[LWN Logo]
[LWN.net]

Sections:
 Main page
 Linux in the news
 Security
 Kernel
 Distributions
 Development
 Commerce
 Announcements
 Back page
All in one big page

See also: last week's Back page page.

Linux links of the week


The last dinosaur and the tarpits of doom is a story about "How Linux smashed Windows." This story makes an interesting read; have a look if you've not yet checked it out.

The Red Hat Contrib|Net site has come a long way in recent times. It is now a pleasant and useful interface to Red Hat's contrib area, though it does seem that one has to click through a few too many layers to actually get to the software.


January 21, 1999

   

 

Letters to the editor


Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
 
   
From: Jonathan Maddox <maddoxj@sg.adisys.com.au>
To: "'editor@lwn.net'" <editor@lwn.net>
Subject: Creative Labs, OSS and Fairfax article.
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:56:45 +1100

It appears that the Fairfax IT columnist has made a bit of a
mistake.  Where the Creative Labs linux-kernel post mentions
'OSS', it doesn't mean "open-source software" (AFAIK, the
abbreviation OSS first turned up in the Halloween memos) but
the Open Sound System, the sound API used by the original
Linux sound driver (written by Hannu Savolainen), and also
for several other Unixes since Hannu went commercial
(http://www.4front-tech.com)

There are only 17576 three-letter acronyms.  It's hardly surprising
that some of them become overloaded, even in the same context.

It seems that Creative needs to hire a Linux developer for
exactly the opposite reason that Fairfax IT suggests.  If there
were no problem releasing programming specs, then the booming
Linux business world (aka Alan Cox, financially supported by
Red Hat) would write drivers for Creative Labs' new cards as a
matter of course, at no charge to Creative.  The SoundBlaster
range has *always* been the best-supported sound hardware under
Linux.  Hiring a full-time developer gives Creative Labs three
things:  the ability to develop drivers under Linux right from
the start (probably easier than doing it for Windows if Halloween
II is anything to go by) and avoid the wait between product
release and Linux support;  the ability to include linux installation
instructions in the packaging (which hasn't ever been necessary before,
it's an image thing);  and the option in the future of releasing
drivers which aren't GPLed, saving them from releasing low-level
hardware details.

Jonathan
   
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:38:10 -0600
From: "Moderate your conflict circuits, Maximals" <robotech@eyrie.org>
To: editor@lwn.net
Subject: FUD for thought

I would like to make just a couple of points regarding this whole FUD
debate, from a point of view I have not yet seen here.

I think that the term FUD should _never_ be used, for two reasons.

The first is, whether it is "correct" or not to call a particular
criticism of Linux FUD, the useage of the term can be sorely
misleading.

FUD is a term I'd never heard before the Halloween Documents, and
since that time hardly a day has gone by when I _haven't_ seen it used
somewhere.  At first I was kind of amused, then a bit beFUDdled :),
and it soon passed into annoyance.  Let's face it; FUD has become a
buzzword of the first water, not unlike "information superhighway"
(which isn't used as much anymore as it used to be, thank God).  The
meaning is murky at best, and at worst, it's simply another piece of
mud to fling at someone who says something you don't like.

Consider...what does FUD really mean?  The acronym expands to "Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt."  Is FUD, then, any statement that can cause
one to feel fear, uncertainty, or doubt about something?

If I said (and we'll assume for the following examples that everything
I say is the truth as I know it), "Operating System A's disk
compression system fried my hard drive" or "Operating System B is too
hard to install--I couldn't figure it out," is that FUD?

If I gather information for a nonbiased article that happens to
mention "Some users have found that OS A's disk compression system has
caused them to lose data" or "Some users have found OS B too hard to
install," is that FUD?

If I take a neutral poll (yes, I know...consider it a theoretical
concept, like the square root of -1 :) and report "8% of users report
OS A's disk compression system caused data loss" and "12% of users
found OS B too difficult to install" (to pull a couple of numbers
completely out of my hat), is _that_ FUD?

If so, why?  If not, why not?

Whenever I've seen the term "FUD" used, the definition by context has
invariably been "specifically, that F, U, & D disseminated by
someone with an agenda, hidden or otherwise, in direct opposition to
the object of said F, U, & D."

How can you _honestly_ determine whether someone has an agenda, and if
so, what it is?  Unless you know for sure (and I'll grant, in some
cases (such as Microsoft) you _can_ be pretty sure...but not too
many), it's just name-calling--and everyone else who reads it knows
it.

And secondly, the way everyone's flinging "FUD" around, you'd think it
was just invented by Microsoft the other day.  It wasn't.  People have
been using fear, uncertainty, and doubt tactics in commerce, in
politics, and in many other venues, probably for as long as man has
been a rational being.  It's one of the major tactics of persuasion
that we have--anyone who's ever taken a college course in persuasion
or public speaking should know that.  "Antacid X starts neutralizing
acid immediately, but Acid-Preventative Y takes at least an hour to
work!"  "If John Smith is elected, this city/district/state/nation
will be driven into the ground!"  And then there's the story of the
two butcher shops in London, one of which put up a big sign in its
window that said "THE QUEEN BUYS HER MEAT HERE!" and the other a sign
that said "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!"

If you're going to imply that Microsoft, or anyone else, is evil for
using the dreaded FUD tactics, you're going to have to broaden that to
include everyone else who uses those tactics too.  Advertising,
marketing, politics...well, not that they _aren't_ evil, but you
should at least be aware of it.
-- 
Chris Meadows aka  | Co-moderator, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
Robotech_Master    | Homepage: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/>
robotech@eyrie.org | PGP: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/rm.key.txt>   
robotech@jurai.net | ICQ UIN: 5477383 
   
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:09:31 -0500
From: Peter Leif Rasmussen <plr@isgtec.com>
To: "Moderate your conflict circuits, Maximals" <robotech@eyrie.org>
Subject: Re: FUD for thought

Very well said, point taken!

I agree to that "FUD" is very broad and perhaps too broad for some to
use as an argument in a discussion.

The way I have learned to use it, though, isn't to try to find out
what exactly was a fear, an uncertainty or what was doubtful in a
statement, but to detect when someone is trying to support an opinion
with smoke-and-mirrors.

Remember, the Linux world is [mostly] technical so if someone has fear
about something breaking they can ask about it in a straightforward
way and expect to get an answer in a similar way. The same goes to
uncertainty and doubt, so those situations aren't really high-profile
problems, but usual and everyday problems.

The reason some mudslinging becomes necessary is when someone without
a constructive agenda appears on the scene and someone has to make
everyone pay attention.

So, in my opinion the statement "this is FUD" usually tells me that
the person saying so thinks that there is something murky, unprecise
or a hidden agenda in an article or whatever, ie. "FUD" has become a
buzzword (or "keyword") where everyone sort of know what is going on
and at least have an idea of the direction.

Ergo, I can't explain to you when something is or isn't FUD, because
it will depend on the pre-opinion of the holder.

However, if the appearance of the acronym has meant that people
elsewhere
(sales, politics, religion, etc.) realizes that there is more to what 
people tell them, then I think that is great.

Thanks,

Peter

   
From: <mhammel@telecom.sna.samsung.com>
Subject: re: FUD and Linux press
To: editor@lwn.net
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:01:08 -0600 (CST)

Peter Rasmussen wrote:

   Following various mailing lists, eg. on vger.rutgers.edu, you will
   see plenty of criticism, so the Linux community doesn't think Linux
   is perfect.

A valid argument, except that most of the rest of world doesn't follow
those lists.  They follow the path of least resistance (ie whats the
easiest thing to get to) and read things like Slashdot, LWN, and Linux
Today.  They get to these through more mainstream press like
LinuxWorld (which you'll note has no links to any mailing lists -
except for archives of c.o.l.a, which is editorial free anyway).
Additionally, mailing lists are not news sources per se.  People don't
go there just to hear what is going on in the Linux world.

I have to agree with Barry's original point: much criticism of Linux
is referred to as "FUD" by the Linux community's online news sources.
In a few cases the original articles were simply written by those who
had no interest in using Linux, much like I have no interest in using
Microsoft products.  This isn't "FUD" - its personal choice and a
valid point of view.  I consider it unprofessional to refer to
dissenting opinions as "FUD" and will not make such references in my
column, The Graphics Muse.  If we want to be taken seriously we - the
Linux press - have to act as if we'll take the competition, or
detractors, seriously as well.

Rebuttal by example to show where the original article is in error is
fine, but name calling is just not acceptable.  "FUD" may stand for
"fear, uncertainty and doubt" but in its acronymal form it has become
a derogatory expression.  It should no longer be used by the Linux
press.  The Linux world is one of high quality and support.  There is
no reason the Linux press should not be the same.

As to LWN not tolerating alternative viewpoints, I'd say that isn't
really true.  They do post critical opinions in their Letters to the
Editor section.  But they also occassionally refer to articles which
attack Linux as "FUD".  And I don't agree with that.  LWN is a good
and vital source of Linux information and should strive to avoid the
use of such terms.

Michael J. Hammel
The Graphics Muse
mjhammel@graphics-muse.org
http://www.graphics-muse.org
   
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:31:53 +0900 (JST)
From: David Moles <deivu@tomigaya.shibuya.tokyo.jp>
To: editor@lwn.net
Subject: corel netwinder

I'm not sure this is as much a letter to the editor as it is
a cry for help. :) But --

The Netwinder looks like a great box. The form factor alone
probably makes it worth the money -- since what I do doesn't
require much floating-point. And for software development, it's
always nice to have some non-x86 platforms floating around to
make sure your stuff doesn't have hidden dependencies.

Unfortunately, I've been trying to buy a Netwinder as an
evaluation box for my company for the last three months, and
haven't had any response from Corel after filling out every
form on their web site. (I'm in a time zone close to the date
line, so calling Ottawa isn't really an option.) If anyone
from Corel Computer is reading this, drop me a line! Or if
anyone has an email address for an individual human at Corel,
I'd appreciate that, too.

Thanks,

David Moles

P.S. Dear editor -- I don't know if this is the sort of thing
you'd put on the back page, but if not, I'd appreciate it if
you'd at least put a summary of the note somewhere where it
might be seen. Thanks.
 

 

 
Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright © 1999 Eklektix, Inc., all rights reserved
Linux ® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds