WE CHOSE not to comment on that Linux.com article. This was partly because I implicitly promised Bruce not to give him much flak anymore (and yes, there’s plenty of history there). A few things ought to be noted, however.
The bias of the article aside**, comments attached to the article contain a good deal of libel. Some comments in fact deserve no attention for containing outright lies. Without delving into specifics, it’s worth bearing in mind that a balanced rebuttal could be published here, but it might be viewed as disrespectful towards a few people, including authors of libelous comments. The last comment on the article might be worth a glance though. It summarises a key point using substantiated examples.
“The article bothered never to explain what was wrong with this treasonous deal.”The most unfortunate thing is that the article said almost nothing about the Novell/Microsoft deal. The article bothered never to explain what was wrong with this treasonous deal. It did not strive to educate the reader. Instead, it escaped to some sidal issues like a single published sentence that was taken out of context and described as an “attack”, despite being a polite observation.
Anyway, it’s not worth beating the bushes over this. Let’s carry on. The site’s traffic exceeded 100 gigabytes this month and we continue to grow at a steady pace (each month for the past 12 months showed a climb in page views). Most readers are too shy to comment under the heading “Boycott Novell”, which is a name that Shane chose. Even if you choose to lurk (i.e. remain invisible), your passive participation is greatly appreciated because without readership, there would be no desire to explore and to write. █
**ITWire published a rebuttal, which is totally uncalled for and independent from us.