Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org News

Assorted Katz Hype 89

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
Many people are submitting The Obvious article about Jon Katz not belonging on Slashdot. I guess I'm glad that in the end its up to me. Personally, I think most of his articles are good. xach sent us a deja news bit that goes much further. I agree with most of the stuff in these articles, but I also think most of Katz's articles are worth reading, but when he mentions his book, I press the back button. You can too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assorted Katz Hype More

Assorted Katz Hype

Comments Filter:
  • I thought it was Ozzy and a Bat not Alice and a Chicken.
    Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
    Pants are Optional
  • I get the impression that most of the people commenting on this story haven't read Lloyd Wood's piece.

    I read the talk.bizarre [talk.bizarre] piece on DejaNews, since I'm a Usenet boy. I enjoyed watching Mr. Katz get kicked in the head over and over in a very thorough way.

    The shots at Rob and this site were also amusing, though I don't particularly agree with them. Then, after all the carping about the unholy Katz/Malda/Amazon trinity, what's at the bottom of the post? This:

    Katz's new book:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679456783/ statingtheobviouA/

    That wouldn't be a special URL that gives Mr. Obvious credit for hits resulting from his diatribe, would it? I can hear the justification now. "If the uneducated fools who would throw away their money on this illiterate 'work' must do so, I fail to see why I shouldn't benefit from their lack of taste. Heaven knows it tries me so to think of their very existence; I deserve compensation for sharing the Earth with them."

    Actually, I don't care. I don't even really know what the URL signifies. For all I know, you have to link to Amazon like that for it to work.

  • I thought the Wood piece was amusing as well. Saw it on gnu.misc.discuss [gnu.misc.discuss] last night. I really liked his analogy that Stallman is the novelist and Raymond is the made for TV movie.
  • That's kind of the problem. An educated person knows enough to evaluate Katz, and if necessary disregard his opinions and the areas where he hasn't bothered to even learn a thing about his subject.
    An innocent untutored reader would have no basis for weeding out howling factual errors and serious misrepresentation. How do you think Microsoft convince so many people of nonsensical falsehoods?
    bflame could tell his mother, who's just found IRC, that Slashdot is a heavy nerd-cred site and what it runs is worth taking seriously. Then when she reads it, Jon Katz could tell her (not that this is likely ;P ) that geeks everywhere are turning from coding to praying... and she would have _no_ basis to disbelieve him. Whereupon she becomes the expert on computers among her sewing circle or whatever... and away we go.
    How many other people visit Slashdot without the required grounding in what we know as reality to spot Katz for what he is? How many people can tell when Katz is erring, or making claims that actually are damaging to the nerd community Slashdot serves?
  • Posted by Saurus:

    maybe he would have helped stopped the promotion of blender before they decided on a license.

    i think blender was destined for GPL until malda's enthusiastic promotion despite the fact that they were still deciding on the license.
  • Posted by Saurus:

    I've considered this problem myself for writing software. The best I could come up with other than strictly free is a contract between myself and donors that I would release whatever program GPL'ed after $x in donations. Escrow accounts could perhaps aid in this approach depending on how much money was involved.
  • At first I thought that the Katz flames were another conspiracy theory, but when he started to promote his book with his /. status, I realized the flames were right.

    While I enjoy some of Katz's writing, I don't enjoy feeling like a cog in his book-promotion machine.
  • Seconded. Or pohl. Or anyone who is actually *of the Slashdot community* who writes well. I'm just astonished that Rob would have the poor taste as to let the guy anywhere near here.
    --
  • Well, I shut up about Katz and my feelings on him since the filters were introduced. I promptly filtered him (and only him) out of my slashdot page and things have been nice.

    Now what do get, more Katz ... but wait, I filtered it out?! Ohhhh, I guess too many people are doing what I'm doing and would never have seen such an article if it was posted by Katz himself (which I'm sure he wanted everyone to see).

    Once again we are all whored for Rob's grand hope of being a celebrity and hob knobbing with the "true elite" of technology journalists.

    I wonder if slashdot would sell it's soul to Microsoft just to get in the IE 5 Favorites list ... hrmmmmmm.
  • Wow, that one was moderated in less than 3 minutes. I love seeing my "acceptance" or lack thereof in real-time! Here's take 3 of my post!


    Well, this is the 3rd time in as many days that Katz commentary has slipped past my filter.

    Rob, why even code filters for us "Katz haters" simply to bypass them like this constantly?

    I'm sorry that Katz authored stories aren't getting any traffic but that's what happens when most people don't want to read his dribble.

    I guess a flame war gets just as many page/ad views as quality commentary by an author people actually like.

    I guess you gotta pay the rent some how eh Rob?

  • Configure yourself. (Score:3)

    by Misfit ( 1071 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:11AM (#1962164)
    If you don't want to see it, you don't have to anymore.

    But I guess too many people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

    Misfit
  • I'm talking to Ton about this. He's got a problem: all his savings are in Blender and so far it has not paid for itself. Ton has sold less than 1/3 of the books he would need to have done to make it pay for itself. He would like to make it GPL'd but cannot if he is to continue working on it -- which most users of it want. A working model for GPL'd software needs to be found for specialist areas like 3d. It hasn't been found yet.
  • I think that this would be less of a bru-haha if Katz was ONE of the slashdot regular feature writers and not seemingly the ONLY regular feature writer. Yes, I realise that others have written articles, it just seems that Katz's stuff are the only really regular writer we see. If this was balanced by having a few others that were just as regularly featured, I think it would be less of an issue.

    To see my published works, go to (perhaps the gaudiest web page you will ever see) The Common Commode Page [warren-wilson.edu]

    These were featured on the bathroom walls at my college, and think would make me uniquely qualified to be a feature writer for /.

  • I must confess that I was previously baffled by why there was so much criticism of Katz, I assumed it was just a nerdy rejection of someone just because he wasn't a hacker. Over the past few days though I have been finding it difficult to find much in the way of content in Katz's articles, other than self promotion. I too now lend my voice to those who feel Katz shouldn't have been given special status on SlashDot. Let him post comments, and submit articles in the same way that the rest of us do, but don't give him special status because he is a well known, that implies that his opinion is more important than the "riff-raff" who made /. what it is today.

    --

  • Dumping Katz and getting Wood would not solve the problem! The problem is that one person, namely Katz, has special status on SlashDot. This implies that his opinion is more important than the rest of the riff-raff. And this is against the principles of a de-centralised media! Getting rid of Katz only to replace him with someone else would not change anything.

    --

  • You misunderstand the problem. The whole spirit of /. as I (and I suspect most others) see it is that no longer to the lucky few get to broadcast their "superior" opinions to the ignorant masses. Rob has made a mistake by giving Katz special status on /. It implies that his opinions are more important than that of everyone else. If anything /. is about getting away from the centraised media, so why should a journalist get special treatment? Katz should have the same rights as any other /. reader, no more and no less.

    --

  • I pretty much agree about Katz, but I just don't read him any more. No problem. I've read stuff by him that was worth it, so I still scan once in awhile, but I think his main purpose is self-promotion. He can't code (or write) and he still has to make a living after exiting his previous life. (I'd love some insider perspective on that from the TV people!)You expect an ex-TV guy to do anything but look for eyeballs? No.

    I don't think much of Mr. Wood's take on Malda though. Functional illiterate? Give me a break. I've been programming for 20 yrs and this is damn good work here. I haven't seen anything about the guys who run SlashDot that indicates anything but integrity and honesty. My guess is they could make a lot more money selling their discussion code to ZD than they'll ever make off of book sales or SlashDot ads.

    Oh, and speaking of self-referential, maybe Mr. Wood will someday write something that doesn't refer to himself as a resident of London, as if that matters.
  • You can filter based on names. Take your mouse, click on 'user account' on the left hand side of the screen. Near the top of the screen click on 'preferences'. Scroll down for a while, there is a chunk of buttons underneath the heading 'Exclude Stories From the Homepage'. Click your mouse on 'JonKatz'. He will never again appear on your personal view of slashdot.
  • PLEASE. I've filtered Katz, but it's embarrassing to know he's out there without a filter. If we're going to have Katz, we should be able to have others.
  • how the hell did this comment get a score of 2? Is that the default for all of Rob's posts? If some moderator scored it, you're one hell of a kiss up.
  • ...is that Wood probably couldn't "get it up" as often as Katz does. Part of Katz's success (if you can call it that) is /provocation/. Slashdotters reply to him more often than any other author, and he writes more original copy for /. than any other author yet Taco-approved.

    Could Lloyd Wood do it as often? Well, he's a fairly prolific t.b. Guy. He makes nifty Kaleidoscope themes for Mac users, and is a whiz-bang Mac advocate (including the recent suggestion that Apple follow Netscape's example and release the source to Cyberdog [dejanews.com].)

    I'd support /. "getting Wood" if 1) he could crank out the copy and 2) felt like cranking it out for /. at least twice as often as comp.sys.mac.system.

    The choice would be Malda's, though. Could he handle too much reason and/or coherency in /. commentary? Wood might just as easily put up a wall of impenetrable logic and blow everyone's minds instead of raising their ire like Katz does.

    I'd be more likely to read /. more often if Wood posted here, though.

    J.

  • He's the head of the Eggheadz [quarks.co.uk]. He's the one with the Bozo the Clown hair and "an answer or complaint for everything."

    J.

  • I'm neither here nor not-here on Katz, but I'm kind of suprised at Wood's comment on our Commanding Taco.

    "[Rob Malda] also someone who appears to be functionally illiterate (cf his review of the 'Open Source Book' on Slashdot)..."

    How can someone who obviously knows his way around a technical manual be functionally illiterate?

  • Posting something like this on your site is throwing gasonline on the fire. These type of posts are antagonistic and fostering the controversy.

    That is absolutely the intent. More controversy means more hits = more ad dollars for Slashdot.

    That is the same reason they brought Katz on board. Certainly it's not for his technical or journalistic skills.
  • How can someone who obviously knows his way around a technical manual be functionally illiterate?

    I wouldn't exactly describe technical manuals as quality writing. With a few notable exceptions, most are not.
  • Is the quality of the writing/perspective irrelevant? I'm in agreement that a multitude of perspectives are important...there's a lot more to life than technology.

    I think the main complaint that Wood makes, and the one that really resonated with me, is that Katz's recent pieces are shallow, poorly researched, and barely proof-read at all.

    So I agree that non-technical perspectives should be welcome here, but I feel we need to establish some minimal journalistic standards and quality control for folks who are allowed to post "editorial" type pieces.



  • Absolutely (Score:3)

    by Lamont ( 3347 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:45AM (#1962180)
    Lloyd Wood's article did more for my grey matter than the last dozen Katz articles -- well researched, logically organized, thoughtful, to the point

    I tend to agree. I've been a Katz defender in the past, feeling that most flames were out of line. I still believe personal attacks are unneccessary, but I began to have misgivings about Katz's intentions when the book thing started. It became increasingly clear that Katz's initial arrival on /. was all a setup to promote his book when the time was right.

    Wood's article has served to crystalize my thinking on this matter, and has convinced me to turn on the Katz filter on my prefs page.

  • So what's the problem? His pieces leaven my daily diet of lame-ass code and self-important Salon [salonmagazine.com] articles.

    So what if he doesn't jack-off your ego or write technoporn?

    So what if he flogs his latest book?
    1)He's writing for free, but he still has to pay rent and
    2)Ever listen to Art Bell's show and the major hucksterism that happens there?

    Y'all SPOILED.

  • This is perhaps one of the most frightening features of the Slashdot comments: probably 60% of the writers haven't read the article. Maybe the new system will help.

    Wood's article is intelligent; his criticism of Slashdot and Katz are entirely valid. I was in the "Katz has nothing to say, but he's innocent enough" camp before this article, but I will filter Katz out from now on. (Well... maybe he'll have a response. That could be amusing.) I have nothing against Katz personally, but I don't like the content of his articles and I think he's a poor advocate for the open source movement. See Wood's article.

    Wood's arguments are solid. I haven't seen Raymond in public, so I can't comment on Wood's analysis of Raymond, but his take on RMS was bang on. While I was turned off by the you-haven't-read-Foucault-yet! attitude, it's entirely valid - philosophizing without knowing philosophy is so much line noise. And dammit, everyone *should* read Foucault. Even if I haven't...

    But would Wood write for Slashdot? Doesn't seem likely. After flaming the site so eloquently, why would he write for it? Besides, if he researches his topics, he couldn't put out anything like Katz's volume, making the counterpoint weak.

    After reading Wood's post, I'm tempted to wait and revise my comments, to think everything through perfectly. But that's not the nature of a discussion board; if every comment were a researched essay it'd be sparse discussion. Sigh. Descending to cliches, I'll just add my two cents to the pot and step out of the fray.

    This brings me back to my original point - commenting without knowledge. It is a discussion board, and anyone can put their opinion out there, even though everyone has varying levels of knowledge of a given topic. But for god's sake, please read the article before posting. At least we'll have a common starting point.
  • I get the impression that most of the people commenting on this story haven't read Lloyd Wood's piece. Pity.

    Go read it, then make a comment or complaint about it. The knee-jerk "ignore Katz or shut up!" reaction is pretty weak.

  • I'm only happy when it rains...

    Allan
  • [Context: the article "seeing Stallman and deconstructing Katz" by Lloyd Wood, it's the second link [dejanews.com] in the above article.]

    I'm awfully tempted to just say "Lloyd Wood doesn't get it." But that's overgeneralizing it, and so I'm ramble on for a bit about why I don't think he gets it. Of course, first I'll need to explain my perspective, (and thus, explain the 'it' that Mr. Wood doesn't get).

    I don't usually read newspapers. When I do read a newspaper, I find myself irritated that they bother to kill trees to print such mindless tripe. I'm not terribly fond of television or radio news either. The closest I come is CNN Headlines News in the morning, and I only stand for it because I'm still in my semi-awake haze.

    I feel abandoned by modern media. (Media as news source, not media as entertainment. Not that there is much of a line anyway.) They have decided what is important for me to know. But I really don't care. Mr. Wood probably won't appreciate this, but I think this issue is better dealt with by Jon Katz in several of his previous articles, including this one [slashdot.org].

    Anyway, as I sat here thinking about why I like Katz, even though I disapprove of many of his articles (I'm terribly unhappy about the book related stuff), I came to a realization. I do read a newspaper. It just happens to be digital and run by a guy better known as CmdrTaco than his real name.

    A while ago, I read an interesting article complaining that the media was becoming too neutral (or at least trying hard to look neutral). Perhaps, the article argued, we needed media with opinions. (I apologize for forgetting the source of the article.) Well, as I look around, I find that Slashdot has become my media of choice. It's got opinions and attitudes, and it has become interesting to me. It's got the "editorial balance" that Mr. Wood seems to feel is so important, it just happens to have chosen to balance it against certain issues and opinions. (In fact, every newspaper, online magazine, and news show has such a skewed view, Slashdot just doesn't hide it under a veneer of impartiality.)

    Yes, it's filtered through a certain set of glasses. But at least I get some say in which pair of glasses.

    So, Slashdot is my newspaper, my magazine. It serves me. And, based on its popularity, it serves a lot of other people. But it doesn't serve everyone. No media outlet with an opinion can. (And those they try to avoid having an editorial slant, and opinion, end up alienating some people anyway.)

    And if Slashdot partially serves one's needs, skip the stuff you don't like. My favorite newspaper (when I was still regularly reading such things) was the Wall Street Journal. I only read the front page to get a quick view of world news. The rest of the paper had no interest to me. If Katz has no interest to someone, don't read him. I eventually decided I was unwilling to purchase the Wall Street Journal to just read the front page, it wasn't worth the money. Fortunately, Slashdot is free, so it costs me nothing to skip Katz's articles, or Star Wars stuff, or anything else. (With the advent of the customizable Slashdot, I can choose to never see posts by a particular author or on a particular topic.)

    So, why is Mr. Wood complaining? In fact, why is Mr. Wood reading Slashdot? If you feel that the editor is "...someone who appears to be functionally illiterate...and it looks as if he would think that 'editorial balance' has something to do with spreading webserving load via SMP." why read on? It's nice that Mr. Wood is willing to forgive Rob for the above "given his youth and lack of a decent education....", but clearly Slashdot is not for him. Perhaps Mr. Wood would be happier with more traditional newspapers headed by older, wiser, and presumably better educated heads.

    Cheap shots:

    Mr. Wood took a few cheap shots, so I thought I'd fire a few back (in no particular order:

    (All quotes are Mr. Woods. Of course, in many cases he is quoting Mr. Katz.)

    If I posted this to Slashdot it would be quietly censored - as previous anti-Katz material has reportedly been. I don't believe Malda has either the courage or the understanding of editorial balance to post this in full in his Brave New Widely-Moderated World Where Anything Supposedly Goes, despite the traffic and attention it may attract.
    If it was any more quietly censored, it probably would have been a feature article. Wow, the terrible pain of being censored by CmdrTaco, who stated "I agree with most of the stuff in these articles...." I'm sorry, I seemed to have missed any sort of solid information about the anti-Katz material that was "reportedly" censored. Having browsed the followup messages on several Katz articles, I can assure you that there is a lot of anti-Katz material there. Some of it is even good.

    Mr. Wood proceeds to rip many of Jon Katz's quotes out of content. (No, I'm not refuting all of them. Yes, I think that some of the points Mr. Wood brings up are valid, but some verge on petty.)

    Geeks bit the heads off of chickens and rats in carnivals...
    Suggesting that Alice Cooper, faded mainstream media musician who gets television time as an indicator of American culture, is a geek, strikes me as rather, well, odd. Come again?
    Interesting, a quick scan of the article the Katz quote is from quickly reveals that Katz is discussing the transition of the word geek from the former meaning to the later meaning. (In fact, to quote Webster's Seventh Dictionary (1965), a geek is "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usu. includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake")

    Movies (and TV) are, after all, one of a culture's most revealing, reliable mirrors
    And what does this tell us about ancient Rome - or should I watch a rerun of 'Ben Hur'? If this is true of the United States, I'm glad I don't live there. I'd hate to think that the Jerry Springer show was real life, or that Katz appearing on the Today Show would indicate that many Americans using the Internet are just like Katz.
    Clearly Katz means mirror in the most literal possible sense. Obvious Movies and TV directly reflect exactly what happens on a day to day basis. Feh. Perhaps mirror isn't the perfect word, but it's not a new analogy, and certainly not one created by Katz. A culture reflects its goals, desires, and fears into its entertainment. Jerry Springer does reflect our desire for voyeurism, a way to handle our fears that our lives are more messed up than anyone elses, a way to satisfy our desire to feel better than others. And while ancient Rome didn't have movies, they certainly had plays, poetry, and prose which did the same thing. What the Romans protrayed in their forms of entertainment reflected upon them.

    If Katz's technical knowledge is still open to question, I'll point out:
    ... that the server where the Katz-alert mailing list is run...
    will give you a 'welcome to the NT 4 options pack' page running on an IIS server. Remember, Katz is a man praising Linux to the skies...while dismissing Gates as a dwarf even as he relies on Gates' software.
    Good God, no! The mailing list run by someone else on a machine not administrated by Katz is running IIS! I personally praise Linux and dispise Gates, but work under Windows every day. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use it. I'm not above using something I dislike if it's the only option, and sometimes that's the case. I sincerly doubt Katz asked freedomforum, "Gee, could you set up a listserv for me, and make sure it's running on an NT box". He (or freedomforum) was probably offered the use of the machine and accepted. Maybe Linux would be better. Maybe not. Does it really affect his articles?

    Between "skies" and "while" in the above quote, I pulled the following:

    (All Hail Linux! To criticise Linux is to risk the wrath of thousands of high school students and other sociopaths who can't spell!),
    I don't even know what to think of this. Is Mr. Wood saying that Katz is warning us that criticizing Linux will draw flames for high school students and sociopaths? I seem to have missed the article where Katz says that.
    Online, everybody is a critic, each opinion as good as any other.
    This is said by the man who goes on to talk about text written in 'ASCCI', thus disproving his own claim. I think the opinion that it's called ASCII is likely to be the rather better opinion.
    Actually, I think that the fact that it is called ASCII is better yet. And I suspect that Katz doesn't hold any sort of opinion that it is spelled ASCCI. If you pick on his spelling and charge that Katz is incapable of editing, I'd believe it. But to claim that a typo is evidence that Katz's discussion of opinions is invalid is completely silly.

    Wood points out that Katz doesn't have a college degree. So what? A college degree is a piece of paper. I know people who graduate from college with minds completely free of knowledge, and people who never graduated that I deeply respect for their knowledge and wisdom.

    You've got a long way to go, guys.
    It all depends upon where you are going. I'm not quite sure I see where you are pointing Mr. Wood, and given that I'm comfortable with Slashdot right here, I see no reason for it to start going anywhere.
  • Reading Foucault is rather like reading Eastern mysticism. It is so confusing that one either thinks there is something very deep there or its just nonsense. Unfortunately in both situations not enough people consider the latter, more logical, explanation.
  • William Zinsser wrote a book called _On Writing Well_ and it talks about the honor of writing well. That's what has finally sent me over the edge with Katz. I was willing to read through his stuff figuring, oh well, the web has brought writing down to this. But then Wood's piece is clear, it's well written, and it's edited. Made me wonder just what Katz is up to. I have to admit that I agree with the idea that he's just selling books now. That whole bit about the dog chewing the boards in his linux machine...it's just too much. Oh well. I won't set my /. prefs to remove him, but I won't be reading him right away. Too long, too cluttered, and too amateurish for me. I would much rather read something professional--not financed necessarily, but certainly something over which a writer has lingered and thought. I don't see that in Katz and I doubt that I ever will.

  • Katz does not belong here (Score:3)

    by heretic ( 5829 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @04:32PM (#1962188)


    I used to read Katz's NetCitizen column on Wired and thought he was (very) occasionally insightful about new media topics and their resultant political impact. However, I never was impressed by his ability to grasp the underlying technical issues and was always a bit amused to see him either use some flowery hand-waving when discussing them or repeat the same mistakes. It seemed to me it was clear that not only did he not understand the technology but had no interest to do so.


    In this way, he never really struck me as being very different from the "old media" journalists he used to castigate daily. The only real difference being that he was somehow aware that he had a jump on the rest of them by exploiting the internet.


    Thus, I was somewhat aghast to see him pop up in this forum, which I had been reading and contributing to for about a year. It's not that I object to strong personalities or celebrities. It's the fact that he has never taken a CS class, or written a line of code, or soldered a wire, or done anything else that makes us geeks. Or the fact that he doesn't really join in our discussions but instead posts his "essays" which are nearly content-free, self-serving monologues.


    Basically, what I object to is that Katz being here violates the sense of community that (I thought) was at the heart of slashdot. As much as I have grown to like this forum, if someone starts a new one that's Katz-free, I have to admit that I'll probably migrate there. And don't worry, I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

  • (All Hail Linux! To criticise Linux is to
    risk the wrath of thousands of high school students and other sociopaths who can't spell!)

    Note to previous poster: I believe this was something Woods himself was saying, not a Woods quote of Katz. Personally, it made me laugh out loud. One of the funniest and truest things I've seen lately. And all too pointed in the Slashdot direction. (I mean, come on - it's almost like Communism or religion here with the Open Source, Linux, and "gimme free music, artists should all sit around and eat ramen while they make me the MP3s I deserve".)

    That being said, I don't object to the presence of Katz so much, though Woods makes some terribly good points. I don't read much Katz, but I find that a humanizing effect on this site would be useful, if Katz were to do so. If he's really fixated on his book, then he really doesn't need to be around.

    Moving on, Rob... I, like many others, found Woods' criticism terribly interesting to read and plan to go hunt out more of his posts when I get the chance. Why not make it easier on all of us and add him to the contributors here? Granted, he slammed Slashdot quite badly, but what better way to put things right in his own manner than to have a hand in the content? Barring his being too busy, I think he'd actually accept the offer.

    (One other note. Rob: I recently got something I did picked apart in a public forum, so I'm sure you were pretty pissed about the "functional illiterate" crack. But I can't say I disagree, and the point has been raised before. You're attracting a lot of attention with this site. Upgrade yourself. You'll take the criticism hard at first, but if you can realize the criticism and that it's not unfounded... add that to your resolve and work harder to provide a good thing. Make sense?)
  • Katz exposes /. readers, some of whom I'm afraid
    to say don't read much else, to viewpoints by
    which they'd not normally be challenged. I
    happen to loathe a lot of what he says -
    especially some of his pieces in W*red, but the
    benefit of having an independent voice saying
    "how about THIS" is too great to lose by chucking
    him just cause he doesn't fit in.


    Who cares if he doesn't fit in? Vive la difference!

  • Hear hear!

    Maybe a Slashdot vote? Granted, we have no idea if the fellow is willing--but I couldn't tear myself away from his logical, well written, correctly spelled, and grammatically correct article. Gosh, what a NOVEL concept. [I swear I could spend twenty minutes correcting every error in each Katz 'article' that I've read--does he rely THAT heavily on Word's spell checker?]

    I would love to have Mr. Wood writing anything for Slashdot--hell, he could even talk about subjects as vacuous as Katz's; they'd actually be interesting if he was at the keyboard.

  • I thought both articles were well-written, and made some good points.

    Personally, I find Katz's articles often irritating due to his use of proprietary Microsoft characters. Run them through the demoroniser, at least! But his articles also are often shallow ("technology is k3wL"), suffer from gaps in logic, and as others have pointed out, can be poorly written and self-indulgent.

    The solution? Don't give Katz a regular forum. It's not "news for nerds, stuff that matters" just because Jon Katz typed it. I wouldn't mind the occasional feature from him, but such contributions should be checked by Rob and his trained mammals before posting. Stories by Jon Katz should be at least as good as stories from other contributors must be before they are featured on /.

  • If Wood is interested, we should snag him. Great article.
  • No one is getting burnt at the stake here. Jon Katz willingly puts his name on poorly written articles (which are either book promos or rehashes of articles previously posted on newstrolls) and welcomes feedback. It should be expected that he will be criticized. Katz is a big boy -- he can take it.

    Things would get pretty boring around here if all the comments praised what was written. It's healthier (and more interesting) if folks on both sides offer their opinions.


  • Sure, you can configure things so that Katz's articles are invisible to you. But that's not the point. I think the bigger issue is that the mere presence of someone like Katz diminishes slashdot. Not because he lacks technical knowledge---but because he is essentially a parasite.

    This is clearly just my oppinion, but Katz seems to be in the business of self-promotion only. he adds no value to any of the discussions, he states only the most obvious, much of what he writes is just wrong, and he clearly wants to be the center of all of his pieces

    Sure, I don't have to read it. But I when things are over-hyped by popular media (a la "information super-highway," "cyber-space," etc.) it takes a lot of fun out of the topics for people who have a legitimate and deep interest. And having Katz around makes slashdot a little less enjoyable for me.

  • "news for nerds" (Score:3)

    by aphr0 ( 7423 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:41AM (#1962196)
    Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

    Yep, that says nerds in general. Not just hardware nerds, or software nerds, mac nerds, linux nerds, etc. But ALL nerds. Slashdot is a place for everyone to communicate unique ideas about technology, not just nitty gritty low level tech info. I kinda like Jon's articles. Granted, they're not the most insightful, pulitzer prize winning pieces of literary greatness, but alot of people like them. If you don't like them, then not only do you not have to read them, you don't even have to know they exist. That's why the filtering is there. Hell, you don't even have to read what Rob says; just filter his posts out. Easy as that.
  • Other people have already posted similar, but I'll throw my hat in the ring anyway..


    Jon Katz isn't "news for nerds". Obviously.. the only things I can think of that are even remotely of interest to me are online democracy that has been posted on Freedom Forum. That applies to geeks. But this whole "book" thing?

    I want technical issues, not the "libertarian view of object-oriented" whatever it was he was blubbering about.

    Adios, me amigo.




    --
  • I agree wholeheartedly. Wood's article was indeed a bit more stimulating, without so much fluff about himself that Katz tends to include in each article. I will say that Wood could probably ease up on the use of all his analogies and metaphors, but I enjoyed his writing.

    Katz, like most journalists of any stature, considers himself a central element of every story he writes. Count the number of personal pronouns he uses in a typical Katzdot piece and the number of times he makes himself the subject of a sentence. If they were a trigger in a drinking game, you'd have a guaranteed recipe for morning-after hangovers.
    I laughed at this one. Quite true!
    Now before I get flamed by the Katz defenders, yes, I have considered turning on the Katz filter, but haven't brought myself to do it quite yet. I guess I keep hoping that the next Katz article I read will prove to be worth it. Sooner or later I'll make up my mind whether any of them really are worth reading.

  • Like all writers, Katz needs an audience. As long as people respond to his editorials in either positive or negative terms (I suspect it really doesn't matter to him which it is), he will keep writing stuff.

    Suppose, however, that Katz writes an article and less than 10 people post a reply. How long will he keep writing to such a limited audience? Read if you want, but do NOT reply.

    To those saying that you can filter him out, yeah you can, but that's not the point. Filtering him out is a practical solution to a problem of principle, something which requires a principled solution. I don't think Katz should be writing here on principle, and whether I see his posts or not is not the issue.

  • First and foremost, a complete and well-studied deconstruction of Katz was long on order. Woods does it superbly.

    I read Jon Katz. Actually, I have been reading Katz for a long time. I used to like his writing a lot more when he talked about subjects he had studied. The real problem, and Woods points it wiht many more words, is that this late Katz is shallow and mostly self-referencial.

    Some of you around here seems to solve Katz problem (if one exists) by simply asking people to filter him out and leave him alone. But I don't think this attitude solves the right problem. Filtering Katz out solves a noise problem. It doesn't solve the content dillution Katz brings to Slashdot.

    Why is there content dillution if I don't have to read it? (Or, does the falling of a tree makes a noise if nobody is there to hear it?). Well, in the same way a salad recipe would cause some disconfort if published in C++ Report, so does Katz causes the same disconfort being published in Slashdot. This kind of misplacement of content tends to bother people because it usually brings along a misplaced audience and misplaced adds. A dillution of content may also signal a deeper change. Katz in Slashdot may well mean that Slashdot itself is changing and that we should start searching for technological news elsewhere. Most Katz detractors, consciously or not, are reacting against this last threat.

    As for Katz, he used to be a good journalist. I can't say he is a good writer. His mountain book is shallow and dry. "Running to the Mountain" does not add a comma do the meaning of aging in the late twenth century, to the search of spirituality in the modern age or to anything else. It is just a long account of a middle-aged man summer fever. And a boring account, for that matter. If Katz did not considered himself so important, this book could have been a lot better.

    And I don't think he can be forgived for making himself "news for nerds". Because "stuff that matters" he certanly isn't.
  • Actually, Ozzy initially bit the head off a dove in a meeting at a record company.

    They promptly threw him out of the building, but kept him signed to a contract.

    Then, in concerts, he would bite the heads off rubber bats as part of the show. Then, one night someone threw a real, unconcious bat on stage, Ozzy thought it was rubber, and bit it's head off.

    A rigourous round of rabies shots followed, and the Ozzy/freakshow-geek mythology took off.

    Geek mythology... hey, there's an idea!
  • You are correct, quality does matter, and while Woods article attacks the quality of Katz writings (sometimes erroneously, see the thread above about the origin of the term geek), many complainers about him here on slashdot refer to him "not belonging", rather than lack of research or depth of thought. Yes, there have been many times I've read an editorial by him and wondered where the fresh idea was hiding, but he does occasionally pose interesting questions. So, if the Katz debate move from one of "does he fit in" to one of "does he have anything interesting to say", then that is a good thing. The fact that he writes on a Mac, can't install Linux, and blamed it on a dog eating his motherboard, well, none of that really matters. As you said, what does count is the quality of what he posts.
  • You are correct, quality does matter, and while Woods article attacks the quality of Katz writings (sometimes erroneously, see the thread above about the origin of the term geek), many complainers about him here on slashdot refer to him "not belonging", rather than lack of research or depth of thought.

    Yes, there have been many times I've read an editorial by him and wondered where the fresh idea was hiding, but he does occasionally pose interesting questions. So, if the Katz debate move from one of "does he fit in" to one of "does he have anything interesting to say", then that is a good thing.

    The fact that he writes on a Mac, can't install Linux, and blamed it on a dog eating his motherboard, well, none of that really matters. As you said, what does count is the quality of what he posts.


  • If slashdot is to be known as more than just a hangout for free software fanatics, we need people like Katz to round out the slashdot universe.

    Remember in college, they made you take literature classes, art classes, even gym classes, all in hopes of broadening your horizons, and making you a richer human being.

    Katz has a place here. Don't be afraid of people with different ideas, and don't be afraid to have your beliefs challanged. Slashdot shouldn't become such an exclusive club that all we do is sit around and talk about how great Linux is, patting each other on the backs and berating all who don't think just like we do.

    He see's things just a little differently than we do. And for that, I thank him.

  • good ol' Jon and the departmental curmudgeon (Score:3)

    by dria ( 9758 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:59AM (#1962205)
    I don't like all of Jon Katz' articles, but I don't like all of any particular writer's writing (except for the shining exception of Hunter S Thompson).

    In a lot of ways I agree with Wood's extensive critique of Jon's articles (in spite of the fact that it does take a couple of pot shots). It does seem like Jon is possibly taking advantage of this forum to market his own stuff.

    Is there really a lot of harm in that? VA Research systems uses slashdot to market their own stuff: they (presumably) give Rob money and machines and in exchange they get ad space (and lots of it). That's fair: they give, they get, and vice versa for Rob M.

    Jon Katz also gives something to the site, and he's getting something in return. He provides content and he gets increased exposure. Give some, get some, 'round and 'round it goes.

    What I find impressive is the fact that Jon continues to stick around in spite of his many many detractors. Yeah, he can be a puffy ol' windbag at times, but his stuff usually contains enough of interest to make it worth reading (imho). If you disagree with me on this (and I know that oh-so-many of you do) the magical filtering features allow you to shut him out. Or, if you have a modicum of self-control and free will, you can choose to leave him unfiltered and simply Not Click Through to read his articles.

    Is slashdot "selling out". No. Rob & Co. is (from what I can tell) continually working their bums off to increase the quality and usability of this site. Allowing Jon Katz to write and post articles here is part of that. Recruiting more writers will further improve this site. Original content, whether you like it or hate it is a good thing.

    Maybe Jon could tone down the self-promotion a shade. Maybe Rob could refine his editorial judgement a shade. If not: so what. You've got the filtering technology, so use it.

    I'm glad that Rob added the link to Wood's news posting. It's a sure sign of increasing editorial maturity when an editor is willing to publish articles that criticise the publication and it's editorial policies.

    - deb


  • QOS (Score:3)

    by reaper ( 10065 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:39AM (#1962206) Homepage Journal

    I read most of Katz's articles, and liked most of the ones I've read (not necessarily agreeing, ofcourse) but lately I have noticed the decline of the content. Although I must admit that I'm a big a fan of spiritual jouney's as the next guy, and dog's, what the hell does that have to do with geeks/nerds/technology?

    His articles dealing with technological views from "regular" people's standpoint are usually a good way to go. I can gain a lot of insight as to why my users look at me funny all the time. I can gain a differing viewpoint on the same subject matter.

    In a place with no real niche for articles on strictly viewpoints, Katz offers up insightful editorials that will hit a mark usually. Unfortunately, lately his editorials have dealt less with viewpoints, and a little more with self-promotion. A little is fine, but his last article had a bit more than a little.

    Recently I've taken to quickly scanning his diatribes for his book title. If I see it a little too often, well then, close that window, and move on (unless I use lynx, then the back button is employed).

    I just hope the Katz decides to tone down the self promotion, and maybe even a bit of the fluff you find in standard articles for standard periodicals. Couldn't hurt.

  • It is one thing to read technical material; it's quite another to contemplate literature and assimilate it on an intellectual level. At the risk of putting words in Wood's mouth, this somewhat snobbish point is what I think he was trying to convey. I have to agree with him- and to put myself squarely on the "functionally illiterate" side of the fence.
  • For me, jonkatz articles are entertainment, not news. Wood's article is entertaining as well. By this I mean that while I'm never going to bother to research or deconstruct a Katz article, seeing someone else do it rather well is a good read. (Rather more ad-hominem than I'd prefer, but readable nonetheless.) I'd like to see more features at slashdot, particularly presented in a point-counterpoint style. Katz vs. Wood in Gasbag Deathmatch 2000!

    Oh, and one other thing. I've done volunteer work in adult literacy programs, where I learned that "functional illiteracy" means something specific, and it does NOT describe anybody like Rob. But what do you expect from another gasbag, anyway? ;-)
  • but that type of writing scares me. I read through most of the piece, and I have to admit the article achieves two important goals it's probably aiming for; It's interesting, and it makes you think. But it's also full of so much venom that I find it hard not to question the author's integrity in writing that piece. I can't counter any of the claims made against Katz as I don't read Katz's stuff (can't relate to his style of writing), but the attack on Rob was plain black-hearted. To claim true understanding of the motives undelying Rob's actions concerning the Katz matter and accusing him of commercial opportunism is plain careless moral negligence. Like many other Slashdot readers I've come to know Rob through his thankless work and dedication for our benefit and if I can't claim unshakable faith in Rob's purity of intention, well then, I strongly suspect that it is.
  • Katz's articles are written from a completely
    different point of view than other /. articles.
    This isn't an inherently bad thing. Broadening
    Slashdot's range of stories isn't automatically
    a terrible thing to do.

    His articles are of a more personal nature
    and as such will include more personal pronouns.
    So what? It's a column; it's an opinion piece;
    it's not a news article. He's an editorialist
    and, on occasion, a free-thinker.

    -Augie
  • I have to admit, much of what Katz writes, I skip over - I'm only slightly interested in his book, and tend to skip anything related to it. Additionally, his posts tend not to be strong on facts - but that's okay, he's writing opinion. His opinion and his experiences.

    Katz's opinions aren't always based on a sound factual foundation, but they are enlightening. Even though I don't agree with everything he says, and some of it I think is hogwash, but what he says provides insight into this culture from a different view.

    Yes, Katz *is* a geek, although not what we usually think of as a geek - but geek is a lot broader than how most of us use it. His writings often talk about technology - not the hows and whys of technology, but the how's and why's of it's affect on us, as humans.

    I often find I don't agree with what Katz has written, but what he has written is often something I wouldn't have thought of otherwise, my brain doesn't function like that. His writings bring his ideas into my conscious, where I can then think about them, and come to my own conclusions.

    Maybe the thoughts don't affect my day-to-day much, but they remind me there IS more to life than geekdome, and the little worlds most of us live in. His thoughts, no matter whether I agree, expand my thoughts and views on the world around me, and on how technology affects it, by making me think about subjects I wouldn't normally, in ways I wouldn't normally. It's for this reason I read Katz's works, as well as other columnists, such as Joseph Dobrien, who I agree with not at all.

    It's also for this reason, I think /. should have more people writing columns, from different perspectives, because even when we don't agree, it does force us to think about the subject in question.
  • When lambasting an author for his statements, nothing undermines a critic like throwing darts at a factual statement. The dejanews article suffers from this:

    > [Katz writes:]
    >> Geeks bit the heads off of
    >> chickens and rats in carnivals at the
    >> beginning of the century in exchange for
    >> room and board.
    >
    > Suggesting that Alice Cooper, faded mainstream
    > media musician who gets television time as an
    > indicator of American culture, is a geek,
    > strikes me as rather, well, odd. Come again?

    First off, the story about Alice Cooper biting the heads off chickens is a myth. At one show he had chickens as a prop, and one got snatched by his audience and torn to pieces. That got turned into the "biting the heads off" story.

    Secondly, Katz is entirely correct. At the turn of the century (rather before Cooper's time), and in fact up until the 1950s, "geeks" meant side-show performers whose acts consisted of them biting the heads off (and often eating entirely) small animals. Next to the fake freaks, they were the lowest of the low in the freakshow heirarchy. The blue-skinned, puzzle-tattooed Enigma from Jim Rose's Travelling Freakshow (as seen on the X-File) is a classic geek.
  • I hope that Wood will forgive me, considering my youth and lack of
    proper education.

    An example of that lack of education is evident in my unfamiliarity
    with the critic Foucault. Or perhaps he is a `thinker'. As I said,
    I'm unfamiliar. I only know what Wood said: Foucault brought thinking
    critically about people's arguments back into popularity. I don't see
    the *argument* that Wood critically examines, however. It seems as if
    he is merely attacking JonKatz on a personal level.

    But that, of course, must be a mis-reading. Otherwise, Wood would be
    guilty of just what he accuses JonKatz of. Wood must be criticizing
    JonKatz's argument somewhere. It seems like he is upset with
    JonKatz's promotion of his book. So, Wood is upset with some of
    JonKatz's behavior? But to raise this question of ethics doesn't
    involve `critical examination' of aphorisms, or a lack of
    understanding in the technical realm.

    But if that's the issue, why drag in all this garbage about JonKatz
    not knowing how to write? What does that have to do with his
    `argument'? Why the claim that a credible engineer wouldn't be able
    to keep a straight face in front of JonKatz? Why attack his lack of
    technical expertise? Are these not simply rhetorical devices, to make
    anyone who disagrees with Wood look stupid?

    I cannot see the argument Wood is criticizing. I see that he is
    critical, but only in the negative sense. I don't think that that's
    because JonKatz's arguments are poor, but because Wood takes little
    quotes out of any arguments they may have been a part of, and flame
    the quotes, rather than criticize any of JonKatz's arguments.

    I will admit that I find JonKatz's ideas about what shapes the
    Internet compelling and rewarding. JonKatz makes me excited to live
    at this time, and to participate in a forum like Slashdot (this is my
    first such participation -- but I've been a proud lurker for some nine
    months). I had no idea that my shared excitement of ideas with
    JonKatz proves that I can't be a competent engineer :-(

    Of course, I'm not a competent engineer, but now I know why.

    You post comes across as bearing much bitterness. This only makes it
    more difficult to understand what's at stake for you. Attacks on the
    credibility and worth of JonKatz do not interest me -- if I am
    interested in JonKatz's credibility or worth, I can examine the real
    thing myself. And I have found out that he is very, very good. If
    you aren't sure which of us to believe, Wood or me, then you can
    always read JonKatz for yourself! Of course JonKatz contradicts
    himself, calls himself an `opportunism waiting to happen' and a host
    of other things Wood finds fault with him for. Plato did all those
    same things. It isn't the fault of the author, but it is the very
    nature of truth itself. It is the very nature of philosophy.

    No dogmatism. No scepticism.

    And JonKatz is top notch.

    So all of this is about JonKatz's self-promotion, and CmdrTaco's
    `selling out'? Then let's talk about *that*, not try and blast
    JonKatz into the Pre-Silicon-Age!

    Personally, though, I suspect that what's at stake is
    something very different. I believe that this is the tension
    between freedom and equality which is inherent in democracy.
    These are ideas I've gathered from Tocqueville's _Democracy_
    _In_America_. Society is pushing for democracy. It has been
    pushing for this for nearly a thousand years. Katz might call
    it `breaking down walls'. The push is for two things: freedom
    and equality. Equality is more important to the people than
    freedom, and that's a shame, because freedom is a greater
    virtue. People don't like JonKatz because they see him as
    being better than they are. This prompts them to jealousy --
    but the jealousy of the majority. It's the same force that
    drives all of the JonKatz flamers. The things that they flame
    about aren't nearly as important as that they flame. The
    problem is that there are some people better than others.
    These `Greats' can't realistically be expected to walk the
    fine line of being completely technically savvy, being
    completely self-effacing, and knowing how to write a perfect
    English sentence! So what's the problem? It isn't that this
    one isn't technically savvy, or that he can't write a good
    sentence, or whatever, it's simply that he exists. And
    whatever he does will bring on flames, so long as what he is
    is better than the majority.

    The fact that people are *still* upset with JonKatz's presence
    on Slashdot, even though they can filter him out with a click
    of the mouse, only supports my view that people aren't upset
    with any particular thing Katz does, only that he exists.

    I think JonKatz would agree with me here. He takes flames as
    an indication that he's doing something worthwhile.

    Please try to check the impulse to tear down the great men
    around us. If Torvalds is on your programming team, don't try
    and get rid of him, but glory in his ability to program! I
    realize that it's impossible for me to ask this of you.
  • Augie, you hit the nail on the head, "It's a column; it's an opinion piece; it's not a news article. He's an editorialist and, on occasion, a free-thinker."
    Well, there's a section on /. for book reviews, a section for open community questions ("ask slashdot").
    So why doesn't /. have an editorial section? I think it might work rather well. There would be the in-house editorialists (John Katz et. al.). And then occasionally there could be a guest editorialist.
    There could be a slashbox for editorials and of course the editorials could be disabled by those adverse to the idea.
    I dunno, its just a thought.
  • This gets to the heart of my problem with Wood's piece. He undercuts some valid points with absolutely atrocious personal attacks, calling CmdtTaco virtually illiterate because of his review of the Open Sources book, without specifying why he would make such a daunting charge (yet the rest of the piece is chock-full of details and references). He then leaps to the notion that the reason Katz is allowed as a feature writer on Slashdot is because of some unstated monetary arrangement and in order to build site traffic in some vaguely unethical way.

    Well, give me a fucking break. You want a sleazy money suck, go look at the Lycos deal.

    As for Rob, I hope he keeps developing the concept of "feature writers" here on Slashdot. Keeps us from getting too stale arguing about software licensing and whether GNOME or KDE sucks less.

    I will know that Rob Malda has sold out when I hear about him driving a new Expedition around the frozen wastes of Michigan, having cashed in on a $100 million deal following a war to the bitter end between Michael Eisner, Bill Gates and Barry Diller for the rights.

    -------

  • Here, Here.

    I think Wood would provide an excellent foil to Katz. Adding a "In Response To:" type piece along to every Katz article might subdue the Katz haters quite a bit. Wood seems a bit pompous ("I can forgive Malda that, given his youth and lack of a decent education.."), but I wouldn't expect much less from a .UK poster.

    In any case, I think providing an alternative view to Katz would be a public service. It seems that public opinion on his merits is about evenly divided. I'd definitely like to see someone provide rebuttle to his articles - preferably from someone technical - perhaps Wood might be a good first choice?


  • hey all.
    Katz is a writer. A frequently good writer (and just as frequently over-simplistic and utopian), but there are many reasons that he is a good contributor to /. (and I wholeheartedly agree with a previous poster that he does seem like the ONLY writer here).

    Even though the site is subtitled "news for nerds. stuff that matters" this is not limited solely to discussions of purely technical merit. There are people that are interested only in the technical aspects (linus) and there are people who are worried and concerned about the implications of our technology. Technology created in a vacuum helps no one. Anyone remember the Manhattan Project? The technical acheivements of splitting the atom were controlled by an intense environment of military competion and secrecy. Hence, we have intense nuclear escalation up through the middle of the century, then we have inferior technology designed to try to keep up (Chernobyl).
    While that was a mighty digression from Katz, my point is, that SOMEBODY here needs to remember that this stuff affects people. I, too, skip through the account of the success of Katz's book. I would probably read it, but with a healthy dose of skepticism, like we should all read ANY source.
    And someone did point out that these are editorials, personal sometimes in nature, and not academic dissertations.
    Add more writers, more voices and don't forget that this stuff affects people, not just other programmers.
  • who wants to filter not only on scores but on names ?

    ok, this is just to write it, since I don't read authers'name, therefore I cannot tell what that guy wrote... The only very name I know is Cmdr's one ;-))

  • This is Ridiculous (Score:3)

    by mr2¢ ( 16489 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:33AM (#1962219)
    Readers: Either you filter him, ignore him or read him. How hard is that? Any other excuse is lame.

    /. : Either you keep him or get rid of him. Posting something like this on your site is throwing gasonline on the fire. These type of posts are antagonistic and fostering the controversy. If you're trying to defend Katz, then do it off the main page in a prepared statement that gets updated often.

    Personally I like his work and have e-mailed him a couple times to compliment his work and tell him to ignore the flames. BUT, you guys need to decide. /. is starting to feel tabloid-ish with these kind of "news" items.

    If you want him (hope you do!) then keep him. People don't like it...tough! If not bag him, and if people don't like *that*...tough! You said it yourself "...in the end its up to me".
  • Agreed. I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading that article.."Dump this loser. I come here to read Slashdot, not 'ComputerLife'.."

    See, I wouldnt mind if Katz were simply uninformed...There was a point where all of us had to learn about Linux somewhere. But that isn't the case here. Katz is intentionally writing pile after pile of bass-ackward manure which neither adds value to Slashdot, nor provides any insight into what most of us already know.

    Katz doesn't need to be tarred and feathered -- But he sure as hell doesn't need to be on Slashdot, either.

    Bowie
  • The term "geek" goes go back to the turn of the century..literally, a carnival worker who spent 9 to 5 locked in a cage, biting the heads off of rodents/poultry as people were paraded through a "house of horrors"..So, Katz is right in that respect. :)

    Now if only we could find one that would bite the heads off of inept and clue-needy journalists. ;)

    Bowie
  • Opinions are what Katz and Pournelle are selling. I read them both, because they are willing to look at things, see them from a different angle than I had and tell me about what they see. Jon more than Jerry. I hope they both stay. And confound it, Slashdot is not forcing you to read Katz' articles. Rob is making what he has to say available so you can read it if you want to. By now you should have a fair idea what kind of things Katz will say. Read it or don't, but don't whine because he is saying them.

    One would almost think that Katz is violating cherished beliefs, and what we are hearing is "burn the heritic".

    Of all the things I read in these comments, the ones that seem to give that message are the saddest. And those saying it should be carefull -- their turn at the stake might come if they had the courage to give their real names and stand behind what they are saying.

    Jim Hurlburt
    jlh@ewa.net

  • grr. (Score:1)

    by tomk ( 20364 )
    I have Katz's articles filtered out, now how can I filter articles about Katz's articles?

    I have nothing against Katz except that his articles waste my time and screen space, and are wholly irrelevant and uninteresting.
  • I still don't know what so many people are upset about Katz posting his editorials on /. While what he posts doesn't contain the very latest technical information it is easy to read. Hopefully some of what Katz writes causes you to think about how technology effects the nontechnical members of society at large. My mother has just found IRC in the last couple weeks to her this is a great new thing. Most of the readers of /. have already used and forgotten about IRC long ago. These are the people we need to remember when we think about technology.
  • From the article...

    Rob Malda is someone who can lay claim to an enviable drawing ability
    while constantly and honestly disclaiming any ability with the English
    language whatsoever and throwing considerable and mostly-laudable
    effort into running what has become a popular public service. He's
    also someone who appears to be functionally illiterate (cf his review
    of the 'Open Source Book' on Slashdot) and it looks as if he would
    think that 'editorial balance' has something to do with spreading
    webserving load via SMP.

  • Dump Katz, get Wood (Score:4)

    by jslag ( 21657 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @09:34AM (#1962226)
    Almost a catchy slogan, eh?

    Seriously though, Lloyd Wood's article did more for my grey matter than the last dozen Katz articles -- well researched, logically organized, thoughtful, to the point. Not controversial for the sake of drawing attention. Slashdot would do very well to feature this guy and anyone else who has a similar similar level of being clued in/being able to read and write.
  • I often but not always read his articles, and I have to say there's usually something in them worth my time. Even if I disagree, it's usually something worth the trouble of figuring out *why* I disagree.

    As far as various authors talking about themselves a lot -- they say you should write about what you know, and most of us know more about ourselves than anything else. If done well, sound-bite biography can be charming, or at least amusing -- see Isaac Asimov's anthologies, where he talks briefly about how each story came to be and what was happening in his life that made him think that way. Introspection and reminiscence are valid and useful sources of raw material for writing. If some of us find that some writers' use of these sources gets in the way of what we think the story ought to be, then maybe we misunderstood the story. Or maybe constructive criticism will help the writer to a more mature style.

    Let the man write. None of us is forced to read it.
  • To summarize: "Katz Sucks", "Malda sucks", sprinkled liberally with complete unashamed nitpicking on minute details.

    I disagree quite strongly, not only with the Katz-bashing (which was big on nitpicking but small on real arguments), but specifically with the Malda-bashing. My feeling is that Rob Malda is FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS with the site. If Rob Malda wanted to make money from /. then that would be HIS CHOICE. He has every right to do so, and quite frankly, I think he has earned it. Malda has no obligations to anyone but himself.

  • I find it ironic that after bashing Katz and his book, The Obvious links to Running to the Mountain on Amazon.com with their account number so they'll get 15% from anyone who purchases the book off the link. Teehee.

    --

  • This guy can write. If he can make an inherently boring subject like this interesting, imagine what he can do with "Stuff that matters"...

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Close