Summary: Syndromes of taboo (forbidden subjects) and the impact of talking about particular truths
OUR reader "The Mad Hatter" has written
this post which highlights Microsoft's role in ruining the Internet for everyone.
One in two Windows PCs is said to be a zombie and the consequences are obvious.
Barry tweeted a Newsweek article titled The Evil (Cyber) Empire - Inside the world of Russian hackers. What the article doesn't mention (possibly because Microsoft is a Newsweek advertiser) is that what holds the 'Russian Business Network' together is a vast botnet consisting of millions of compromised computers running the Microsoft Windows Operating System.
That's right. Windows. Not OSX. Not Linux. Only Windows.
But
it's never Microsoft's fault. Those who blame Microsoft should go see a doctor. [sarcasm to be noted here]
Jokingly, the above person calls his blog "Cranky Old Nutcase". We previously explained how those who criticise tend to be portrayed as angry/grumpy and thus irrational [
1,
2,
3,
4].
Some readers may already be familiar with TechDirt, which is a site that antagonises abuse in the areas of copyrights, patents, and journalism. It usually tackles Internet matters (mostly those relating to abundance versus scarcity in the digital age). TechDirt's lead, Mike Masnick, has just written
a special post for the new year. It is one that many critics can probably relate to. In it, Masnick explains that TechDirt (or himself) is being described as a site of hatred or anger rather than calm expression of opinion.
Last year, for our final post of the year, I wrote a message On Staying Happy. It seems, at time, that people think that I am filled with anger or rage, because of all the annoying or "bad" stories that show up here all the time. Of course, for folks who know me, this is pretty funny. I'm pretty laid back and quite happy and content for the most part -- which was the point of last year's post.
One strategy for dismissing a critic is to pretend -- or sell the illusion -- that the critic is very angry and driven by hormones rather than mind. In some cases, those who wish to daemonise the critic will therefore libel, harass and make very angry this critic, striving to make him/her say things out of temporary/spontaneous bursts of emotion (retaliatory, but then conveniently pulled out of context).
There are other daemonisation tactics, such as the ones
we wrote about early in the week. We ask our readers not to pay attention where these tactics are being applied. Boycott Novell is under constant pressure for its relatively unusual views (no matter the supporting proof) and there are many sites like that
*. To damage their reputation is a cheap task, especially when there is a PR team of hundreds or thousands of staff members (
including TEs) at one's disposal. And yes, we have
already proven that Microsoft does smear this web site with its employees.
Novell employees so this too (
amongst others with vested interests).
⬆
_____
* Watch
what happened to Groklaw when it 'dared' to criticise Microsoft's precious
Mono. Some publications that we know about consciously abstain from criticising Mono and even spike stories that do so. They are afraid of publishing something truthful that would harm their reputation simply because of
Mono bullies and the likes of them. In order for truths to be voiced, the media must become less shy a lot bolder.
Ownership issues aside (corporate shareholders), it is clear that there is a problem and it must be solved for trust to be regained; as CBS broadcaster Dan Rather
put it a few years ago, American journalism “has in some ways lost its guts.”
Comments
dyfet
2010-01-01 23:11:23
David Gerard
2010-01-01 23:23:59
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-01 23:47:26
Robotron 2084
2010-01-02 12:31:25
Calling open source "fundamentally better" is definitely a matter of personal opinion, and not one supported by everyone. While Apache is top of it's class, GIMP is not. I've played some awesome commercial games. Open source games put me to sleep. I'm willing to pay for software that does what I want, the way I want. Maybe you aren't, but you can't decide that for me.
David Gerard
2010-01-02 12:59:57
There is the difference that computer programming is engineering, i.e. technology; so you can in fact get temporary advantage from hoarding techniques.
OTOH: you note GIMP, I note Firefox.
But the advantage is temporary. The history of open source over the last twenty years shows its relentlessness. Hoarded proprietary code and techniques can be bought or bankrupted; the open code and techniques pool only grows.
Microsoft's problem is this relentlessness. I can see why they view it as a cancer. They're desperately throwing up roadblocks as fast as they can to hold on to the proprietary software business as long as they can. But they know the ending is written.
David Gerard
2010-01-02 13:00:46
Robotron 2084
2010-01-02 13:31:19
Open Source is simply one method for producing software, but it certainly isn't the best in all cases. More to the point, commercial software will always exist and it's not going away. There will always be a market for software to be created by someone and always be people willing to pay to use it. FOSS, as great as you think it is, is still playing on the same economic play-field as everyone else. We just have a vastly different view of the scoreboard.
One might argue that views such as yours ultimately harm consumers. The demise of either of these methods means less choice for others.
David Gerard
2010-01-02 14:06:51
The economic model for commercial software is clear: Red Hat is profitable at commercial software, Microsoft has turned a $40 billion cash mountain into debt.
Commerciality, of course, is a completely different consideration to whether it's free software or not. Take care not to conflate the two - there's a bit of a correlation, but they're *different things*.
your_friend
2010-01-03 03:01:47
Only free software allows you to make software do exactly what you want. You can do this yourself of pay someone else to do it. Non free software may only be changed by its owners. Many owners, such as Microsoft, are openly hostile to their users wants and needs as they seek to meet the needs of other stakeholders such as investors and publishers. Free software exists only to meet the needs of users and generally does a better job.
Robotron 2084
2010-01-03 13:40:09
Of course, anyone can hire a programmer to modify existing code or crate a new program from scratch. Assuming the average person even knows how to go about doing this, it's still going to be more expensive to hire a private programmer than to simply go out and purchase existing software. Rest assured, this simple economic truth will likely remain valid for the rest of human civilization as we know it.
Think of how it is for me in China. I want some ground beef, but it's more expensive for me to hire my own private butcher to make some rather than buy a half kilo at my local Wu Mart (Wu, not Wal). Either way, I have choices, and I choose the option that costs me less. Sometimes it's cheaper to have things done for you rather than do them yourself. Particularly if you don't have the expertise to do them yourself.
You can try this yourself. Just find your favorite programmer and hand them the source code for GIMP. Tell them you want it to have the same functionality and layout as Photoshop CS3 but you only want to pay less than $500. Not going to happen.
Your "solution" doesn't fit the needs and budget of everyone, that's why commercial software exists now and always will.
Robotron 2084
2010-01-03 13:49:53
For the record, I've been arguing for the entire spectrum of commercial software. Have you? Or are you too busy focusing your sights on the "evil" companies?
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-03 07:30:02
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-03 22:20:42
David Gerard
2010-01-01 21:25:13
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-01 22:10:48
David Gerard
2010-01-01 23:21:20
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-01 23:45:24
your_friend
2010-01-03 21:28:32
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-03 22:19:13
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-02 08:46:12
David Gerard
2010-01-02 13:02:30
Robotron 2084
2010-01-02 13:08:36
A person who wishes to be fair and objective (perhaps a journalist) will try to get as many different estimates from as many different sources as possible. Others will simply find the highest or lowest number they can find and run with it.
All this reminds me very much of the recent climate change emails that were uncovered showing deceptive tactics used by some researchers. There are some who believe a certain "truth" and are actually willing to use lies to garner support for that belief. To me, this description fits Roy to a tee. His dislike for Microsoft and his work on this website have completely obliterated any credibility he has with anyone who doesn't already believe in his on-line crusade.
David Gerard
2010-01-02 14:13:33
Yes, me too - people who don't understand the science and aggressively ignore the evidence seizing on something, anything, that they think shores up their position even when it doesn't, and shouting "I WIN! SEE? SEE?" even as the emails don't say anything like what they claim, and even as the Arctic continues to de-ice and polar bears drown.
So too the relentless advance of open source, supplying solid engineering product for highly profitable commercial companies as IBM and Red Hat, while Microsoft turns a cash mountain into a debt hole - all the while claiming its invention of the botnet isn't culpable gross negligence.
satipera
2010-01-02 16:42:36
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-02 17:02:52
David Gerard
2010-01-02 17:41:15
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-02 18:23:11
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-03 04:05:10
your_friend
2010-01-03 06:50:42
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-06 03:05:06
Robotron 2084
2010-01-03 13:23:18
satipera
2010-01-02 19:16:02
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-02 19:20:12
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/12/23/loss-of-control-of-windows-pcs/
satipera
2010-01-02 23:40:09
All I am saying is that this is a fair point and a fuller range of estimates as to infection rates would have been less open to the obvious criticism that was made. It does not mean I have had a funny turn and have come out fighting for Redmond or that David's general point about infected machines was not a strong one.
I realise that the constant bombardment from the forces of darkness can engender a defensive posture, but we should be confident enough to acknowledge reasonable points and refute the others knowing that the general case against Redmond is built on firm foundations. Not to do so, especially on trivial matters such as this one could turn the floating voters away.
David Gerard
2010-01-02 23:44:43
But you are quite correct in general. Open source is science, not alchemy. Code talks, BS walks. The facts are enough and the march of science is relentless, because the technology it engenders is unstoppably self-improving.
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-02 23:54:43
Indeed. Notice that among my links I include estimates from Vint Cerf.
your_friend
2010-01-03 02:50:09
satipera
2010-01-03 09:57:33
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that "wiggle room" was valid or reasonable. I said that the one set of stats quoted by David was open to easy attack and that others should have been used in addition. To rephrase what I said before... This would make it more difficult to dismiss the figures. It has proved difficult even though I agree with 99% of Davids post to discuss a minor part of it without people quoting the obvious points from the 99% that I accept anyway. Less friendly fire please.
your_friend
2010-01-03 20:56:57
your_friend
2010-01-03 21:25:28
Don't take this debunking personally, it is a reflection of the overall dishonest tone Microsoft sets. I'm not willing to dismiss any statistics from a company based on the opinion of Robotron or Windows TEs. They are liars who always promise "the most secure OS ever."
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-06 03:18:19
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-06 03:52:09
your_friend
2010-01-07 06:21:29
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-07 07:08:24
your_friend
2010-01-07 16:49:10
Yuhong Bao
2010-01-08 03:03:57
Roy Schestowitz
2010-01-03 22:18:10