Use Whatever You Want

I ran across the flash video above (note: I’m not taking content and embedding it here…you’ll need to click on the image to be taken to the author’s site) a while back and have never posted a link to it.  It’s pretty funny and if you look around on ubergeek’s site, you’ll find a couple of other interesting things like the awesome flash game “Penguin Blood Ninja Fiasco” which I think is just genius.  So give this a look-see…you won’t be sorry.  Guaranteed to brighten even the darkest open source supporter’s day.

Do you…uh…Use Linux? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on February 19, 2010.

It seems an external site was attempting VPN access into our corporate network.  The problem the external site was hitting was that they couldn’t initiate a session FROM their network…but someone from our location could initiate a connection TO their network.  They used a Linux box to provide them VPN, Firewall, and proxy services.  Now, any Linux admin worth his or her salt would have immediately known that being able to VPN back into a site but not VPN out of a site means that the firewall doesn’t have the right ports open and/or forwarded.  This should have been an easy fix…but the guys at this external location evidently didn’t posses this knowledge.

Instead of blame falling on the improper configuration, open source was blamed as a whole.  My colleagues stated that those “free tools people use never stack up to paid ones” and that “you get what you pay for…and if you don’t pay for it you don’t get it”.  So according to these guys:

• Free = poorly designed, less than good software
• Paid = better designed, wicked awesome software

Which of course, you and I know is a bunch of hooey.  And this is what some of the smartest guys I’ve had a chance to work with state about Linux and open source.  Makes me really wonder if they know their Cisco stuff is often times Linux and open source as well.  I guess maybe I should tell them sometime.  Either way, Linux still has a long way to go to garner the acceptance it should have.

Overheard at the Water Cooler originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on July 7, 2009.

2007 Repositories

Something that is asked about quite a bit in the PCLinuxOS support IRC channel is “how to change repositories”.  One of the main reasons this is needed is that not all repositories are reachable depending on your geographic location.  Some of the repositories are also down at random intervals.  To equip the standard PCLinuxOS user with how to change repos, we first need to understand how the repository is structured, how the developers use the repositories, and how the community should make use of repositories.

How Are the Repositories Setup?

First and foremost, the repositories are setup in a “trickle down” model.  Updates are pushed first to the PASS server.  Only people who have donated 20 USD or more to PCLinuxOS have access to this server.  It’s fast.  It’s furious.  It’s also the first place where packages land.

Within 24-48 hours, the updates to PASS trickle out first to the Ibiblio repository…which is the MAIN repository from which all others are updated.  That means that there is only ONE repository for PCLinuxOS…all repositories are copies of the same one.  So if you have more than one repository enabled in synaptic…make sure you drop it down to a single one.

How Do the Developers Use Repositories?

The developers use different parts of the repository in the following manner.  All stable packages and software are in the repository base.  That means that if anyone updates a stock install, they’ll get the most stable packages and software.

If you are a bit adventurous, you can try out the testing portion of the repository.  The developers of PCLinuxOS push software and packages into testing that they are unsure about.  This might make some people a bit unsure themselves

Developers have a private unstable repository that they push their bleeding edge software to.  Other developers test these packages and provide feedback via the developer mailing list (private mailing list…not to be confused with the public ‘testers’ mailing list).  Once the package/software has passed preliminary testing on all the developers systems, it is pushed out into the public testing repository.

How Can You Help?

It is important for users to help pclinuxos succeed by reporting bugs in the pclinuxos forum so that developers can track them and keep people informed of fixes.  How can you help report bugs?  The way I do this is by keeping my main installation at stable and I install Virtualbox (use synaptic…it’s in the repositories!) to install PCLinuxOS again.  I then use that virtual machine to run a fully updated testing version of PCLinuxOS.  I use the Virtualbox snapshots feature to take a snapshot before a large update so that if things break, I can rollback to the previous snapshot.  It works out rather nicely and allows me to test the packages coming down the pipe.

If you do find a bug, please make sure you register for the main forums at http://pclinuxos.com and let the developers know what problem you’ve run across.  Make sure to search the forum first   Someone might have reported that bug already!

Hopefully, this will clarify a few questions people have about the PCLinuxOS repositories and the workflow in between them.

How to Change Repositories:  http://docs.pclinuxos.com/wiki/Repositories

PCLinuxOS Repositories originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on September 27, 2008.

I can help you though…I can set you straight. Not that I’m an ALL WISE & KNOWING person, just that I have the ability to do research, ingest said research, digest the research and learn from the research. You stop at ‘do research’. Let us examine where your train derailed (not the physical place…because this obviously is at the beginning…but rather, where in your subject you go wrong).

Open Document does not equal Open Source

Any conclusions you try to draw between adoption or non-adoption of ODF in any state or local government amounts to NOTHING. Whether ODF succeeds in being adopted or not does not mean Open Source will succeed or not. They are not inversely proportional and they are not directly proportional. If ODF get’s thrown out for MS Formats, Open Source will still be there and still be developed. This is like saying that

Disagreeing with Yourself doesn’t Validate your Message

Disagreeing with the title of your article saying “Is Open Source dying? Of course not” does not bring instantaneous credibility or make the reader sigh a collective sight of relief. Instead, it makes you look ridiculous for even writing the article in the first place. Afterall, we know you’re comparing elephants to chickens with the ODF = Open Source thing…and now you’re trying to make up for it. Try is the key word there. You fail because of your closing paragraph (see below)

Sabre Rattling and Finger Shaking Makes you Look Even More Silly

[quote]But the open-source community needs to get over its overweening sense of superiority and messianic inevitability; the alternative is just good enough that if it doesn’t get its act together, open source may find itself the subject of retrospectives like “Remember Unix?[/quote]

Um..ok? The open source community doesn’t need to get over any overweening sense of superiority or that other made up phrase you used. Why? Because the GPL makes it that way. It cannot be snuffed out, bought up, or killed…it will never die…it will never fade away…because the moment someone decides to try, it will replicate itself due to the openness and sharing within that same community you chastise (or did you mean ODF Community? I forget, since they’re so synonymous right?). So, I guess that makes people angry…it’s a smudge that won’t go away. A blemish right? A light that won’t go out. Well, keep trying. Keep giving resistance…please Open Source will win without a fight

“To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without
fighting.” Sun-Tzu

On Open Source Dying… originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on June 24, 2007.

1. “We don’t need to keep reinventing Linux, creating distributions that
put critical bits in interesting and inventive if unusual places.”

This couldn’t be more wrong. We DO need to keep reinventing Linux and creating distributions that put critical bits in interesting and inventive if unusual places. Without these multiple distributions and their drive to do what isn’t “normal” or “business as usual” innovation would be left up to a small number of distros and developers. Innovation thrives in the current environment…we have seen how desktop Linux has lept & bounded during the past 3-4 years. This statement is not only false, but it shows how much people (even industry consultants/analysts/journalists with over 25 years in the business) totally miss the mark when it comes to Linux and Open Source Software.

I assume you’d prefer a ‘unified distro’ or at least fewer to choose from…one where everyone can stop spinning their wheels developing for that small time distro and all join hands and work on that larger distro and make it 1000% better right? That’s something that won’t happen and shouldn’t happen.

Perhaps you think new users will be scared of all of these choices? I bet these same new users walk around in circles when picking out a new shirt or shopping for a pair of pants…there is just too many of them isn’t there? Using this as a reason for justification of having fewer distros is silly and stupid.

2. “An application written for Linux should be relatively simple to install on any Linux distribution. It ain’t so.”

Perhaps the author is referring to source based installs here. Well, I’d have to slightly agree…there a bit daunting for new users. But think of this also…someone for that program you installed on your Windows PC packaged up that .exe or .msi for you to install on your computer. So when you go to install something in Linux…don’t compare source based installs where you’re compiling the program to double click exe or msi installs…because it is logically unsound. Instead, compare the compiling of the code into an exe/msi for install on Windows. Apples v. Apples and Oranges v. Oranges. Comparing a .exe to a .deb or .rpm would be closer to being logically sound in this instance and when doing this installing software is the same as in Windows.

3. “Do we really need hundreds of general purpose distributions, all with diffferent tools, different filesystem layouts, variations on three major software package management schemes and a host of oddball ones, and so on? Do we need yet more to crop up?”

Yes…we do need them. Without them, your XFS filesystem wouldn’t have been tested and tried true. Your various hardware configurations wouldn’t have been run as many times agaisnt different kernel modules because Linux would appeal LESS to people. With more choice, you can find a Linux that is right for you. Without them, new ways of doing things wouldn’t be adopted and integrated by others. Think about if rpm was still the same because .deb’s never came around? We’d probably still have rpm dependency resolution hell in many distros. Deb packages made rpm packagers and devs rethink how they did business and they adopted many practices in spec files because of it. Without this variety and innovation, it wouldn’t have happened.

They say that variety is the spice of life and I have to agree. Imagine if everyone in the United States had a limited choice of vehicle…only the most popular car could be driven and subsequently everyone would have a Toyota Camry. Think of all the manufacturers of truck parts that would fold up shop and leave. Think of how less and less people would think ‘outside of the box’ (box being a Camry in this instance). Think of all the farmers and ranchers who would be livid about having to drive a Camry on their farm/ranchstead. Choice is simple. Choice is innovative. Choice is needed.

Remember that choice for end users also means choice for developers. Devs can come in and look at where they fit in for communities and for programming languages, for community projects inside of each Linux community and for that feeling they get when they’ve arrived at the distro they should be developing for. Less distros means more developers with less territory to fit in on. If we had 12 distros and all the developers of the other 500 distros had to find new places to fit in…do you think everyone would get along? It would be mass chaos and many developers probably would just stop developing all together…and their contribution to free software and Linux would be lost.

4. “Linux has reached somewhere between 30% and 40% of the server market (depending on whose figures you believe) because the major distributions just plain work on most server hardware from major manufacturers like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell. We need to convince enterprise customers who buy servers to demand hardware that can use Open Source drivers.”

No business in their right mind is going to demand that a piece of hardware that works currently needs to have it’s proprietary driver replaced by one that is open source. That’s an unrealistic want/desire that will never be fulfilled.

Many people mistakenly think that the Server is the only place that Linux can make progress into people’s lives. I’d say they’re short sighted. Saying things like this is often a mistake that people make…and it gives implication of a ‘no confidence’ vote for Linux on the desktop whether the person saying it wants to or not. The server is not the last frontier for Linux…it was the first frontier.

5. “Until that day arrives proprietary drivers remain a necessary evil in a Linux distribution.”

For thousands, they aren’t a necessary evil. Having them or not having them makes no difference to these users. When something is a neccessity, it means you can’t live without it. Proprietary drivers are not food, water, and shelter for Linux. They’re a performance enhancer that people can and do live without. Making statements like this tries to portray Linux as being at the mercy of proprietary software and totally inept to tackle the problem…so inept that we need to DEMAND that open source drivers be made. Sure, it would be nice…but Linux is as Linux does…and for many, Linux does just fine. As for if it does fine in the server room…you have less support there than you do for Linux on the desktop I’m afraid.

6. “That’s just as true on the desktop as it is in the server room. Nobody will migrate from Windows to an OS that doesn’t work for them on the hardware they have.”

Let’s revisit what you were talking about earlier and then we’ll move on to adress this line. According to points #1 through #3…we don’t need more than a few Linux distros out there right? Having more is just plain stupid for sh!7sake right? If some piece of hardware doesn’t fully work in Linux…then having fewer distributions around won’t help us out at all…it will stifle the number of drivers being developed and the amount of software being written to configure these devices. So what is it that you want? You want to get rid of most of the distros and increase the amount of hardware supported…all without being detrimental to Linux. In fact, you think it would be better right? It won’t. It isn’t. It never will be.

7. “The laptop I’m writing this on doesn’t need any proprietary software to work as it should.”

Wait a second…didn’t you just say in the previous paragraph that proprietary drivers were a necessary evil? Oh for crying out loud, will you make up your mind? Are you TRYING to be appealing to both sides of the fence as to not step on toes?

I honestly don’t know what the author of this blog post was thinking when they wrote it. It doesn’t flow, it draws conclusions it shouldn’t, and it assumes everyone is of the same mind as the writer. Sure, it’s opinion. But when you offer opinions you open yourself up to good criticism and bad. In this case, I’m disagreeing with the sentiment portrayed in this blog. Perhaps next time the author might think about what they’re saying…because limiting the number of distros out there is absolutely NOT the way to go to accomplish anything other than limiting innovation.

Why Having 500+ Distros is a Good Thing originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on February 7, 2007.

I was immediately reprimanded and given detention. When I asked what I did, the response was “apparently nothing but you’re going to stay after anyway”. When I pressed harder for an explanation, I was told that since I thought ‘my two buddies’ were funny, I was staying after. I had been caught in a perplexing situation many people, groups and companies find themselves in…I was guilty by association.

I was reading an article at Linux Today earlier and saw this line from the article, which was penned in defense of Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (and rightly so…I have no idea why people would call SJVN a shill…he’s the farthest thing from it). I’m not so much concerned with people attacking SJVN so much as I am with the editor’s (it’s an editor’s note) second item that he’s bugged by:

So…people shouldn’t do this. We all know that it isn’t fair…but the main fact is they are doing this and have always done this, just like that teacher of mine in high school. I wanted to understand why people aren’t making the connection that openSuse shouldn’t be held accountable for Novell’s actions…but then it hit me…The technology and code being sunk into openSuse as a test ground will one day make it into the Novell Desktop…which, as part of the now famous deal, will make money for Microsoft.

When you look at it in this logical manner, I don’t blame the people the article is condemning for targeting openSuse and I don’t see how anyone can blame them. How many Linux users out there do you know that want to bankroll Microsoft?

It’s how businesses operate. Most CEO’s in today’s society make decisions and lead their company…perhaps an approving board jumps in to give a vote of confidence…but overall, the common employee or programmer isn’t consulted on directions that a platform is going. It’s like this for just about every company I’ve ever worked for…the ‘small guy’ isn’t heard.

The problem with the Novell MS deal is that the small guy is a community of small guys…it’s almost like a union…more powerful in the group than alone. Novell didn’t consider what this deal would do to their community and they didn’t care…there were no channels of communication opened up…there were no private polling of resources within the community…nothing. The deal was brokered and done. But they forgot the community. They forgot that this is Open Source…it’s not business. Open Source isn’t about business and never will be. Open Source Software like Linux is about making a better product because you can, not because someone is paying you to do it. Linux doesn’t make decisions based on any revenue models or forecast loss charts. It is its own entity that bows to no one and serves no business, person, or entity in any greater capacity than any other business, person, or entity.

Novell forgot the community…and in turn, due to their lack of communication on the matter, now have to reap what they sow. Unfortunately, openSuse is not immune to the fallout.

Going further on in the article we see:

Let me be honest…I love openSuse and the desktop they’ve built. It’s professional looking, polished, and has a solid feel about it that is fantastic. But I won’t use it ever again. I don’t want any bug report that I make to go into squashing bugs that will eventually end up in a Novell Desktop that is part of any payment of any kind to Microsoft. So now I find myself floating away from openSuse altogether. I think the developers for openSuse are probably exactly what this article is saying…and if they’re smart, they’ll see past the trees to see the forest that is money to Microsoft…and they’ll do something about it sooner than later.

“But I don’t think it’s necessary or worthy to malign the coders participating in openSUSE, nor the results of their hard work.”

I agree we shouldn’t malign the coders…but the results of their work are fair game. Let’s say you’re completely anti-war and you hate all violent actions that some country has taken. You voice your opinion loudly and with vigor…now do you go and malign the mechanic that works down at the bomb manufacturing plan? Nope…he/she is doing their job and probably has a family to support. Do you malign the company that he/she is working for? Maybe a little bit, maybe a lot. Do you malign the IDEA that making bombs is about? YES.

Perhaps bomb making is a poor example…and for that I apologize. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I’m saying. IMHO, The works and the idea behind the works are fair game…they’re products that are part of monetary gain (eventual) for Microsoft. So perhaps we shouldn’t point fingers at the developers and coders…but we definitely can point them at what they’re developing and shout to the top of our lungs “Do you know what your product is being used for!?!?!” and we can also shout to the top of our lungs at the idea that the entire Novell/Microsoft deal encompasses. Can we hold Novell responsible? You bet we can. Can we hold openSuse responsible? It shouldn’t be that way but it is…so, yep.

Back in that classroom, I stayed after for detention. I didn’t whine or complain…nor did I feel it was wrong for my instructor to put me there…after all, I did laugh when I shouldn’t have…so I was guilty by association and I served my ‘time’ as it were right alongside them. The bottom line to all of this is that openSuse code may one day make it into the Novell Desktop which will give cash money to Microsoft. Do I want any part of that? Nope. If some people want to yell at others who don’t see this correlation to try and wake them up, so be it. When Novell neglected to get a pulse from their community, they allowed that community to be associated with their decision…they made openSuse guilty by association. Wrong, sad, and totally irresponsible all at the same time. Maybe some detention time will be good for Novell as well.

Guilty by Association originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on January 7, 2007.

Let’s hope not!!

My wife found this “Apache” video a few years ago and it’s been a family favorite ever since then…hopefully, the apache project takes no offense…I just found it hilariously funny.

The Apache Rockstars? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on December 4, 2006.

I’ve worked in quite a few different IT jobs the past 8 years. My current job allows me to work with many diverse individuals and technology. Diverse backgrounds, diverse ethnicities, diverse cultures, and diverse experience. Whenever the main business system can’t do what the users’ want it to do, they call me. Whenever they need information from that antiquated database (runs on AIX…not current) they call me. However, since we have a small staff being a small agency, I also get to answer some helpdesk calls. The odd part is, I like answering helpdesk calls. Why? Because it tells you more about the users and allows you to help them better. It also gives you a pulse for your users…something to measure them against.

Having done this for quite some time now, I can honestly say that if we rolled out Linux desktops tomorrow to these people in my agency our productivity would be seriously inhibited (for a while…until everyone got used to things). This is despite the standard business system running via telnet to an AIX Box. It’s not because of Linux…but rather because of the people. See, Linux is ready for the average power user…someone who went to college, graduated, and now works happily in department X of your business or someone who went to high school in the last 5-10 years (depending on where you grew up of course…we didn’t even have a computer at my school and I graduated in the early nineties)…and people all agree that government should be pushing Linux first and foremost. Since my current job is for a state agency, one would figure we’d be looking into FOSS, but this isn’t the case. The average power user isn’t the majority in this goverment agency and I’m sure it isn’t in many government agencies so we continue to look to MS for all solutions because they are the defacto standard.

So is Linux to blame for all of this? For not making headway onto the deskop? Nope. Linux is what Linux is. It is a fantastic operating system that is stable, secure, and customizable. The problem does not lie with Linux…sure, Linux could get better with increased usability and UI reconfigures, but in the long run, it can only do so much. Somewhere along the way the user must meet Linux halfway.

I’ve said in the past with my posts and I’ll say again…Linux ISN’T where it needs to be to appeal to the masses. It’s getting close and making fantastic strides. However, in order for it to make headway on the desktop, it needs to increase usability. Once again, I stress that this doesn’t require the “dumbing down” of the operating system. It requires a shift in the target audience to which Linux ‘aims for’. Instead of being designed with power users in mind…we should design it with standard users in mind. Here again, many people will take this to mean that we have to dumb down the operating system…but that’s not the case. You can make things quite usable without dumbing things down…some Linux programs prove this to be true. Please don’t confuse usability for dumbing down…they’re not the same thing.

Some readers of this blog think that I’m preaching out against the Linux “elite” (don’t confuse the use of this word…it’s used as in hacker speak to signify someone who is VERY knowledgeable on a subject: wikipedia entry) that is, those Linux users with a higher than usual knowledge level. They think I’m trying to say that these users should be persecuted for their knowledge and that I’m generalizing that all people with knowledge are elitists. This isn’t the case…those with knowledge I call on to not hoarde knowledge but rather to share it…to open source their knowledge. To teach those new users who have no idea how to do searches and RTFM the correct way. To have patience and understanding that people trying something new aren’t going to respond well to criticism.

What I’m trying to convey is that the Linux desktop CAN get friendlier. It CAN get better. And it MUST get better to make headway in the PC Desktop market. What i’m NOT saying is that we need to ‘dumb down’ Linux in any way, shape, or form. What I’m not saying is that we need to carry new users on our backs throughout the move to Linux. What I am saying is that we need to make it more friendly, more inviting. We need to give the standard user more victories than defeats on the desktop to give them confidence to WANT TO LEARN more about Linux.

Hopefully, people will understand my take on desktop Linux now. There’s been confusion on this topic in the past and I’d like to clear this up right away. It’s no fun to have people pointing fingers at you accusing you of being a geek basher (when you are a geek). I sure hope that this clears things up on my side of things.

Clarity on the Linux Desktop originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on November 24, 2006.

I count myself as pretty experienced when it comes to content management systems. I picked up on Zope/Plone within a few weeks. I picked up joomla! in days. I work pretty well inside wiki’s and have no trouble with forge software. So I find it completely baffling that some content management systems (even the free ones) do things so odd.

One of the CMSs I’m working with currently is Mesh CMS. They’re better than others I’ve looked at (Alfresco, Contenido) but why, oh why, does every single java servlet CMS have to have a directory tree with collapseable trees? This is so annoying! Take this for example…when someone opens ‘My Computer’ in Linux OR Windows…they’re presented with a list of folders. Now unless you set it up to show you the directory tree in your viewing options…you’re seeing folders on the top level. That’s not the way many servlet CMS’s do business. It may be good to see how deep things go and it may be good for admins who control ALL their content…but when you want to setup 10 users with write access and have to train them on how to use the CMS…IT’S NOT GOOD.

Most users have never seen the folder tree style menu and get confused quickly. Perhaps there is a setting that can remedy this that I’m not aware of. Please be advised that I’m taking a high level look at these things and I’m not diving in so deep that I’m examining the code yet…so I could be overlooking something. I just figure that things make more sense if you do things in the comfort zone of the standard user.

It’s odd how software companies, programmers, and coders try to re-invent the wheel on many projects. They toss out simple usability to do things more complex. The problem is that with each successive version of their software, things normally get harder and harder to operate. This is fine for someone who has used the previous version and is comfortable with its operation…but not so fine for new users.

This is often my point when discussing Linux as well. Usability should be key when a distro is popular…and Ubuntu has made VAST strides in making Linux usable for new users…but it’s not the best out there which is a complete mystery to me as to why it is THE most popular on the planet.

All of this talk on usability in software systems puts me in the mind of an article I read a few years ago: Ronco Spray-on Usability. It was a funny article about ESR not being able to configure his printer in Linux…which is kinda laughable when you think about it. But the author brings up a valid point…that is, that Joe Schmoe (referred to in the article as Aunt Tillie or A.T.) who is a common user can’t be the intended target for usable systems until the ESR’s are able to accomplish the task. You can’t spray on Usability with a handy spray can…it has to be reached successively. Not to mention that the UI for a program should be the last part developed after the program is in place…but seldom is. Hence all the usability problems.

Although I don’t agree with EVERYTHING the author of that article states, I do agree with many of the parts on usability. I definately don’t think you have to have proprietary, paid software to have good usability…because usability is an art form as the author states…and if it is, some of the best artwork comes from starving artists right? So money is irrelevant…it matters not. What matters is that not everyone who is a programmer is a UI developer and UI developers can’t always be the best programmers. The idea is to marry both into something. That’s what I’m looking for in a CMS. Something that has usability for standard users and something that can do the whiz bang things I need it to. It’s probably a pipe dream…but its a good dream to have. Not just in CMS software…in all software. Maybe someday right?

Debian Moves in, Servlets, and Usability originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on October 3, 2006.

So, I’ll be retitling and editing the article accordingly to provide seamless redirection. I apologize to Computerworld if in any way, shape, or form for my mistake did any character damage or incurred the rath senior editors and/or caused anyone to lose face or get made fun of (unless they’re dressed in horrible attire or didn’t brush their teeth this morning, in which case, they should apologize to everyone else). The original Computerworld syndication of Mr. McAllister’s article is located here. A copy of the original article I penned is available upon request via the comments section of this article. Thanks!

Articles like this one are so misguided. Giving you a brief overview what the article from InfoWorld says: Open Source supporters build fortresses around them that make them unapproachable and have infinite animosity toward Microsoft. Yep, that about sums it up. I’ll show you below how this article was written by an ignorant journalist…one that probably is too prideful to ask for help when writing his garbage. Next time you go to write something, why don’t you ask someone? Heck, ask me…I’d help you not to make a fool of yourself and stay accurate with the facts. Instead, InfoWorld shows mud on its face while pretending they’re subject matter experts.

I’d expect it from say…a standard blog discussing technology or perhaps a publication site that only has a technology section with a writer or two that pens just enough to wet the appetite of the computer savvy portion of its demographic. But InfoWorld? Come on! These guys should do a bit more research…afterall, they’re part of IDG which is the leading distributor of computer and technology based magazines and newspapers on the entire planet…you’d think that they might hire someone with a bit more knowledge in the arena of open source. They lead off the entire article with the following:

“If you support open source, one of the initial things you learn is that you must bash Microsoft.”

Well, I missed that memo. Last I checked on Sourceforge, there were around 6,000 pieces of open source software available for Windows and the Microsoft platform. Perhaps the author is confusing the term Open Source with Linux as many people do. They sit there and think that Linux and Open Source are synonymous. That just isn’t so. Linux is just one of many Open Source programs available…and one of many that can be said contain a philosophy biased against Microsoft Software. I always take note that some of the best programs out there that have a GPL License make my job eaiser on the Microsoft Platform at work. When you generalize things like this, you should at least get the generalization correct. In this instance, he didn’t.

Now…perhaps the author just opened up with the wrong sentence right? Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and take a look at the second sentence:

“It’s understandable; of all the
proprietary software companies in the world the one in Redmond takes
the cake for ill-will towards the open-source community. Just look at
the famed “Halloween documents” to see the extent of the bad blood”

Uh…last I checked the Halloween Documents were penned by Microsoft which was why they were so damning. So, the benefit of the doubt was given but shouldn’t have been. The author is implying that the Halloween Documents were somehow written by Open Source supporters in an attempt to bring ‘ill-will’ toward Microsoft. Funny isn’t it? This means that the author didn’t even read the Halloween Documents enough to know this simple fact. The author probably didn’t even read the Halloween Documents FAQ. Does it get any better later in the article?

Nope. Read on for the full digression.

“Through the years, this atmosphere of mutual animosity has inspired a number of people to try to get their shots in. Case in point: recently blogger Jason Cowan submitted the text of Microsoft’s community shared source software licence to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for consideration as an approved open-source licence. He did it without Microsoft’s knowledge. When OSI representatives inquired whether Microsoft would like OSI to go ahead with the evaluation, the software giant politely declined.”

So a publicly available license was given to the OSI to see how ‘open’ the license really was. If Microsoft didn’t want the license to be duplicated, they should have copyrighted it like they do so well with all other documents and software. This is rather silly…how do you go about saying that this action holds ‘animosity’ toward Microsoft? Submitting a publicly available license to the OSI means you’ve got it out for Microsoft? This is horrible, sloppy journalism. Just a few paragraphs later the author drops even lower:

“Even as Cowan was busy with his stunt, Microsoft was reaching out in the other direction. Recently Sam Ramji, the director of Microsoft’s Open Source Software Lab, extended a unique invitation to coders from the Mozilla group. For four days in December, Firefox and Thunderbird developers will have the chance to work side by side with Microsoft employees to ensure that their code runs its best on the upcoming Windows Vista OS.”

So, now its a stunt eh? Last time I checked, stunts were when you lit a hoop on fire and jumped through it or perhaps ramped a vehicle over a bunch of barrels. And another thing, 4 days in December hardly amount to a drop in the water if you look at it logically…21 years of guarded and closed ideals on one side and then 4 days of openness.

The author digresses even further a few more paragraphs later:

“I, for one, am glad the Mozilla team didn’t reject Microsoft’s offer. That would be just one more example of the fortress mentality of many in the open-source community towards a company that, quite frankly, is a fact of life in the IT industry.”

So, rejecting the further proliferation of Open Source software is something Open Source projects are in the habit of doing? That sounds counterproductive doesn’t it? Is this guy for real? Who is he trying to fool? He’s making himself look much like an idiot. Now there’s a ‘fortress of mentality’ that is prevalent in open source. This is a real piece of work…to be filed in the fiction section.

The icing on the cake comes in the final paragraphs:

“From here on out, companies will use open-source software to power their businesses.”

Gee and I thought they’d been using it to power their business for the last 20 years. It’s a good thing you assume they haven’t by saying ‘From here on out’. This just goes to show you that even someone who works for a huge media conglomerate can make mistakes…huge ones…and can come off looking totally ignorant. Too bad too. The author could have consulted with someone on the article and nailed down the facts to give him more credibility.

“It’s time for open-source advocates to set aside their pride, recognise their place in the larger software market and start working to build bridges, rather than fortresses. The pranks and the name-calling might be good for a chuckle, but they’re not really helpful.“

I can’t believe he had the audacity to print this. Pride? Let’s put things into perspective…it’s pride that keeps businesses from admitting when they’re wrong and it’s pride that kept the author from seeking a subject matter expert on Open Source instead of relying on his own faulty logic. It’s pride that makes HP not admit their mistakes in privacy violations and point the finger at the sub-sub-contractor they hired to do the investigation. It’s pride that keeps Microsoft from admitting when they’ve installed a ‘phone home’ piece of spyware on all their users’ computers without their knowledge. Sure, they eventually admit it…but only after their caught. That defeats the purpose. Too bad this author couldn’t realize how contradictive he sounds and how far he’s missed the mark.

In closing, I just thought the article wasn’t even worth the pixels used to display it…but I’m sure its been seen by a wide variety of people. So, instead of giving them one side of the story, perhaps my little rant will give them the other side of things. Sure we can all get along…as long as we speak the truth to one another. And that’s something both journalists and Microsoft have historically [1] [2] had trouble doing.

InfoWorld Employs Ignorant Journalists originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on September 11, 2006.