Linux Advocacy Hurts 189
sundae writes "For those who are into Linux advocacy,
check
this little piece from WinInfo before you
pointlessly brand any critizism as FUD, then attack the
author and everything else related. This article criticize the
way many pro-Linux sites, such as /., only whine about how
the Mindcraft study was funded by Microsoft and ignored the
fact that the study actually *did* happen. "
My opinion is that the Mindcraft study is completely invalidated
by using an optimized Windows box and a vanilla Linux box. Its
that simple. I'm kinda bummed that this article fails to
mention this, instead implying that the Mindcraft test
was reasonable. But don't miss the point- we're our own
worst enemy. I got CC'd on a lot of criticism of
this report, some of you guys did an excellent job
of fairly ripping the report to shreads. Others... well...
didn't.
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
Well, how did you know of this?
Were you there when the perform the tests?
I have been seeing so many similar arguments like yours. But strangely enough I have never seen any proof. I would be ridiculous to accuse other people spreading FUD if you are trying to give points that are not accompanied by evidences.
Don't take me wrong, I am not a con-Linux guy. I am just a person who believes in facts more than words.
take your own advice (Score:1)
Just another crybaby "journalist" (Score:1)
I think you're missing something. Slashdot (among others) does not have to _set out_ to make itself the "official voice of the Linux community". Perception creates its own reality. As long as this remains one of the more vocal and _visible_ forums for open source advocacy, people will _see_ it as the voice of the community.
We may be in on the joke, and just scream at each other to let off some steam from time to time, but there are people who watch us doing that and take it very seriously. They see a bunch of rabid monkeys trashing microsoft whenever they can, and think "Oh, this must be what the linux freaks are all saying."
We may know better, but as long as we gab loudly and visibly, people are going to see the flamage on slashdot as representative of the community as a whole. Blowing them off for not "getting it" isn't going to help any.
-D
dcross@cryogen.com
Sort of makes me sick... (Score:1)
Basically, its hard to tell people how to spend their money. They'd believe a study over you any day. And even at that, they dont understand the technical aspect of it. So you sort of have to "Make the system work for you" to get anything done.
I try to squeeze Linux in on some of my clients machines, but its hard. Either they havent heard of it, or they heard of it, but heard it was a geek toy. However, I can usually manage to make it a web server, or a gateway/router. It does a pretty good job at that.
One thing I will admit tho, is that the Linux community is a FUD "Target". This is mostly because its 1) small 2) community run/owned 3) no major corperate backing. Its going to happen, to matter what. Linux had a ton of REALLY good press, and I mean REALLY good press. Now the bad press comes, and I think its important how we handle it, we shoudl take it into consideration. If an article says "Linux is unstable" we know its stable, we shoudlnt get worked up about it, but if sometime down the road, we find a case where it isnt that stable, we should bring it to th attension of the kernel/software team to get it fixed.
Its one thing to Bitch, and its another thing to do. We're not "helpless" in this struggle against Microsoft. We can make it work.
Linux Enterprise Info (Score:1)
It is currently in revision 0.01
It is also mostly a skeleton, but off to a good (in my opinion) start. Hardware is halfway there - only 8 or so other sections to go..
Send submissions, proof diff/patches, comments, etc to betty@area51.upsu.plym.ac.uk
The page can be found at
area51.upsu.plym.ac.uk/~betty/Linux Enterprise [plym.ac.uk]
Mirror will soon be at http://stacy.flwireless.net when it goes back up again.
Aaron (TheJackal/TeeJay)
It's The Methodology, Stupid (Score:1)
> study was funded by Microsoft and ignored the fact that the study actually
> *did* happen.
How typically Win-Clueless.
The problem was not that the "study" was done. Nor was the problem that
Linux "lost." Nor was the problem that the "study" was funded by
Microsoft.
The problem was that the "study" was *seriously* flawed.
Assorted Quotes (Score:1)
I'm not saying that optimizing one system and not the other makes for a fair comparison, it doesn't. However, there does appear to be a need for tests on this type of system. I doubt the hardware manufacturers are going to want to run the tests, because they don't want to anger Microsoft or the Linux community. It's awfull hard to find an anyone who's unbiased, and can come up with not only the expensive server, but enough clients to run a valid test. Maybe there's some university with some grant money sitting around, and some cheap grad student labor.
I guess in my opinion the fact that MS sponsored the test doesn't invalidate the results, as long as the conditions under which it was tested are published. It's the configuration of the Linux system in this case that invalidates the test.
If nothing else, the fact that tuning info wasn't readily available was useful to find out. I also think that if Red Hat wants to make their money from selling support for Linux they ought to be able to fine tune Apache on a Linux server.
Of reporting in the real world (Score:1)
This is in reference to your article "Of Linux advocacy in the real world".
I would have liked to have read your article which you referred to, but I was unable to locate it on the web site. (Most sites have a link to a list of columnist articles. A search using your last name did not return any articles obviously on Linux.)
In your article "Of Linux advocacy in the real world" you said, "..., I was simply reporting on this phenomenon, not endorsing it." What many reporters seem to be ignorant of (and should know better) is that the events you choose to report on IS what makes them news.
If no one had reported on this NT vs. Linux test, would it have been news?
I remember the anti-war protests at San Francisco State University in the late '60s. The protests would be peaceful all day until the TV news crews arrived in the late afternoon. Once the cameras were set up the protesters would start throwing things. The police would then move in and arrest (and beat) some of the protesters. Once the ameras had their six o'clock footage they'd pack up. When the cameras were gone the protesters would leave until the next day when the whole thing was repeated.
So the question is, if the reporters hadn't showed up, would there have been any news?
This is an extreme case and I'm not accusing you of trying to invent news, but your choice of what you report on is important and has an impact on the community. >
When I read an article like yours I ask myself,
- Did the author tell me things I didn't already know?
- Did the author answer questions I had about the subject?
- Did the author provide insight into the issuers that I had missed?
- Did the author report on both sides of an issue with equal objectivity?
- Did the author have a well reasoned opinion or just trying to make a deadline?
In your article you said, "Those hardware setups are pretty standard, aren't they?" I don't know. You could have clarified the issue if you had investigated this and reported it. (This seems to be where to controversy is.)I'm surprise that you felt it necessary to hit back at the Linux zealots, "..., the Linux community wears that championship belt of crazed advocacy." Each OS has its religious zealots, even Windows. You just hit a nerve of one group. You could get the same deluge from the Windows side, I think. At least people are reading your articles.
You, yourself have said that you lean toward Windows when you said, "I assume you feel pretty strongly about Windows. I do." Personally, my admiration for Windows is fading. I now use NT and MS Word at work, but I am sick of the marginally compatible Word upgrades and the less-than-stable NT operation. I hope Linux does become a viable competitor and I hope you are right when you said, "I think it's important to understand that this OS is, indeed, a real threat to Windows, both on the server and the desktop." (Although I think I would have said "healthy competitor" and not the religiously threatened "threat".)
News Flash: I took one more look and located your article, "OS survey: Linux not ready, tests show NT outperforms it." After reading it I find it unbalanced and highly biased, mostly for what it doesn't say.
Your protestations that, "I'm not criticizing Linux, so put that poison email down for a second. In case you're missing the point here, I've actually been using Linux since the fall of 1995." are certainly not discernible from the OS survey article. I'm not a Linux fan, yet, but I do want to read articles that present both sides of the picture. You just collected a bunch of data anti Linux data, provided no analysis or insight.
You ARE the media. You help MAKE this news. You do not meet my standards for objectivity. If I read your articles again, I will have to keep this in mind.
I present this with the hope it will encourage you to be more objective.
Best regards,
Rob:-]
Just another crybaby "journalist" (Score:1)
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
Well, how did you know of this?
Were you there when the perform the tests?
The Mindcruft report does a pretty good job of explaining what they did and didn't do, although it implies that they posted requests for help from one end of Usenet to the other and received no responses. Their request for help was vague and not really very helpful. The only response said as much and advised the poster that their hardware was overkill. Experts on SAMBA, Apache and Linux administration have posted well substantiated critiques of the tests with specifics, if you search previous ./ articles on this subject you'll find links to most of them.
The problem with the Mindcraft tests is that they didn't do their homework--this is clear. IMO, the best way to refute these test results would be for Mindcraft to take all the free advice they've received and run the them again, but I somehow doubt that will happen. Second best would be for VAR, Red Hat or some other Linux vendor to duplicate the tests and do everything the correct way, giving NT and Linux both the benefit of the best possible optimizations.
FWIW, what chaps my hide about the Mindcraft tests is that they didn't make it clear that they had no Linux experience and implied that the Usenet and Red Hat refused to help. Real world benchmarks aside, I've used Windows and I've used Linux--I know which one is expensive, hell to install, crashes constantly and is a pain to use. I have a strong suspicion that had Mindcraft done their homework, their test results would never have seen the light of day in the first place.
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
Putting it in inetd allows the use of tcpd.
It seems clear from the Apache docs that inted is sub-optimal and no longer supported:
From the Apache docs:
Invoking Apache On Unix, the httpd program is usually run as a daemon which executes continuously, handling requests. It is possible to invoke Apache by the Internet daemon inetd each time a connection to the HTTP service is made (use the [1]ServerType directive) but this is not recommended.
Also:
ServerType inetd has been deprecated. It still exists, but bugs are unlikely to be fixed.
Most importantly:
Inetd is the lesser used of the two options. For each http connection received, a new copy of the server is started from scratch; after the connection is complete, this program exits. There is a high price to pay per connection, but for security reasons, some admins prefer this option. Inetd mode is no longer recommended and does not always work properly. Avoid it if at all possible.
MY MISTAKE! (Score:1)
Benchmarking is hard... (Score:1)
The only way I can see to do it is a group effort via user groups and Linux vendors. I cannot think what form that effort would take, though.
-- Eric
Not Microsoft (Score:1)
As a former Amiga developer I could go on, but it disgusts me too much to think about it. Let's just say that through most of the Amiga's lifetime, it faced no real technical challenge from MS-DOS or MacOS. The basic problem was one of marketing -- Commodore was handed a graphics workstation on a silver platter, and all they knew how to do was sell game machines. And they weren't too good even at that.
Where is the REAL answer to Mindcraft? (Score:2)
Flames and Facts are not mutually exclusive. (Score:1)
I think those of you who are arguing for "facts instead of flames" need to remember that. If something sucks as much as Windows does, the only way to avoid flaming is to lie about it and not point out its shortcomings.
I like this. - futher ideas for the contest: (Score:1)
Both teams start the contest with a *BARE* machine with a totally wiped unformatted hard drive, no OS installed on it. Ask each team (ahead of time so you can be ready) which off-the-shelf incarnation of their OS they will want to install. Obtain it for them, and hand it to them at the start of the contest. This ensures the requirement that they use a 'consumer' version and not a 'cooked' version for the test, as per the advice of the previous poster. Give each team lots of time to get ready (4-5 hours, since they will have to install the OS and everything from scratch.) Also, to be fair, make sure both teams know ahead of time what hardware the two computers will have, so they can come prepared for any driver problems.
Also, tell them what kind of things you will be testing. It would be unfair if one team tuned for large numbers of small queries, and then the other team tuned for small numbers of large queries, and then only one or the other kind of case gets tested.
Distributed Statistical Benchmarking (Score:1)
Just because a report or book is published does not mean that it is valid. For instance, The Bell Curve, a book justifying the existence of races based on IQ score differences between Asians, Whites, and Blacks, has been criticized for ignoring environmental factors involved with IQ testing. This book, although published, is not considered scientifically sound.
What this demonstrates is that just because something exists does not make it dogma. We may worry because someone might read it and not the criticism, but each and every study should be examined for bias and flaws.
In general, what studies and benchmarks consistently show is that there is no such thing as a consistent benchmark. Someone should just conclude that YMMV by summarizing several benchmarks conducted by several people, without interaction between each team.
Along this line of thought, perhaps someone should start a statistical distributed benchmark system whereby different people can test different machines on different setups and get different results. Then compile them into a nice curve.
-Ben
Bah! who cares? (Score:1)
I find xBSD is better. I will not install Windows
ever again. All the FUD and flaming in the world
is not going to change my mind. Cry and whine all
you want about Linux zealots beating you up. I
don't care. I'm still using Linux.
It's not like OS/2 or the Amiga. (Score:1)
You may not care about commercial success or world domination or defeating Microsoft or whatever the trendy goal of the moment is, but the simple fact that more users is better remains. A bigger user base means more testing, more software, more support, and a generally better system.
Rabid advocates may never be able to drive everyone away and completely kill Linux, but they can certainly drive away enough people to damage it. Remember, every potential user driven away is a potential contributor lost.
It's not like OS/2 or the Amiga. (Score:1)
Much of the negative effect of flaming is probably indirect -- people don't go away just because there are flames, but because the flames can drown out the more civil discussions. For example, I know a lot of people who either don't read Slashdot anymore or don't read the comments anymore because of the number of flames and uninformed rants. These aren't clueless newbies being scared off; these are knowledgeable, intelligent people who could potentially contribute a lot being driven away because they don't want to take the effort to wade through a pile of flames to get interesting comments. I doubt that this is an isolated occurence; anywhere that you have a lot of rabid flaming you probably lose a good deal of useful content because people aren't willing to deal with the flames.
This sort of reluctance ends up hurting newbies and the community in general. When you start losing contributors, you lose the sort of help and information that new users need.
And as far as your later points about how Linux users don't get converted to Windows because Linux is so much better, I wouldn't be so sure. I know a lot of people who've used Windows, Linux, and many other Unix flavors extensively who've decided on Windows for their machines because it serves their purposes better. Better for you is not the same as better for everyone.
Advocacy Not Necessarily a Strong Suit (Score:2)
As usual, we need the obligatory link to the Linux Advocacy HOWTO [unc.edu].
This article illustrates an important point--that overeager advoactes do more harm than good. Regardless of some people's ideas of the strengthening nature of flames, well-reasoned, well-presented arguments go farther in winning someone to your side of an argument than brimstone-laden insults. The author of the article noted that he already uses Linux. If he wasn't already familiar with the OS, I doubt that he would have bothered to try it after the torrent of flames he got.
I've seen a couple of comments pointing out that Slashdot does not represent the Linux community as a whole. Slashdot does, however, have a huge readership that is markedly pro-Linux. Even a small percentage of that readership flaming an author can generate enough vitriol to turn someone off to Linux, thinking that it's an OS used by people of an immature bent. (Yes, I'm struggling to avoid "pimply-faced 13-year-old" stereotypes.)
Please, people, try to avoid knee-jerk reactions, and work on refraining from flaming people just because you don't agree with them. If toey're wrong, there ought to be solid facts that can be quoted in your defense, and, if you are not in posession of those facts, go look for them before posting.
--Phil (Paraphrasing a little: "If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say it.")
Even better Idea? (Score:1)
The Scientific community doesn't believe anything until that happens.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Why did you... (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
NT vs Linux Paintball maybe? (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Now I'm *MAD* (Score:3)
When Mindcraft reported that the reason they didn't tune the Linux box was due to lack of tuning information on our part, I was willing to help. (I don't care how they asked RedHat, any inquery into the newsgroups would have been welcome and dumped them with tons of useful information but maybe they knew that already
But now after hearing that I'm mad. There will only be satisfaction after reproducing the NT box *exactly*, installing Linux (I don't think newly coded drivers are unfair, its after all GPL's strength and selling point. Just call it "Tuning" like any company willing to spend that much money on a machine would like to do.) Anyway, install and tune linux on that box and show a marked improvement.
It will show...
1) Linux is more tunable/customizable
2) Linux is faster
and most importanlty...
3) Linux *LIVES*
I really take offence when they attack the community, let alone Linux. The community has always been the most important aspect of Linux. When I started out I was a punk-arrogant college kid who believed there was a better way than MS. When my college buddy showed me that his program code (nearly identical to mine) ran three times as fast on Linux I gave it a look.
But what kept me in was the community. The Linux community has always believed in bettering the individual user/programmer and invests knowledge and time in them. The knowledge and training I recieved from news groups (which looking back I'm embarrased at how idiotic my origional questions were, but they treated me politely and helped me out in any case) would have cost me $2,500+ in MSCE and CNE training.
Much of which Microsoft keeps out of the knowledge base to "encourage" one to get that training. Or rather they assume you've taken that training to understand what is in the knowledge base. (Yes I've used it, and its no better than deja-news in useability.)
Linux has always been interested in individual needs, from my mother (who just uses e-mail and word processing) to my brother ready to port EDA tools to Linux.
I really think its time to show that once again to the world. If anyone knows of a place working on reproducing these tests I'd love to send help, info, and if they are reputable enough even money.
The discussion on Slashdot and LWN was great now I'm ready for the slam-dunk proof.
In the movie 'Tora-Tora-Tora', after bombing Perl-Harbor the Japanese Admiral was asked why he wasn't happy after such a success. He repied someting like "I'm only afriad we have woken up a sleeping giant." I hope the community is awake now.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Why doesn't Windows advocacy hurt? (Score:1)
Because, in the alternate dimension where ZD resides (the dimension where benchmarks are never rigged and never lie) these pro-Windows flaming idiots don't exist. Instead, all we have is rational, calm dialog from intelligent Microsoft spokesmen and physcotic anti-social diatribes from the Linux lunatic fringe.
_Anyone_ who demands that _everyone_ in a group of several dozen, let alone several million, be calm and rational in all situations is living in a dream world.
There is at least one other alternative interpretation to "living in a dream world" to explain this discrepency- that certain journalists are looking for anything they can use as an excuse to advise people not to use Linux.
Oh sorry, am I flaming? Or simply calling things as I see them, and thereby saying things other people don't want me to say? It all depends upon what spin you want to put on it...
Not entirely true. (Score:1)
I did some checking on this a while back and it's true that there're not a lot of responses to this query.
There's one that told the guy to switch to FreeBSD and then there's this one [dejanews.com] from comp.os.linux.networking that kinda wondered why they're using such a souped-up box for Linux and asked if they could provide more setup information. There's no followup from will@whistlingfish after this.
If you looked at that post, you'll see that the guy was very helpful (he even gave some tips on php stuff) and he did asked for more setup info. There's no reason for anyone to write MOTS "gimme more info"-type posts. Most people would wait for more info from will and then continue from there. The fact that he didn't post anything back also suggests that it's possible he's already communicating with the helper by email.
Waaahhh! (Score:1)
Some types do hurt, but not Slashdot- ??!?!?? (Score:1)
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
For example: the MaxSpareServers that comes straight out of the source distribution is 5 and 8 for Redhat 5.2. They set it to 1 instead.
It's not as if they just installed Redhat or apache and had at it. They made an effort to slow it down.
No Threat (Score:1)
The more pointless flammages are just a necessary bit of overhead.
That's liberty with all it's warts, like it or not.
MY MISTAKE! (Score:1)
This is why the microcomputer and supercomputer OSes came into existence to begin with.
You can get a lot of mileage off of that even on the 2.0 Linux kernels.
Optimized from Linus' point of view and optimized in the WinTel point of view are likely worlds apart.
It's not the money, but it's the testing (Score:1)
That's the whole driving motivation behind free software to begin with: quality becomes the driving motivation, not marketshare, not short term profit.
Who cares.. (Score:1)
There are common API's to support various forms of programming. Infact, my Hopkin's FBI (linux) just arrived today.
While you're whining about services not being available, those with a clue are either creating those services or just plain using those 'phantom' services.
You don't need to create something that EVERYONE will accept. That's never been the point. This is not some Windows-clone. The point is to make something that WORKS.
So, the 2 desktops aren't really a problem. They follow the same core standards that really define a desktop: how it works, not just how it looks.
That's why a WINGS app can accept drop targets from an Xt or gtk app. The Xt coder has a clue and understand that it's the DnD protocol that really matters, not Xt's funky scrollbars.
So? You're a Linux coder? Take a CIS 100 course then. Perhaps they will teach you about something called abstraction.
BTW: I'm more than able to saturate my network connection under Linux while a variety of things are running (Netscape,leafnode,apache,a build of X or wine). Whereas, the wrong NT app can just plain block the rest of NT's IP stack until it's done computing with itself.
This is nothing more than Unix has been delivering since before the existence of Windows.
Beautiful. (Score:1)
I just wish some advocates HERE would realize what you said. Contributing to code and documentation does so much more than flapping one's mouth off about how all proprietary software will crumble under the Linux jihad.
Only through continual persistence and innovation will Linux prosper. This is harder than advocacy, but much more effective.
It's not like OS/2 or the Amiga. (Score:2)
You claim that "rabid advocates" cause prospective users to avoid Linux. I think this is unproven. For every user who says, "Gee, those Linux people are a bunch of nuts!" there are probably several who say, "What do those people have that's so good they can brag about it so much? They mock Windows for crashing all the time -- is their system really that much stabler? Gee, I should check it out!" This is just as likely a reaction as the one you suggest -- though in my opinion there is no proof of either.
I am quite sick of hearing people say "Stop flaming! You'll scare the newbies away!" when all around us the newbies pile in like clowns into a VW Beetle. The fact of the matter is that nobody is scaring users away from Linux. Linux-based systems' user base is expanding constantly and with increasing speed -- and it is beyond the power of half-incoherent flamers to stop this growth. I'd just like to see them try!
One of the points where Linux-based systems differ from proprietary systems is that Linux, which largely lacks marketing and advertising power, is forced to rely on a much more primitive way of proving its worth: the truth. Even the commercial distros do not have the marketing funds to pull off the kind of Big Lies that Microsoft executes. Microsoft can lie and say that their OS is stabler or faster or more secure; we can come around and prove that ours is.
The amusing thing about this method is that while it's not hard at all to convert someone from a belief in a lie to a belief in a contrary lie, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make someone who knows the truth accept a lie instead. Linux users don't get converted to Windows. It just doesn't happen. We don't need a monopoly position to force our users to stick with our OSes; our stuff actually is better.
It's not like OS/2 or the Amiga. (Score:5)
Both OS/2 and Amiga were dependent upon commercial success in order to remain useful for their users. Without commercial success, a proprietary system will fail to propagate; it will not be marketed or advertised; it will no longer be upgraded; most of its application development will cease; and, as the rest of the industry moves on as usual, it will fall behind technologically. (This last is true even if at its birth it was technologically superior to more commercially successful systems.) In short, it will not remain useful for the majority of its advocates, because they are dependent on circumstances outside their control for its viability.
Linux-based systems are not limited in this way. The vast, vast bulk of Linux's growth has not been due to commercial marketing. Because of the nature of free software, it is not dependent on any company's profit in order to keep being maintained and upgraded. Commercial success can be a benefit to Linux (though it can also be a peril -- see my post here [slashdot.org]) but commercial failure can never kill Linux.
How does this change the meaning of advocacy? In the case of a proprietary system (and this applies as strongly to the MacOS, which I favor, as to Amiga or OS/2) a significant portion of the advocate's motivation is to prevent his/her own investment in his/her favored system. This investment is not merely the amount of money the advocate has spent on software and equipment; his/her training and expertise as well as other forms of psychological investment (pride, for instance) also form important parts of it.
In psychology and sociology there is a concept known as cognitive dissonance. When a person has a large psychological investment in an idea or movement, that person does not want to see that idea disproven, or that movement fail, because it would mean that all his/her efforts and strivings for that idea or movement become worthless. The advocate's thinking is altered (not to say "blurred") by his/her interests. This is not a mental disorder; it is a part of our everyday thinking. We do not want our projects to fail because it would mean our effort has been wasted -- and so we work harder. We do not want our children to become drug addicts and criminals because it would mean that the love and care with which we have treated them has come to naught -- and so we love and care all the more, and teach all the better.
The advocate of Linux-based systems is not in this position. Linux cannot become wasted effort, because it is free. When we advocate Linux, we are doing it perhaps out of generosity (Let the rest of the world experience such a good system as I use!), perhaps out of abhorrence for lesser systems (Windows is so awful! Let's get rid of it!), or perhaps just out of desire to see our own work be more widely used (See what a good kernel patch I made!) -- but it is not out of fear that all our efforts will be wasted.
The proprietary-system advocate, on the other hand, is in a position even worse than that suggested above: Not only does s/he have to fear that his/her investments will be wasted, but because the system s/he favors is strictly under someone else's control -- that of its owner -- the advocate has very little influence over whether it succeeds or fails. The programmer of Windows applications may desire Windows to maintain its dominance on the desktop, but s/he can do little to ensure this. The Amiga users could do nothing to stop Commodore's mismanagement, and cannot guarantee that AmigaOS's present owners will do better.
Proprietary-system advocates can do three things: they can hope; they can beta-test; and they can raise a fuss. Open-system advocates can do so much more, that there's really no comparison.
Just another crybaby "journalist" (Score:1)
It's not some kind of official voice of the Linux community as this guy seems to think.
Yes, where? (Score:1)
little action.
Unless you did something yourself, saying that sounds really silly.
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
Did I misunderstand here? (Score:1)
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
Widelinks ARE a security feature.. Look it up..
I can't answer the kernel one, I have no idea why they chose what they did..
nfsd I can only guess it becouse they didn't know what they where doing.. The same reason why nfsd, mountd, and several other d's are running on 85% of the servers out there..
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
If you look at the way they've tested other OS's vs NT, you'd see that they always do stupid things like this.. I truely don't think they have anyone that is versed in the *nix way of doing things..
TCPD on a web server? (Score:1)
Where is the REAL answer to Mindcraft? (Score:2)
Take for example the web server benchmarks. No Linux sysadmin is stupid enough (I hope) to just go by static HTML results - the key to benchmarking results is to see results for dynamic page implementations, since they are where your server slows down. For some benchmarking started in that area, see http://perl.apache.org, where we started to benchmark mod_perl vs ASP vs CGI and some other stuff. Of course these tests need more work too.
Matt.
Just want to comment on that Amiga crack ;-) (Score:1)
And then I got into OS/2. I guess some people never learn.
My response to Paul's article (Score:1)
---------------------------------------
Hello Paul,
First let me point out you're right.... the studie should be received with more technical responses than most
Of course i can understand your critisism but any critic does more studie. There were in fact very well written responses with adequate technical foundation. Maybe you should consider to create a
Hope you did not receive to much hate mail by the way...
Most of us Linux users and true advocates will never use the language used at slashdot. We just shrug and write the responses that should be written... but unfortunatly they get flooded by the badmouthed kiddies.....
Succes at Wugnet.... if you are happy with Microsofts products just use them as you always did.. if not give Linux a try or BSD or OS/2 or BEos. That's what most of us are about.... the possibility to choose the OS we want... so why deprive you of yours?
Grtx,
-------------------------
Cya at
Diabolical
My response to Paul's article (Score:1)
Mindcraft did try, Linux users ignored it.... (Score:1)
They reported that they were seeing abnormal results with their Apache web server and were asking for help.
They received only *ONE* reply on the newsgroup, and that was a suggestion that they install FreeBSD because Linux performance sucks especially on an SMP system.
I must say I'm amazed at how much whining I've seen from the Linux users regarding this survey.
Well actually... (Score:1)
The way the free market operates in this country, the product which has the largest number of people purchasing it is the best product.
The thing is, the definition of best product includes everything from performance, quality, price, ease of use, etc. etc. etc.
You are defining "best" by a few specific criteria, which are only a small subset of what is used by consumers in the free market.
Is a Honda better than a Rolls Royce?
Try to answer that question by telling me which one you would buy.
are we are our worst enemy? (Score:1)
The author of the article starts out painting himself as diverse and unbiased. Then he turns on his fudblaster. This is what we will see while the 2000 series of products is being hyped from its vaporware stage to it being shipped out the door.
let's face facts (Score:1)
You have a point. Compare that free software does this by cranking up the compilers and introducing a new version of the code versus an evil software company might do this first through its marketing department and many arms of its PR firms.
When the code is freely distributed and not horded, someone is bound to find a better way for immediate release. A bloated and slow moving dinasour might find it just easier to step on the competition rather than try to improve upon it.
Of advocacy and exculsive clubs. (Score:1)
How many of you remember your first days on IRC, or the first time you tried to set up your machine and asked for help on usenet. I'm sure that while you had the title 'newbie' you got a few helpful comments, and some great insights, but you also got flamed for being 'stupid' by all the kids that thought they were better than you. You were told 'RTFM' and 'Read the FAQ, idiot.'
And how do most linux users see windows users? As tech-less wonders, that's how. "Sure, he might be a brain surgeon, but he can't even compile a kernel!"
This is the problem. A group of people found validation and a heightened sense of self-worth because they had more technical knowledge then you did. Now, you're accepted and looked up to by that same group.
So what does the Linux crowd shout when we hear windows users knocking at the door? Well, the loudest cries (and easiest to remember) are the insults, the stupid one-line dismissive responses. Sure, there are lots of balanced opinions, but who remembers those? and how many of those are held by outspoken people?
You can't stop this mindless chatter, anymore than you can get a group of schoolchildren to stop teasing each other. And removing the schoolchildren will stunt the growth of the community. All we can do is help balance it out by presenting well thought out viewpoints and arguments in a sane, rational manner, to try and drown out the people who say 'winbloz sux, and linux rulz'. You can't make them stop. You can only guide them to a better approach.
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:2)
The questions that come up are:
1) Is there a good source for Linux tuning info in one consolidated place (even if it's just links elsewhere)?
2) If not, who's working to make one?
I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion here, but the fact is the Linux community should be banding together to address the problems that do exist rather than writing yet another piece on why the tests were invalid (which I agree they were).
My experience with the guy from WinInfo (Score:1)
As far as his comments on the Mindcraft test, he does have a point - just because Microsoft paid for the test does not necessarily mean that they could not perform a valid test, even if is did tarnish the credibility of the test. But Mr. Thurrott did not comment on the many valid points brought up in the
I do agree with him to some on one point - that we have to avoid rabid advocacy without having facts to support the advocacy.
It's not the money, but it's the testing (Score:1)
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
That's the whole point of the sponsorship by MS. that's why we should reject any test that is sponsored by the party involved. Thanks for pointing that out.
--Paolo
Folks. (Score:1)
Lets Do a Real Test (Score:1)
MY MISTAKE! (Score:1)
MY MISTAKE! (Score:1)
Who cares.. (Score:1)
Show Me. (Score:1)
The bottom line is, sponsored benchmarks cannot be reliable. The company sponsoring them has to pay for a negative review of their product? Hey, Lets release this to the press, it shows our product underperforming our competitors, but at least the world can see how honest we are.
And can you fully trust benchmarks from a publication? Think about it. If company A spends millions of $$$ with publisher B in advertisements, would publisher B really want to take the chance on having those $$$ yanked because they were perfectly honest? I dont think so. Why bite the hand that feeds you? The benchmark goes to the company who pays the most $$$ that quarter.
So whose benchmarks can you trust? Labs will not benchmark something just for the fun of it. It cost money and time to do these things correctly. Money has to change hands somewhere, else why would they even bother? Unless there is a completely independent non for profit lab who can do it, still they must receive their funding from somewhere.
So the end result is, I don't trust any benchmarks I see period. There are simply too many variables in the equation that can tilt the benchmark in favor of the other. The biggest variable is the exchange of good old cold hard cash. With enough of it you can find a lab that will say old cpm86 running on an XT machine is 10 times faster than a 4 processor NT box, and make the benchmark look for real.
My 3 cents worth.
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
The smoking gun you are looking for is "widelinks" being set to false. This is not the default, because it detriments performance. Had they tested with and without it, they'd have seen this and left it at the default. So either they didn't test either way, they changed it arbitrarily, or they changed it deliberately.
You choose.
SMOKING GUN: widelinks (Score:1)
SMOKING GUN: widelinks (Score:1)
post which makes exactly this point: Linux
support is harder to get. I should have put both
posts together, sorry.
Dishonesty like Mindcraft / Thurrott causes flames (Score:1)
His editorial itself is dishonest for leaving out point 3, he will get flames for it, and he deserves it. If the Mindcraft survey had been honest, and if his editorial had been honest, there would be fewer flames, and those would be undeserved.
--
Problems with orthodox statistics (Score:1)
Can Bayesian methods (my familiarity with Bayesian *anything* stops at set theory) be used for OLS linear regressions?
let's face facts (Score:2)
1. Any group with money will skew test results of their product in their favor through the most subtle of coercion ("Oh, you want to do a Microsoft test, here's a brand new Pentium III... Oh I'm sorry, I only have one of *those* for Windows, but you can use this Pentium I for Linux").
2. Any group with enough rabid fervor (*cough*stallman*cough*) will skew test results of their product through dogged trial and error ("GNU/Linux/TCP/IP/Kitchen Sink Didn't do well in this test! Must be a plot from those evil closed source Kapitalists! Let's recompile the kernel -O3, and test it again!")
3. Any group with enough of a desire can skew test results of their product by twisting statistics. Remember almost all statistics are filtered through Confidence Intervals, for the purpose of hypothesis testing. It could be that one group is using a 90% confidence interval, while another is using a 99% confidence interval. The problem of this is the eternal problem of the statistician: balancing Type I and Type II errors; one is about including more than you should, and one is about excluding what should rightfully be there. Each error comes at the expense of the other. Be careful when you read those statistics!
4. Linux has problems. So does any O/S. Personally I don't get too worked up about it (I use FreeBSD myself
Example: "Linux is hard to install." Pure FUD. Caldera lets you play *Tetris* while it's installing, for (insert deity here)'s sake! But it is a weak point, because after, say, a Windows install, a series of "Wizards" pop up to configure basic services to some semblance of a default. Perhaps after a Linux install, if there is an Apache package, an httpd Wizard pops up (in ncurses -- how cute) and asks you if you want this or that.
The point is, *any* O/S can get better. And even at FUD -- (F)ear, (U)ncertainty, and (D)oubt -- addresses *fears* among the public. You can only sow the seeds of fear if there is a receptive heart. Joe WinUser might percieve a Linux configuration to be harder because linuxconf doesn't have the same help menus (for instance). While you or I may personally disagree, Joe WinUser is the public, and if the O/S is to be friendly to the public, the programmers have to address their fears.
A call to action! (Score:2)
One of my biggest beefs with all benchmarks is that they test things that don't matter in the real world. For one thing, the data rates being generated by the test server in the Mindcraft analysis were higher rates than even Yahoo! would have to achieve in a given day.
If you REALLY had to support those kinds of data rates you wouldn't do it with one server even if you could. The idea they try to put forward is that if it performs well in an opercharged overcharged configuration, it must be technically better for all configurations. This is like saying that because Jaguar's formula one racecar won the race they have the best passenger car. Ridicules! Scalability goes BOTH directions and more people buy small to mid-sized servers than servers that were spec'd like that monster. How many servers really need over a gig of RAM? (That aren't running NT...)
I was planning an event for my local LUG way before this survey came out and now I think it is even more important. I am planning on a head-to-head benchmark between two "station wagons"; Microsoft Small Business Server (of which MS conveniently sent me a 120 evaluation copy) and Linux (probably Debian) running equivalent services. The hardware will be spec'd at this weeks meeting and is being donated to be auctioned at the event by a small local vendor. It will probably be a uniprocessor server system that meets the "recommended" hardware settings for NT-SBS since Linux will run well on damn near anything.
We are going to either download and use an evaluation version of "Benchmark Factory" or the Ziff Davis benchmark suite to perform ODBC / Database, file service, web service benchmarks. I would also like to use Qmail against Exchange in an email benchmark just for laughs if I can find a good mail benchmarking package. One of the other issues I want to address is how easily Samba integrates into a mixed environment which will also be in our report. Cost to my group? $0 so far.
Since the Mindcraft report came out and I like the format (if not the content), I am going to release our report in a similar format with all the parameters, optimizations and notes so the tests can be duplicated by anyone interested. For independent verification I am planning on performing the benchmark at a local university under the supervision and sponsorship of a computer science professor and the local IEEE Computer Society chapter.
When I am done, you will have a case study and benchmark that is actually useful to small businesses. Other local LUG's or colleges or companies could start testing high performance web servers, small-scale file servers and proxy performance between any available operating systems / software using a little creative planning. We could then compile the resulting data into a single, searchable reference that could refute any other "sponsored" benchmarks if the numbers don't match our own.
If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, or would like to pursue this idea, drop me a line. I would be willing to donate time to help organize this.
DaGoodBoy
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:2)
Another person who posted something earlier or latter is right we aren't going anywhere if we don't do anything. What we could do is make easier to use configuration tools, make more devices available, contribute to your favoriote window manager, the list goes on. The point is with us just talking about it nothing is getting done.
Maybe we should set up a contribution site and have people click on what type of project they want and then there would be a list of projects to pick from to do. I know that there are some sites that do this already but I am not sure how extensive.
That is what i think
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:1)
Another interesting tidbit (Score:1)
He was handed the Mindcraft report just a little before having to go out.
I can't remember the details (wasn't taking notes) so if anybody else that was there can do a better job of recalling this.
I think this is definately another interesting aspect of this whole fiasco.
Did I misunderstand here? (Score:1)
Why did you... (Score:1)
HTH.
Christian R. Conrad
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Flame versus Fact. (Score:3)
(NB: Linus did manage to save himself later on by telling the story of how he and other Linux geeks debugged the Linux-driven OCR-based mail sorters used by the US Post Office. This may have changed a lot of the bosses' minds. "Wow! The Post Office might stink, but Linux can handle that kind of task day in day out?")
I love insulting Microsoft. I really do. But when it comes to presenting Linux, or other alternative technologies, to someone who doesn't know a pointer from a packet, what wins the day is fact, presented in a clear and unambiguous manner. Microsoft knows this, and knows that presenting crummy facts (eg: the Mindcraft study) wins when concrete facts (eg: the post office uses Linux for OCR mail sorting) are absent.
TCPD on a web server? (Score:1)
Why would you want to use that on a web server, which is almost invariably a public service? Certainly nobody's going to run a restricted web server on a Quad Pentium Xeon system!
I would certainly think that Apache can deal with security problems without any external additions. After all, the thing has web millenia of people banging on it, and I'd say that at least 999 out of 1000 web servers using Apache are not using Inetd.
There was no question in my mind when setting up my Apache server that using inetd was not even worth considering.
D
----
Nobody outside of the Linux community cares? (Score:1)
ZDNET picked up on the problems and did a good job reporting them. No need to slam them, eh?
D
----
Die-Hard Windows users? (Score:1)
I think support for Windows is "a mile wide and an inch deep" - everyone uses Windows, but I see precious few people who love it. In the long run, I think this will be a significant disadvantage.
D
----
Some types do hurt, but not Slashdot (Score:2)
And the part about Slashdot and similar sites hurting is just wrong. Slashdot points out the truth most of the time as long as you can get around the additude at times. It could also be other news agencies trying to discount Slashdot as it is one of the few successful "open" news sites.
And besides, anyone hear of the news.com effect?
Assorted Quotes (Score:1)
>The fact that Microsoft sponsored such a test
>doesn't invalidate it.
Not physically or temorally, but logically
hell yes. It tosses the whole concept of
unbiased testing out the window.
> I mean, the test did
> happen, right? Those hardware setups are pretty
> standard, aren't they?
Yes. Everyone and thier uncle is using quad
xeon webservers with RAID setups. I personally
own three of them.
Response Mailed to Paul Thurrott (Score:2)
I do agree with you about the mindless flame wars and the knee-jerk My-OS-right-or-wrong advocacy of many teen posters. I also sympathize with you over your status as unwitting flame target.
However your article, as I hope many people will point out to you, was missing one vital point: the Mindcraft study was methodologically flawed to the point of being completely invalid. The NT box was properly set up and tuned and the Linux box was not. In such studies you have to compare like with like as far as is possible; and having failed to do that, for Mindcraft to present their conclusions in the manner they did was inexcusable. Under the circumstances, one is left wondering about their supposed impartiality.
It may well be that all Microsoft has left to fight with is propaganda. But their bank balance is so huge, and propaganda is so demonstrably effective that they can certainly do a lot of damage to any competitor's credibility. Surely you can see that the victims of this propaganda will feel a crushing sense of unfairness.
In this case it is entirely understandable that there was considerable anger from the Linux community. And your article, in omitting to mention the central vital fact of the whole issue, does little to pour oil on troubled waters.
Regards,
Ralph Clark
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
the only way to solve this. (Score:1)
Of course you all realize that the only way to really solve this problem is to have Bill and Linus sit down be givin each an identical machine, there os of choose and have each one install and tweak and then have a testing company, preferably one that wasn't paid off, test the machines and see who comes out on top. That of course being that each of the head honchos know about there respected os enough to be able to configure them. Bill Gates should know all about NT since thats what he talks about now-a-days, and we all know Linus knows Linux..
my 3 cents
Advocacy, Religious Zealots and Journalists (Score:1)
That said, his article today does make a valid point. It does make us (Linux community (I do wish there was a better word)) seem a bit lunatic to the general computing populace when some Linux Advocates reply to any non-Linux thought as FUD with vulgar language. This is not a Good Thing (tm). Well written, thoughtful replys that tactfully point out the errors will be better received and have a better chance of being heard.
Now for all you Katz haters out there, at least he (Katz) relishes the flames, and doesn't whine in a public forum about it, like the author of this article ;)
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:1)
Any takers?
Real World Benchmarks (Score:1)
The statistic actually is:
There are more NT servers than Linux server (by an order of magnitude, probably), therefore nothing can be concluded.
I think you're making a common Slashdot error - assuming that public webservers listed in Mindcraft is some sort of benchmark for all server usage. NT has greater than 50% of the file+print market, a good chunk (more than 50%?) of the internal mail server market, and a good chunk of the "intranet" web server market which is not measured by Mindcraft.
I don't think anyone really knows how many production Linux boxes there are out there, because unlike commercial operating system, you can't count the paid licence base.
--
SMOKING GUN: widelinks (Score:1)
Considering that the survey was probably aimed at NT admins who might be considering Linux, the fact that Linux support and tuning information is harder to find is significant.
Basically the survey said (below the numbers) - "Do you have a high end NT box? Have you tuned it? If so, it's probably not worth the bother to try to figure out how to replace it with a tuned Linux system"
This is much deeper level FUD, than the numbers. Would you bet your job on something that may or may not be well documented and easy to understand?
--
Where is the REAL answer to Mindcraft? (Score:1)
In a previous thread, someone made the point that you'd probably only buy $50,000 x86 solution to run WinNT. If you were going to run Unix, there's many other options at that price range.
That being said, if RedHat and others are trying to provide commercial-quality support, they probably need a commercial-quality PR department that will assist with benchmark engineering.
--
Who cares about GUIs on WEBSERVERS. (Score:1)
Being able to shut down the GUI when not in use is an ASSET. My web server (small tho' it is) doesn't have a monitor connected-> Because it just serves web pages & acts as a firewall. If NT can't shut down its GUI and recover the memory used, then that's its problem. a GUI is only required when there is a USER to INTERFACE to!!!
Yes, a GUI setup tool is nice. Great, so just fire up the GUI when needed, and shut it down when not. That is part of the unix philosopy; only activate things when required. Linux would never be able to compete against NT if it was required to emulate all the shortcomings of NT!!!
Sure, Linux has problems. But given a list of any 10 Linux problems and an equivalent list for NT, I know who I would bet on to address and fix them first.
Real World Benchmarks (Score:1)
More people use Linux servers = Linux is better, right?
It's not a vanilla Linux box. (Score:1)
The wugnet article is also irresponsible. They point out that people critisised the fact that the benchmark was sponsored by Microsoft, which IMHO does partially invalidate the test, but they fail to mention the other obvious flaws with the test. The list of things that they did wrong is amazing.
Fortunately the "straight press" (if we can consider ZDNet accurate in anything) picked up on these problems and reported them. Too bad no one outside of the Linux community cares.
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:1)
A few nits (Score:1)
2. They should have posted their httpd.conf file, not given a few random tidbits from it. It looks suspiciously like they had apache configured as an inetd service, not running normally. The only way to tell, of course, is for them to post that file (and the other config file).
3. Why didn't they do the tests with the default parameters? Since they claimed that they didn't know how to configure apache, they should have tried the out-of-the-box config to see if they just screwed up. The Apache performance tuning page says that tampering with MinSpareServers and MaxSpareServers is unnecessary. They set them to 1 and 290, respectively. And they set maxclients to 290. I would like to see some actual records, like the output of:
`while true; do ps axm >>
4. Did they turn on apache's cache? They seemed to turn on the IIS cache.
What I'd really like to see is the results if they had just used a standard apache config, perhaps upping the MaxClients only, since they're planning on using more than 150 simultaneous connections, but they should have tried it without even messing with that.
Also, did they restart the apache server *after* the reconfigured it? They didn't document their actual test process. They also claimed to have tried different apache configurations. What were they? What was the performance on them?
Maybe Linux/Apache needs improvement, and maybe not. But this test contains way too little information to be fit for anything more than the recommendation that "more testing is needed". Did they even run more than one test for their results? Did they run a whole bunch of tests and just report the one that they want?
This test doesn't include nearly enough information for proper evaluation, and it isn't all that meaningful. I don't doubt their conclusion, that on the particular machines that they used with the particular configurations that they used they found that certain products on NT were faster than certain other products on Linux.
The real question is how representative were their tests? Can anyone really represent the information that they gave as being enough to tell? If not, that test doesn't merit anything more than a "that's interesting".
Great point; Linux advocacy is an embarrassment (Score:1)
Thanks to Rob for the scoring system at Slashdot, which helps a little, but the fact remains that most reasonable advocacy replies in the Linux community get drowned out by uninformed ranting. This is especially true whenever the subject involves Microsoft -- the stars really shine, then. I especially loved the kernel scheduling on NT vs. Linux thread, hearing dozens of morons here say things like, "What's wrong with cron!?" Ahh yes, any thread involving CORBA is also likely to bring about some wonderfully clueless comments. Tip: Saying nothing is better than screaming "Beowulf!"
I'm content to leave my little P200 box running Linux in the corner, but man, it gets harder and harder to let anyone know what I've got running on it. The funny thing is to hear Linux folks rip on Windows or Mac users for being computer illiterate. LOL. I've used Linux for years, but I definitely feel more in common with the NT and Solaris (which I haven't even used as long as Linux) community, and while there are a lot of brilliant Linux guys out there, the massive number of idiots among you are leaving a big stain on the platform. Oh well, maybe the reason for Apple's EvangeList closing up was to allow Linux users to replace rabid Mac fans on the lunatic fringe. You and Team OS/2 should be happy together! :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Linux Tuning Info: Big hardware (Score:1)
In an ideal universe, the people actually running Linux (or SAMBA, Apache, etc.) on these big boxes should "repay" the community by contributing documentation on tuning in an enterprise context. Unfortunately, most of us who are interested in "giving back" can't afford the hardware, and I suspect that altruism is not a high priority for the mostly big companies who would run such boxes.
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? (Score:1)
1) Is there a good source for Linux tuning info in one consolidated place (even if it's just links
elsewhere)?
2) If not, who's working to make one?
You're right - there is no great centralized place to look, but what about the news groups?
I know the first place I turn to when I am lost is dejanews (after asking local friends).
The information is out there if you invest a little time in looking.
Where is the REAL answer to Mindcraft? (Score:4)
I know that a lot of /. readers are not programmer types but are users and sysadmins of Linux systems. But these are the very people who have the skills and the ability to set up benchmarks. They may not be able to contribute to an open source software project by contributing code. But they could build a benchmark testbed and produce a comprehensive set of Linux benchmarks that would be VERY newsworthy.
Linux runs on many different CPUs. It supports many types of hardware such as network cards, SCSI host adapters, RAID controllers etc. All of these things affect performance and little hard data is available about the performance of systems using various hardware combinations.
And a nice spin-off from a benchmarking project like this would be the availability of a guide to tuning Linux for optimum performance. But first, we have to figure out just what configurations are optimum.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
All things in moderation, with style, and sense (Score:2)
The trap that the Mac advocates fell into is that they fell in love with their own conclusions. They (unfortunately) concluded that:
a) the mac was a superior hardware platform
b) the OS was superior software
c) because of a and b, anyone using a mac was superior
d) and because of c, anyone not using a mac was using a silly platform.
Well, that was all hogwash, but in their eyes, the non mac users are the unwashed masses. They treat people as such (some very good friends are Mac bigots, and I like them despite their handicap), and basically one has to let them have their say, let their dander settle, and move on.
These days, the vast majority of those who send in such vituperative or highly vitrolic responses to those with negative things to say about Linux, tend to do so without style, without moderation, and often without a clue. They proceed with ad hominem attacks, with levels of bile and disgust that one would not expect from a rational person.
What they miss is that constructive engagement is the correct approach. By kindly and humbly pointing out mistakes, incorrect facts, missed assumptions, etc., you are more likely to have a mind altering affect than with the often thermonuclear email blasts.
I have done the constructive engagement many times, and have seen significant progress in attitudes. Unfortunately the mob mentality could easily destroy this, by exposing those who are critical to sophmoric blasts of flamage.
You dont market a product by yelling at someone and calling them names for being critical.
That is after all what advocacy is all about... marketing. Linux advocacy is marketing the linux products. Don't let it become as bad as Mac advocacy, which borders on rabid fanaticism. That would in the end have the same effect upon linux as it did upon the Mac. It would sink it.
Linux Tuning Info - One Spot to Look? SOON! (Score:2)
Tips and solutions are arranged by category for easy navigating. Having trouble with your ppp connection? go to
Who is going to write all of this? YOU! If you have a tip, you can place it in the tree. If you have a problem, you can place it in the tree and wait for others to fix it! Growth will be slow at first, but as soon as it catches on, the content will grow and grow until even a newbie can find help.
We'll have a beta site soon.
Is that what you're looking for?
Owen Williams