Dear Steven and Peter,

I will admit that I'm slightly concerned that you guys have apparently played "good cop, bad cop" recently. We've rebutted the latest example here, but had your original article been published properly (i.e. not with a 'correction' coming a week later), then none of this would be necessary. Additionally, damage to Linux would not be done so unfairly.

"...please get rid of those anti-Linux ads in eWeek, by the way, because they send mixed messages in Linux journalism."This is not the first time that only hours apart, Steven and Peter 'drop a bomb' and then unleash an excuse/rebuttal to 'extinguish the flames of explosion' (or at best 'diffuse the bomb'). I have many examples in mind, but I won't list them. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems like a John Dvorak maneuver split into two roles (and two people) with hopes of boosting traffic and ad revenue. Oh, and please get rid of those anti-Linux ads in eWeek, by the way, because they send mixed messages in Linux journalism.

In case you wonder about the "John Dvorak maneuver" bit, here is a video that explains it. Yes, John admits that he trolls, and this isn't the first time he admits this either.



To put it simply and bluntly, this is irresponsible and juvenile. The damage has been done.

Next time, look out for people who balance the arguments before publishing the words of a Microsoft pal who uses selective figures, from a 'study' that was probably sponsored by Microsoft (without disclosure, as usual). Otherwise, you become part of the Microsoft FUD pipeline and that's not journalism. Peter's headline was moreover very deceiving because it grossly generalised an observation and incorporated no balance, which the body of the articles totally lacked anyway.

These are just my 50 cents and I hope you don't mind constructive feedback.