/

Tom, wanna create the entry on "What Is FUD?" for the FAQ?
-
Fud-counter:  Setting straight the facts
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web Site:     http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/