Linux: Don't believe everything you read.

Michael J. Jordan, Linux Online Staff

July 12, 2001

One of my jobs here at Linux Online for the past year has been to post articles about Linux from both the specialized and mainstream press. After over a year of doing this, I have come to the conclusion that the specialized computer press really doesn't understand Linux. As a matter of fact, quite contrary to the rules of logic in this case, the popular press, epitomized by web sites like CNN's, actually does a better job at reporting fairly on the Linux phenomenon. You can count on them for a pretty fair "just the facts ma'am" reporting about our favorite OS. My hat also goes off to Stephen Shankland whose reporting appears frequently on ZDNet and CNET.

However, when you go over to the press that's supposed to know what it's talking about when it reports on IT developments, the fairly well-researched and objective writing about Linux gets pretty scarce. I'll chalk the reason for this up to the "meal ticket syndrome", which I alluded to in my article about Linux on the desktop. For the last decade or so Microsoft has overshadowed most of the computer world. Obviously, if you want to write about the computer industry, you had better learn to write about Microsoft. As an avid reader of the computer industry press during these years, most of the articles until about two or three years ago centered around Microsoft's latest offerings and how wonderful they were. I will say this though, reporting about Microsoft has gotten pretty objective. Most of what I've read in the press about Microsoft this week, despite being pretty negative, is quite accurate. We've seen that Microsoft is a monopoly in violation of the US Sherman Anti-trust Act. Microsoft is pushing it's .NET initiatives because its OS cash cow, probably thanks to Linux and in some measure to Mac OS X, is likely to end up with dry udders in the short term. Microsoft's best efforts to beat AOL at its instant messaging game is failing miserably due to technical glitches - "hardware" problems they say. God forbid the guys at Redmond have software problems! The latest Microsoft gaffe seems to be a problem getting preview versions of Windows XP to people who actually paid for them. That's why I find the software industry so interesting lately. You can get a copy of Linux, a great all-round finished OS for free and then there are people willing to shell out 10 US dollars to get some preview copy of Windows XP. We can debate the wisdom of things like that at some later date. I see that I am digressing here.

Bucked off the Trojan Horse

Linux has been a big buzzword ever since it contributed to an overall rise in the level of the NASDAQ index in 1999. It is my opinion (after all, this is an opinion piece) that the specialized press, after so many years of being dominated by Microsoft, got caught with its proverbial britches down with respect to Linux. Thus began the roller-coaster like relationship the press has had with Linux which has basically paralleled the NASDAQ's numbers. Unfortunately, this reflects more what investors think about it than what Linux really has to offer the IT world. Articles about Linux seldom extoll or downplay Linux from a technical standpoint. Most of what I see out there is opinionated "fence sitting". There is also a lot of what I call "Trojan horse" reporting. Just when you think you're reading an objective article that could be telling some truth about Linux, FUD Greeks jump out at you. This is opinion in the guise of real technical reporting, usually written by "top-notch" consultants. Take this case in point, an article from Computer World entitled: "Linux Is Full of Fanatics, Potential" by Bill Laberis, former editor in chief of this publication. This is typical bait and switch reporting. You're enticed by the word "potential" in the title but once you start reading, you treated to the main crux of the article, that Linux isn't very good. And why? Who knows? Maybe because its advocates are over-zealous and have not only done a "disservice" to Linux itself but to the IT world as a whole. Pretty convincing stuff. If further goes on to say that the people who are trying to extend Linux's market share are "misguided souls" who "distort Linux's capabilities". Why we are so misguided and how we distort Linux's capabilities Mr. Laberis doesn't go on to say. He does grant us this one observation that could be construed as positive - Linux has entered the mainstream. But why? Because Linux got hit by the Ramen Worm and Linus Torvalds, according to him, isn't capable of producing a kernel on time. If Mr. Laberis knew how Linus worked on his kernels, he'd know that he doesn't work on a schedule.

The second part of the article is the typical "I'd better not bash Linux too much... just in case." epilogue. He talks about how big companies who are not "die hards" are throwing some weight behind Linux. He includes Red Hat as an example here, which sort of confirms my suspicions that the author doesn't know his serial port from his elbow as far as Linux is concerned. Red Hat, it would seem, is not a die hard Linux fan. And then, there's the problem with standards in Linux. Having actually done some research for this quaint little piece, he would have realized that LSB was just about to release its first Linux standards specifications. The article ends up with the typical "I'd just test Linux on some non-critical thing" rather reminiscent of Steve Ballmer's "Linux is a toy" argument- old anti-Linux, elitist FUD. As if there weren't countless numbers of companies running mission critical applications under Linux. Whoops! I guess I forgot to check!

If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with ....

If you have a bachelor of science degree you are allowed to put the letters BS after your name. I think that if you succumb to the excessive use of statistics in an article, you should also be required to use the same letters after the title of the article. This should be sort of like the classification of films: Star Wars- PG. The Lion King -G. So we'd get: "Gartner Survey: Linux used in only 4% of servers- BS" I know, I know - the Gartner survey is old news. Well, here is some not so old "statistics". Computer Weekly's website CW360(degrees) ran a story called "Mobile in, Linux out, CRM flat" on July 4th. I was under no illusions here that this was going to be a negative article. "Linux out" is pretty self-explanatory. I have much more respect for the writers of articles like these because they come right out and say it. My respect starts to wane, however, when I start wading through statistics. Someone once said that there are three types of Lies: white Lies, big lies and statistics. Any statistic can be interpreted in any number of ways. For example, according to the November election results in the United States, more people voted for Al Gore than for George W. Bush. Yet, according to a curious interpretation of those statistics, George W. Bush won the election. If you're a fan of Floridian style interpretations of data, CW360's article is worth a read.* According to a survey carried out by this publication and sponsored by Toshiba, "Linux and open source software are in widespread use in fewer than 4% of organisations" in the UK. OK. That sounds pretty bad, though I don't know what they mean by subjective terms like "widespread". They went on to say: "almost 40% say they have looked at this technology and rejected it." So what does that mean? 60% have looked at this technology and "accepted" it? I guess we'll have to ask the bachelor of science/artist who wrote the piece.

* Due to some URL "weirdness" at CW360, you'll need to do a search for this article. My apologies for not providing the exact URL

Linux: The Undiscovered Country

Leaving the blatantly Microsoft sponsored Linux bashing journalism completely aside, the press seems content to give us articles that approach the whole Linux phenomenon from a level of half-understanding it. I sincerely believe that the press is really still coming to grips with the whole business of Linux and what it means to the advancement of computer use. Most of the so-called Linux articles that you read out there reveal an ignorance of it only surpassed by the subliminal fear of this "undiscovered country" called Linux that you read between every line. Microsoft has so dominated the popular consciousness over the years with respect to computing that, I suppose its difficult for the popular tech press to re-adjust its thinking that there's a new kid on the IT block. There may be a good side to this though. At least we don't assign "buddies" to reporters as the Redmond people have been accused of in the past. The peculiarity with respect to Linux is that there is no "official" organization to do this. And that's good. The price that we have to pay for not having a "propaganda" division is that we have to put up with some second-rate journalism. That means that journalists will have to find out on their own what Linux is and what it means and then report on it fairly and accurately.

Michael J. Jordan considers himself a "Linux educator". Michael started his stint in the workforce as a teacher and his mission in this world, at present, is to educate people and businesses on the benefits of using Linux. He can be reached at Michael.Jordan@Linux.org