Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org News

Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft 283

Posted by CmdrTaco from the what-they-think-we-think dept.
Its happened before, but with the recent MS happenings, MacWeek, MSNBC and to a certain extent Wired have written stories based largely on Slashdot comments: Specifically those that appeared on Microsoft Addresses World, Instant Legal Analysis and Microsoft==Monopoly. The mainstream media now thinks that picking a few comments from a thread on Slashdot is a story (of course they often don't properly credit or link them). More interesting is that by picking a few extreme comments, or poking fun of "Anonymous Coward" that they somehow have the pulse of Slashdot as a whole. Regardless, they are watching, its fascinating to see what they think we think.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft More

Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • They'll do anything to get a story out quick.

  • Seems that this is good news for Andover and Slashdot. For a while now it seemed that /. was getting an undeserved rap as merely regurgitating Wired, c|net et al. Now it looks like the shoe's on the other foot.... One question, since the copyright/licensing of Slashdot seems to be pretty freewheeling, how would they (trad. media outlets) properly attribute quotes (especially AC's) - look up every User Info page?
    #include "disclaim.h"
    "All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
  • It might be better for journalists today to study the news itself, and not the biased opinion of a website that is reporting what they feel is news.
  • So maybe the Slashdot way of life is taking hold..
  • I think slashdot is becoming a regular resource for some journalists. Is this a problem? Perhaps it's not the best idea if you're a journalist, but it can be good for the community as a whole.

    Journalists ought to work to find out all they can about a story, and certainly the geeks reaction as gauged by slashdot is part of that. It's not the whole story, but it's part of it.

    What does it mean for slashdot users? I think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of linux users. No one should jump to the conclusion that any of us speak for anyone else, but it's easy to see general trends in controversial stories.

    I guess it also means we ought to congratulate Rob & co, they've worked hard to make this a legitimate news site and I believe (and have believed for awhile) that they are successful.

    -Scott


  • Any good reporter knows that there are many ways to view something. When reporting on issues regarding open-source software and many other technical issues, Slashdot is an excellent place to do some quick and thorough research on what people are doing with it and how they feel. The alternative would be extensive research through surveys and polls... looking through Slashdot comments is much faster and probably more accurate. Plus, Slasdots gathering of techinical articles from around the world is a great source of background material on the issues in question as well. Any journalist covering OSS should definitely have Slashdot on their bookmarks list, and others who cover the tech world in general should as well.
  • what we read in mass media about /. isn't necessarily what they think we think. It's what they think people would like to read about us thinking. A lot (most?) of the time they're the same thing, though
  • It is kind of funny that /. would have this opinion, since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.

  • Not surprising (Score:3)

    by rde ( 17364 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @08:21AM (#1551846)
    Despite the number of offtopic or flamebait comments, /. does represent a significant base of people who are able to think, and who can express their ideas. Therefore it's entirely reasonable for news stories to quote slashdotters.
    Journos read /. for the same reason I do; to get the opinions (and points of view) of others. I've had to change my opinion on several topics based on information or POVs of others, and I hope I've convinced one or two people to consider my position on various topics.
    As for taking the piss out of ACs: if I were writing an article which featured /. comments, I wouldn't be able to resist doing it either.
  • I imagine that main-stream media outlets are starting to get a little frightened of Slashdot. CmdrTaco & company are making media two-way, which is something that even The Great Wired is not accustomed to.

    One one hand, Slashdot can get huge amounts of traffic, and therefore money, to websites. But, on the other hand, they know that they're going to get flak. No matter how intelligently-written the article that's being discussed, there will almost always be more intelligent people on Slashdot to pull it apart and expose the flaws.

    We're both a blessing and a curse. Ain't it great what a little brainpower can do?

  • Tomorrow on C|Net (Score:3)

    by davie ( 191 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @08:22AM (#1551848) Journal

    Slashdot on Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft

  • ...in the meta moderate page.

    What a wonderful tool for your average hack - 10 Slashdot comments from recent times - there is bound to be something in there that can be totally taken out of context and misquoted. I meta moderate daily (that sounds rude now that I come to read it) and sometimes it can be quite funny to read a comment taken out of it's thread - however while funny it also fails to bring the nature of the thread across and can result in a diametrically opposite meaning.

    Seriously though - the mainstream media is not necessarily something to worry about as the people who cover the news properly for the people who are truly affected are getting the stories right. It doesn't really matter what Joe Public thinks as he doesn't have any say in the matter - however your (Computer Weekly)/(Insert Foreign Computing Mag Here) [delete as appropriate] reader is more likely to be the sort of person who makes decisions for more than one persons IT needs - these are the people who can affect the market and these are the people who matter.

  • As soon as they start taking our quotes out of context, their meaning goes down the tubes.

    A good example is when JFK was giving his speech in Berlin and said at the end 'I am a jelly donut' in german (trying to say 'I am from Berlin'). It was all in context... just think if suddenly Wired had JFK on the cover with the title 'I am a donut: Your future life in a donut-based e-commerce.'

    Anyway, as long as they give the URL's to where they got the quotes, I think it's a good thing for the community.

    Now about that singles forum [slashdot.org] on slashdot.... `8r)
    --
    Gonzo Granzeau

  • Mind you, I'm not complaining, but a lot of it?? Try all of it.

    Almost all of the "stories" on slashdot are just links to another story. Big deal. That's not the point. Slashdot is more than just another news site. It's a discussion forum. Except in the case of the occasional piece by Roblimo or Katz, you can be pretty sure the "News" you read on /. has been posted somewhere else first. But the comments... Now, those are originals (hopefully).


    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Lets face it. Journalists, editors, "major" businesspeople, are not required to be accountable for their opinions and actions anymore. Why? Truly, I do not know. Yet we see them act as they well please, mostly to pander to external bucks, instead of their supposedly readership's best interest. Doesn't this seem strange to you all? Alarming even?

    I mean... If ("if") I had a business of my own, I surely wouldn't hire a person who has a questionable professional record (where "questionable acts" are depending on his profession), then, why do newspapers, magazines, corporations, etc... constantly hire people who EVERYONE knows have done damaging things in the past? Some will say "because the industry demands it", does that mean that everyone's corrupt? Anything for a buck?

    Truly I don't understand, can someone shed some light on this for me?

    -elf

  • I wonder how much longer it will be until someone submits a joke article, perhaps just as part of a quickie or something, and it is snatched by a more mainstream site as truth because they didn't get it.

    And if they quote this reply, I want some compensation:}


  • Should I be pissed? (Score:4)

    by Wah ( 30840 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @08:26AM (#1551855) Homepage Journal
    From the MSNBC article...

    "Tough for Slashdotters to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote.

    Which is remarkably similar to comments from this posting [slashdot.org]. It would seem that my comments (Comments are owned by the Poster.) have been taken and reproduced without my permission. Not to mention edited and taken out of context from a comment made in jest (this was a reply to the story that the ruling would be out in a few hours, and included a smily).

    So my comments were stolen, changed and reused without permission when they are clearly owned by me and contact information was easily available.

    Legal recourse? Should I bitch and moan? e-mail bomb msnbc?(j/k) Ask for my cut of the ad revenue from that page? This is more of a curiosity, but I am still taken aback that someone would so blatantly steal another's idea without attribution (I am not paid by /. and therefore it would be incorrect to call me a /. correspondent)
  • Eventually these discussions degraded to "flamebait," or a war of words


    So does that mean I can define "gun" as "murdering someone in cold blood in front of their children and pets with an illegal, likely stolen millitary-issue automatic rifle"?


    At least TRY to learn what the buzzwords mean before using them. God, I'm bitching alot today!

  • Eventually these discussions degraded to "flamebait," or a war of words


    So does that mean I can define "gun" as "murdering someone in cold blood in front of their children and pets with an illegal, likely stolen millitary-issue automatic rifle"?


    At least TRY to learn what the buzzwords mean before using them. God, I'm bitching alot today!

  • Gee.. (Score:2)

    by Tarnar ( 20289 )
    Just finished reading the MSNBC article. I hardly see why they even RAN it. What was it? A few quotes from /., MSNBC and AOL forums. None of them indicated what the majority thought. They ranged from "Yeah, MS Sucks" to "The DOJ should bugger off!"

    None of them were attributed to author. No indication of context or what the consensus of the forum was there either. Strangely though, the pro-MS type quotes ("DOJ go home!"-style ones) were given to the AOL/MSNBC groups. I suppose they just wanted to make /. even more 'out there' and 'against the flow.' Sure, it's between-the-lines, but it's still there.

    And while we're up, who feels like /.'ing the MSNBC poll running with that article? It was 33/33/33 between MS is a good monopoly/MS is an evil monopoly/MS is not a monopoly. I seriously wonder how 33% of voters could know about the FOF and still not believe it.
  • Just about the only real source of information that Slashdot is good for (journalistically, mind you) is the reaction of events by it's readers.

    What I mean is that everything posted on Slashdot is second-hand. We get our news as it comes down the pipe, and then we discuss it. Most of these stories are from somewhere else (read: Wired, NYT, the Globe).

    While I'll be first in line to congratulate the Slashdot group for a job well done, it won't be in the name of a "legitimate news site". That label just doesn't fit. It's more like "legitimate discussion forum"


    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • I would say that just citing as:

    fluffhead said on slashdot.org "this is good news"

    or

    considered it "good news for Andover and Slashdot" (fluffhead on slashdot.org, 11/8/99)

    would be sufficient. It's all the information needed to look up the reference, and it's also the most identifying information, since you could hypothetically be displaying a fake email address, or two slashdot users could reference the same email address.

    I consider citing an electronic forum such as this similar to a "personal communication" sometimes seen in bibliographies. Being overly formal, making the citation looks like you're quoting another magazine, for example, would misrepresent the issue, because posts to slashdot are not your deeply considered, once-and-for-all opinion hte subject. For anonymous coward, I would just use "blah blah blah" said an anonymous poster to slashdot.org.

    later,
    kevin

  • The majority of the comments I read (especially from Anonymous Cowards) were extremely uninformed and most likey came from a 15 year old.

    The articles make a slashdot sound more like a chat room, which it is not.

    If I formed an opinion on those articles of Slashdot, I would come here expectnig to see such ingenious one-liners as:

    "Linux Ruuulz!!!"
    "Microsoft Blows!!!"

    Oh well, what the hell do I care... I enjoy the news.
  • I have no problem with the media, or who ever wants to read comments, looking at the opinions posted here.

    However if they are going to use those comments or posted articles then they should give credit to the authors. And if those choose not to leave their names then they should declair that the submission was annonymous.

    But probabally the most important thing of all would be to give credit to Slashdot itself.

    Just my 2.5 cents.

  • All of it, except reader-submitted reviews, feature articles, and Ask Slashdot.

    Unless of course, you meant for very small values of all...

  • "To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) s one's own; use (another's production) without crediting the source. Literary theft..."

    Thank you, Merriam and Webster.

    I'm sure some people are flattered that their ideas are being republished in "major" media, and that's enough to make their day.

    Some people, though, might not be so happy... The problem is, of course, that proving plagiarism is well-nigh impossible to do in court. (And how many /.'ers have the money to sue CNN or MSNBC anyway?)

    Maybe it's time to take that little copyright/disclaimer bar at the bottom of every page and make it just a little bigger...

  • It's nice in that people who previously would never have been quoted in mainstream media are allowed a place to voice an opinion that might actually get quoted elsewhere, but I think it's also a danger. I don't want to see the 'quality' or style of posts changing because people think their post might get picked up by Wired etc. And I suppose there is something to be said for actually backing up a quote with the quotee's credentials, bio, etc.

    -beme

  • Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:3)

    by Chuck Milam ( 1998 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @08:34AM (#1551868) Homepage

    I think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of linux users.

    Slashdot is more than just Linux users. Here's a better way to say it:

    I think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of technically-minded users.

    Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that Slashdot is very much slanted toward Linux fans, but let's not forget the others who are part of our little community here who may not be Linux users or advocates.

    BTW: Before it even starts: Linux is my personal OS of choice, so put the flame-throwers away, kiddies.


  • ZDNN also "created" a piece which amounted to nothing more than selected /. postings, and called it Linux Lovers: Hail To The Judge --- NOT! [zdnet.com].

    Its a crock of shit. Check it out. It lumps all 'open sourcers' into the same bucket. It assumes that because initial posts were largely ecstatic, and some later posts were critical of the judges Linux remarks, that the opinion of the 'open source movement' changed along the way.

    Typical ZD yellow journalism.

    ======
    "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

  • Nope.
    You should sue their lily white arses, it being America and all... :)
  • I don't think they need to ask your permission any more than a roaming reporter needs to ask permission to quote someone on the street. If something you said on the street popped up on the 4 o'clock news, would you still feel offended?

  • MSNBC Not at all Biased (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I would just like to go on the record as stating that having read the MSNBC article, I can say with much confidence that MSNBC was not at all biased. Oh sure they took Microsoft's side and pointed out comments from AOL and other non-slashdot forums that seemed to side with Microsoft while portraying Slashdot'ers as near fringe lunatics. And certainly its true that MSNBC is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC. Despite this, we must carry in mind that NBC is a reputable news source and they would certainly never show any bias whatsoever. -Cyberllama
  • Actually, since they DID extract a comment & edit it, does this count as "Fair Use"? If they had reproduced the comment in its entirety, then they might have been violating copyright, but since they didn't...

    Does "Fair Use" also mean that you have to "maintain" the original meaning of the information which you extracted?
  • Slashdot's reporting on mainstream media is fair in a way that their reporting on us isn't, because Slashdot includes the link to their content and you're expected to look for yourself. The mainstream media very clearly *don't* expect you to go and look, they want you to take their word for it, and usually they don't even do the easy, obvious thing of including the hyperlink. I can only conclude that they'd much rather you weren't in a position to conveniently compare their description of anything with the thing itself.

    Let's see those hyperlinks please. And not just to the head of the story - link to every comment you've exerpted, so we can see the words you quote in context, and the replies it garnered. True, it will make it easier for us to judge the quality of the reporting, but if you would like to be seen to be honest then it's just a burden you'll have to bear.

    (Mike@ABC - if you're reading this, I'd love to know what you think!)
    --
  • since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.

    What is discussed might be located on other sites, but the reason I read /. is the comments. So all the actual good reading content is in fact generated by /.'s readers. Look ma, truly interactive media.
  • I thought he said "I am an outsider". ("Ich bein ein auslander." -- is that correct?)
    Oh well, he said something stupid. :-)
    --
    Chris Dunham
    http://www.tetrion.com/~chameleo/index.html
  • This is fine and good in a print media, but this isn't print. This is online media. HTML was designed with a great and glorious thing called the "hyperlink." There is no reason why they couldn't use it (in addition to what you said). If they are worried about liabilty (sad, but probable), they can disclaim all off-site links. Most do anyway.
  • Trust me, the 'main-stream media outlets' could care less if Slashdot readers, or any other readers for that matter, pick apart their stories. Ratings is rating, hits is hits. They'll gladly write a completely incorrect and inflammatory article if they know lots of people will read it. So yeah, we are a blessing and a curse, but in their eyes, a curse is just as good as a blessing :)
  • ...but wait till they see the Slashdot effect shredding their servers!

    I can just see a followup to those article...

    Interestingly enough, shortly after we published the aforementioned article, our servers were taken down by a concerted effort of thousand of hackers.

    "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"

  • Ugh...quoting the hotheads (Score:3)

    by Perrin-GoldenEyes ( 4296 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @08:43AM (#1551884)
    I'm starting to get really tired of the press paying the most attention to the hotheads and ignoring reasonable voices. I'm also getting fairly tired of hotheads on /. shooting themselves (and all of us) in the foot. The fact is that the judge did know what he was talking about. At THIS TIME and from the normal user's perspective linux and BeOS and *BSD and the others are, in fact, fringe OS's. I love my linux server, but even I still use Windoze for most of my day-to-day computer use. The OS may be more prone to crashing, but it is much more stream-lined from a user perspective. As far as user-interface is concerned unix just can't compete with Windoze. The apps I use are faster and, by and large, more stable in Windoze. IE5 almost never crashes, and usually appears pretty much instantly when I launch it. I can't even come close to saying either of these things for Netscape in Linux. At this point, the software available makes Win by far the best choice for normal computer users. This is the case because Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the consumer operating system market. That has made it impractical for most software developers to release unix versions of their software. This is slowly changing, but in the context of this day and age, the finding of facts is absolutely accurate. (Note: the fof (at least the parts I've read quoted) does not really say anything about the comparative quality of the OS's.)

    Anybody ever wonder why Jean-Louis Gasse of Be, Inc. made a conscious and public decision NOT to try to compete with Microsoft? Why would somebody choose to accept a niche market with a versatile product?


    Cheers,
    Perrin.
  • how can anyone report 'news' these days without finding out from another news source, without actually being at the very event they report on? it is seemingly impossible to me.
  • Do note that the opinions of MacWeek and Macworld do not necessarily represent the opinions of most, or even all Mac users. Take a second to check out the URL...
    http://macweek.zdnet.com
    I stopped subscribing to Macworld as they've become increasingly out-of-touch with most Mac users. For a while, they ran articles on how to set up windows NT, until the deluge of letters reminding them just what exactly they were supposed to be writing about...

  • Can't you guys add a bit on every page that says that no portion of any comment can be taken without link and credit?

    It might require that all comments become property of Slashdot, but that's life
  • Of course! I would hate to be quoted, edited, taken out of context, et cetera by a publication without permisson. I know I've done it to a lesser degree in the past, but the point is, it's wrong and shouldn't happen. I know I won't do it again.
    If you do decide to take some sort of action, be sure to keep Slashdot appriased of the situation!
    --
    Chris Dunham
    http://www.tetrion.com/~chameleo/index.html
  • I misspoke if I led you to believe I thought that slashdot had journalistic (read this sentence carefully please) value beyond reader reaction. Only in rare cases would a post in these discussions be a primary source. That doesn't detract from it's value to the community of computer geeks everywhere though, as a place for mainstream media to gain a little insight.
  • Got a HTTP/1.1 Server Too Busy error.. does that count as MSNBC being slashdotted?
  • yes, sue them. If YOU took one of their articles, bent, mutilated and streched it. Then put it on your website they'd sue your pants off.

    matisse:~$ cat .sig
  • At least they didn't mention first posts or beowulf clusters.

    Jon
  • Actually JFK's quote was "Ich bin ein Berliner." He was using the American way of adding -er to a word to mean from there, like "New Yorker". However, this didn't go over well, because he didn't know that a berliner in german is a jelly doughnut. I am sure he would have caught it had he been giving the speech in Frankfurt though. :)
  • Yes, there are issues with credit where credit is due...

    Yes, there are issues with quoting Anonymous Coward and wondering who he is...

    Yes, there are issues with how they are taking a shortcut by just going to slashdot...

    BUT... think about all the times that you've read a mainstream media article which didn't seem to have much sense of how it really was. At least now, we have the opportunity to provide these people with the right information.

    Now if only FUD master John C. Dvorak would get a clue...

    --

  • Who says they're not all doing there research. During the RedHat IPO stuff I got these 2 messages...

    ************************************************ *
    Hi--I'm a reporter from Wired News working on an article about RedHat's
    offer to sell shares at the IPO price to members of the open source
    community. Judging by the thread and poll on slashdot, and some e-mails
    I've gotten, there's some concern about getting access to the offer.

    If you have a minute, I'd like to talk to you about this. I can be reached
    at ..., or e-mail me with a number to reach you at.

    Thanks,

    Polly Sprenger
    Wired News
    ************************************************ *
    My name is Randy Smith and I'm a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and I
    was wondering if I could talk to you for a possible story on the Red Hat
    stock allocation. I saw your posting on "Slashdot." My phone number is....
    ************************************************ **

    -Al-
  • How could they not love us. Here they have a public opinon poll of sorts where they can steal material from without compensation to the authors. Breaking the rule of not mentioning a news competetor in print is no big deal to these types.

    The smart ones fear us, they don't quote slashdot because they see that this is the future of news. When I'm reading an article, I usually click off when I get to any part which mentions slashdot.

  • Remember that Slashdot is more of a forum than a news service. This lends to the biased and even inflammatory comments by users and Anonymous cowards. These reporters of these services are also biased. They are biased towards the almighty buck. Ultimately, it is the average joe who knows nothing about hacker culture that pays for their paychecks. Now Slashdot does report the news, but it is "news for geeks" and not for a more generalized readership. The general public loves sensationalism, exaggeration, and hear-say. That is what motivates sales of newspapers and that is what sells advertisements. Don't get so inlflamed about these articles. We know they are wrong. Let's try to set a positive image by responding appropriatly and not with a nuclear strike.
  • To a certain degree, Slashdot encourages this sort of behavior. We've managed to pigeonhole ourselves ("News for Nerds") as the most recognizeable repository of geek-screed on the web. Since a lot of the opinions posted here are on the incendiary side, it figures that journalists looking for the "what geeks think of the Jackson decision" story would look to Slashdot first.

    What's a little frustrating about the situation, though, is the fishbowl-like feeling you get while reading thse stories. No one has ever (to my knowledge) used a series of "ZDNet Talkback" posts as fodder for a story of its own. While I'm of the opinion that the reader posts here are of a higher quality than Talkback's (by an order of magnitude), I think this has more to do with the fact that ZDNet has lawyers. Lots of 'em. In a variety of fruit flavors. They consider those posts to be essentially their property, and fair-use clauses aside, they'd likely pursue legal action against rival publications quoting them hither and yon.

    I'm not sure I really see this as too much of a problem: prohibiting people from quoting Slashdot posts seems antithetical to a group of people known for supporting, say, open source initiatives. But it still kind of bothers me that Slashdot does the work, and MacWeek and MSNBC get a cheap story.
  • What's ./? :)
  • People (and the press) have long based their opinions of whether or not someone was worth listening to on some arbitrary, like if they can sing or act or are cute... That's old news.

    The new thing here is that our words are being quoted not because of _who_ we are, but because of _where_ we said them!

    This may be a first in the history of fame... This could be, in some warped and twisted way, progress. Heh.
  • "I think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of linux users."
    "Slashdot is more than just Linux users."

    Of course /. is, but I think the point of the original point is that the perception (from those outside) is that /. is mainly the voice of Linux, whereas the reality (which you point out) is much more.

  • M$ (Score:1)

    by TM22721 ( 91757 )
    If M$ was a monopoly, they would have bought Netscape, Sun and AOL instead of competing with their own products. M$ could have owned the Internet, Gates would be a trillionaire instead of just a billionaire and been in no worse trouble with the Feds.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Microsoft had its defenders as well: relatively few on Slashdot, somewhat more in other forums, such as America Online's message boards and MSNBC's chat auditorium.

    I'm &lt sarcastic &gt glad &lt /sarcastic &gt we were compared to forums on America Online and MSNBC. First, AOL is made up primarily non technical people (I know there are several techies using AOL, but you are not the majority). And I should hope that there would be Microsoft supporters on a forum that has "MS" in its name!!!!


    Steven Rostedt

  • Interestingly enough, shortly after we published the aforementioned article, our servers were taken down by a concerted effort of thousand of hackers.

    ROTFL... Oh yeah, hackers indeed we are! :-) Funny how "they" and "us" seem live on two totally different planets, yet some words from our dictionary seem to be spelt the same as unrelated words in theirs. :-)

  • Does "Fair Use" also mean that you have to "maintain" the original meaning of the information which you extracted?

    This might be orthogonal, but misrepresenting what someone says might be actionable if it harms that person. Taking you out of context and then suggesting you're a dork and shouldnt' be listened to is one thing though, and not being fully scrupulous is another. I doubt in this case you'd get much out of them.

  • I wish people whould quite bashing the media just because they think they're this big bad entity that's just out to rip everybody off. I've already read several posts about plagerism which pissed me off.

    Cool off people, come on. These articles never attemped to pass /. opinions off as thier own, they explicitly said that they came from /. Everyone wants to complain about thier name not bieng metioned when a sentence of thier's gets quoted along with half a dozen others. To those people I say "What the hell is your problem??". I think it's a good thing that the media is telling other people that they think the opinions of /.'ers are important. Half the time people here are saying they wish the world would read /. and then when some of our posts do get metioned in the news, you go and jump and scream that "they stole my stuff!", "they didn't mail me a fat check for quoting me!", "my name won't be metioned in a national news article!". Loosen up people.

    -Ky'dishar
  • think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of technically-minded users.

    True, /. is and always has been "News For Nerds..Stuff that matters", and I like it that way. But is that how it's seen? My fear is it's seen by most of the reporters we're talking about as linux freaks... While it may apply in some part it's not, as you said, accurate...

    Still, that only increases the need for us lowly posters to make well thought out comments whatever our viewpoint may be...
  • Technically-minded users?

    Don't forget that there is a lot of technical-minded people out there that don't share most of the opinions expressed on Slashdot (i.e. preferring Microsoft software/solutions, thinking that Microsoft is going the right way etc.) and therefore don't read /.
    They may be biased in their views just as much as we are. It has nothing to do with technical-mindedness.
    They might just think what they think for other technical reasons than we do.

  • slashdotters post comments, media quotes, slashdotters comment on media quoted comments, media quotes slashdotters commenting on media quoting slashdotters, slashdotters comment on media quoted comments on slashdotters commenting on media quoting comments....
  • Its Called Techocrasy - When the Geeks rule the world :o)

    Ah, but if only it were so. You see, living in New Zealand (the way I do) you *very* quickly lose all interest and/or respect for traditional media, and well as all respect for politians. It would seem, to the only mildly educated observer, that people here only get a job in the media or in politics if they can't get a job anywhere better (ie, anyware else). Bottom line - We now have a country ruled by the stupidest and least qualifyed people to do so...

    I can see two(2) ways around this. -

    1) Bloodyed revolution - Not really my favorite, but the one that gets most peoples attention when I mention it. I also generally use the phrase "First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers!" (Steve Jackson is a God :o) )

    2) Slow intergration into existing govenment, perhaps resulting in the "Technology Party" - Probably the way things are going to have to happen. I can see no better way for a country to be run than a technocrasy. Well, I can - A technocrasy with the sole aim of making sure that humans (or what ever desends from humans) are around to witness the end of the universe, and (hopefully) beyond (don't ask - *I* can't help with this one :o) ). I'm trying to take the first step on this road - the step of trying to get everyone on this road :o)

    Hmm. I've started to ramble here. Oh well, there goes my one point of karma to a "-1, Offtopic" but I don't care. As far as I can see, at least part of this is aplicable to the US of A...

    Uh. What was this meant to be about again? Oh yeah . Media using Slashdot. Well anything that lets the voice of the inteligent/educated be heard is most likely a Good Thing (tm). And as for my own Political/Scientific Views... well, to be honest they are silly. No one is going to elect me or any of my ilk on the policy "I want the human race to be around until the end of the universe" - these people havent even figured out if our oil suply is going to run out soon, and I want them to be worryed about our Sun burning out...!

    Oh. and I'm ranting again. Oh well :o)

  • This seems to be the worst of Old Media. A traditionally print magazine goes to the web and publishes a story summarizing the discussion on /. for those too lame or busy to read for themselves.

    I thought web journalism was going to get people *closer* to the sources, not install another layer of filters.

  • It's just like the antiwar movement in the 60s... (Score:3)

    by sethg ( 15187 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @09:03AM (#1551920) Homepage
    TV reporters covering rallies against the Vietnam War would usually point their cameras at the scruffy hippies or the people waving Vietcong flags, and not at the protesters who looked like normal college students.

    This (a)convinced the average TV-watching American that the movement against the Vietnam War was populated entirely by weirdos, because that's what they saw on TV; (b)encouraged people in the antiwar movement to act more scruffy and dangerous, because they confused getting their images on TV with having an impact on public opinion.

    For more details, see Todd Gitlin's book, The Whole World is Watching.

  • Jeepers. With all these wide and varied comments on slashdot, how's the media supposed to discern which of our comments are actually indicative of the views of the hacker community? (Comments ranked at 5 are a pretty good place to start. Duh...)

    But the troll and flamebait posts ranked at -1 are soooo much more fun to quote -- especially if your goal is to demonstrate that we're a bunch of kooks. Don't expect your views to be accurately represented anywhere in the media -- what good are comments unless they can be used out of context to help make someone's point. :-)

  • After readint the 3 articles

    I MSNBC one was the worst. It was based almost
    entirly on a few slashdot comments, very little
    original thought. Big deal, they can take random
    comments from people who don't necissarily have
    any credentials. Its basically a Man on the street
    opionon without leaving your cushy office.

    II The wired article had a stupid title, but was
    the most substance of the 3. The title was
    something to the effect of "Judge says linux wont
    last". No. He said linux is not going to be a
    threat to windows in the short term.
    This is true. There are not so many people
    migrating to linux that its going to hurt MS
    anytime soon. However...the future is open.

    III The judge was stating fact as it is now and
    has been for years. There is nothing to say that
    sanctions against microsoft wont change this
    and give linux a boost (afterall, isn;t the
    poin tof this antitrust stuff to break the
    monopoly stranglehold on competition?)

    IV The 3rd article was almost as bad as the
    MS article. It seems this author was more
    interested with peoples comments on the trial
    and how juvenile people can be (which isn't bad...
    I like juvenile as much as th enetx guy).
    Big deal...there is a general dislike of Microsoft
    in this community...we are rejoycing at their bad
    fortune (which they brough on themselves).
  • How about those of us who think that Fridays court action is overblown?

    I really don't care about this anymore. I don't think that MS is evil nor do I think that MS is being unjustly vilified. I just don't care. But I am still a slashdotter.

    Hell, MSFT stock is only down a bit so far in the day. No serious, earth-shattering, news-breaking action there.

    Oh, and its quite shameful that these news sites will spend time on formating and news banners yet can't even make a simple hyper-text link to the quotes they used.
  • As much as I think journalistic standards and ethics have jumped into the shitter recently, I should admit that online news sites have far more more fluffy and "throw-a-away" content than in the real world. It's just the nature of feeling you need to throw together a story immediately, since people will see it immediately (even faster than Tv). The really sad thing is that online journalists are, for some inexplicable reason, following the tradition of Tv reporters when it comes to sampling opinions and quoting "the peons" as they call us. HTML news reports are great places to lay out, or at least link to, really sophisticated, nuanced arguments, but instead we're still stuck with soundbytes in a medium currently without sound. There's also still this idea that "getting every side" means that you CANNOT go into depth on issues, or quote people who do, because then you have the potential for one side to look better than the other. "DOJ sucks" and "M$ sucks" are safe. And isn't that what news is all about?

    No...
  • I love it. My post was labeled as a "Troll" since it offered a comparison that was true, but not putting /. in the best light. /. is the first sight that I look at everyday, I just figured that you would treat criticism with the respect that it deserves, even more so when it is done on a website that likes to hold itself up to the high standards of freedom of speech. Instead, you try to make a post seem less important by giving it your arbitrary terms. Is the real /. coming through? Freedom of speech and another person's point of view is only valid if it happens to concur with /.'s?
  • IANAL, but given that they didn't attribute the quote to you directly, I doubt you can complain or sue or anything.

    However, I believe Slashdot does have plenty of ground to sue and complain, since the (mis)quotes are being attributed to their site and their "correspondants" (?!?!)
  • Or Natalie Portman, Topless or Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf, for God's sake. Now that'd be an interesting piece on MSNBC!
  • I think what saves MSNBC is that they used the magical quote punctuation.

    I think "real" plagarism requires no quotes.

    It's as though they had a reporter in an angry crowd with a tape recorder. When they go to write a story later they just say:

    "This is terrible" said one person in the mob.

    And they are covered because it was clearly not their own statement. This was the form most of the quotes took on MSNBC's site.

    Still, if the reporter could have found out who produced the quote then s/he probably should have at least TRIED to attach a name to the quote.
  • I'm wondering if we should really be surprised by this or not? ZDNet has proven itself to be in MS's pocket many times in the past, and MSNBC, well, the MS isnt there just to make it look good.

    The subversive way they're writing these articles, no links, no attribution to author, only taking the extreme points of view, etc. just makes me belive that they're trying to spin it all and make us all look like a bunch of jerks.

    I saw many posts about this only being a Finding of Fact and not a verdic which were, rightly so, moderated up, and neither of these articles mentioned that. No mention about the moderation score of the quotes mentioned, or even the moderation scheme.

    Its just a downplay spin, more FUD for the fire, but this time not about Linux, but its users and advocates. I suppose MS is taking the position that if you cant FUD off the product, FUD off the people who use it. I think we need to be very careful about this in the future.

    -- iCEBaLM
  • So, why do all these "reputable" news organizations look to slashdot for analysis? There are several reasons, I suppose.

    1. The speed at which analysis is collected. Usually, Slashdot posts news before it hits ALL of the mainstream outlets, and has been commented on by members of the Slashdot community.

    2. The value of the analysis. Except for the flamebait and Anonymous Coward posts, people from all walks of life add valuble comments. Remember, many of us work in the industry. It's almost like instant insider analysis.

    3. Slashdot is focused. For the most part, Slashdot reports on only the High Tech news, or things related to it. Granted, there is a spin to it, but that's life on any web site. People know they can get good info on Tech here, so they come.

    4. Slashdot isn't boring. There's more than enough humor here that our would-be journalist won't go back with a dry, boring article. Maybe that's where those flamebait posts fit in.

    Maybe I'm looking into this too much, and they just like CmdrTaco's style. It's entirely possible. :) But the effect is obvious, Slashdot is very important in Tech reporting.

  • You know, ... (Score:3)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) <evandhoffman AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 08, 1999 @09:25AM (#1551944) Homepage Journal
    I understand that Slashdot is, technically, a "free forum," where people write things for others to read, but it clearly states down at the bottom of the page that "Comments are owned by the Poster."

    So I really don't see how they can just take comments from Slashdot and make a news story out of them (from which both MSNBC and the author, Alan Boyle, are profiting) without first asking for the permission of the comments' authors.

    Especially in a story such as the one on MSNBC, in which the comments are the story, I strongly feel that the posters' permission should be granted before the comments are mashed up and spit out in a for-profit form. And if Alan Boyle is making money from my comments, he should also be paying me.

    I doubt the media will ever reimburse us for our comments, regardless of what we say, but is it so hard for them to ask permission first? I mean, people can get sued now for posting things to financial message boards, so maybe we can sue MSNBC for exploiting our comments. Well... maybe not.

    PS - None of my comments were used in any of the stories.
  • The only quotes that MSNBC used from slashdot comments seemed to be ones that wouldn't get moderated up. There were no examples of the "informative" and "insightful" content that I come to Slashdot for. Heck, this was the first place I came to learn about the FoF; I knew that the commentary and opinons here would be more informed and more well-thought-out than the media's.

    The one quoted Slashdot comment (something to the effect of "Slap them sanctions on now") sounded just as frivolous and poorly-considered as the ones from AOL and MSNBC message areas. There was no representation of the depth and insight that Slashdot can rightfully pride itself on.

    Like, that was majorly schwag, d00d. I wuz p1553d.

  • Two words: Fair Use (Score:4)

    by homunq ( 30657 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @09:26AM (#1551949) Homepage
    From Stanford's copyright FAQ [stanford.edu]:


    What is fair use?

    Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission
    in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a
    small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson. New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the
    Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to
    appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials.

    IANAL but:

    As quasi-traditional (rich, establisment) media, they are on pretty solid ground claiming that any limited quoting that they're doing is fair use.

    Paradoxically, the very thing that most Slashdotters think makes much more sense - linking not just to /. but to the story and specific comments - is much riskier from a lawyer's point of view. You know and I know that /. wouldn't even dream of suing for something like that. Still, I'm sure the MSNBC lawyers don't want to start down that path, because they want to be able to sue people who do it to them.

  • Let's not be idiots now... (Score:4)

    by Otto ( 17870 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @09:28AM (#1551952) Homepage Journal
    Look, don't get angry that they are using your posts.

    You can't sue them. Fair use allows quoting. Admittedly they should attribute the quote to you, but there's nothing that requires them to do so in a specific manner. "Howdy," said one guy on Slashdot is attribution enough for the law. The fact is that when you say something in a public forum, it is then public. Deal with it.

    I don't see why anyone would be angry (as many commenters seem to be) in the first place. Guess what people, that means they're listening! Certainly took 'em long enough.

    Instead of focusing on this new power for itself, perhaps we should focus on making all our comments a little more well-reasoned and thought out. After all, the world (via the media) may be paying attention to what you say.

    Stop shooting from the hip so much. THINK about what you say, and make sure that it's your honest opinion. Opinions are good, disagreeing opinions are even better. But when what you say really gets the point across, more people will read it.

    (You realize I'm just angling for a major news organization to quote me, don't you? :-)

    ---
  • Is that where the 'Net has left us (and will leave the rest of the world when they catch up:) ?

  • Tonight on CNN (Score:5)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @09:34AM (#1551958) Homepage
    After many unanswered phone calls and requests for an interview, the online celebrity Anonymous Coward was quoted as saying:

    "First Post!!"

    Industry pundits have not been able to agree on the meaning of this cryptic response to the Microsoft = Monopoly ruling. Though technology expert John C. Dvorak stated that this may be a comment of outrage directed at the President of the United States rather than Bill Gates. Mr. Coward could not be reached for further comment.

    In other news, the online community is believed to be rediscovering their spiritual roots, as observed in the slashdot readerships frequent references to Karma. Church officials claim that this is probably brought on by the upcoming end of the millenium.

    Ima Freud, a psychologist at Deutchmacher University, claims that references to Karma are an attempt at closure in the wake of the Columbine Masacre, which shook the close-knit geek community to it's core earlier this year.

    Executives at Warner Brothers deny that the concern with one's Karma, as demonstrated by members of the Slashdot cult, is actually a clendestine publicity stunt to promote End of Days staring Arnold Shwarzenegger. Mr. Shwarzenegger did not return phone calls.
  • It's basically equivalent to saying "I am a Danish" instead of "I am danish". Only 3 differences: 1) It was in german. 2) Different locale. 3) Different kind of pastry.

  • You saw quotes? That's funny, all I saw were comments seperated by "?". Since I don't read a question mark as a quote, the comments were not quoted but plagarized as far as I'm concerned...

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • Shouldn't that be: Slashdot on Mainstream Media on Slashdot on Microsoft on Mainstream Media on Microsoft on Trial? :)

    P.S. There are absolutely, definitely NO rumours, whatsoever that CmdrTaco is due to appear on both Oprah and Jerry Springer. It is also COMPLETELY unfounded that the other two guests for JS are Bill Gates and a stuffed penguin.

  • "Mainstream" media has a long history of appropriation and exploitation by reselling alternative information sources. It adapts this way to survive. Rightly or not, this is also part of /.'s MO.

    But think of it this way too ... Andover is profiting by valuing its IPO at least in part through the (perceived) quality of being a VAR of net trawled information together with its moderation of a community who adds to this concentrated source with its own valuable comments.

    By doing this, Andover is profiting (deservedly most would argue - IMO more power to them ...) by promting the entry of /. into mainstream media itself (albeit a special interest segment). However /. has to do this in a way that won't alienate the community that adds to its value.
    Romantic us (/.) vs. them (everyone else - especially mainstream media) feelings seem terribly antiquated to me, given the environment.

    /.'ers, like open source contributers, should realise (and be happy with the fact) that any information that they concentrate or contribute is open to further use for profit in one form or another.

    I fervently hope this will not dissuade them or others to contribute further in the future.

    Just Be aware. We need more warez.


    .abulafia

  • Why write free software? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This question was raised here two months ago and although there were no huge surprises, some answers have been quite interesting. One of the main motives is the desire to help people. It is remarkable that this is usually the first reason that people think of but it is also the reason that many of them feel uncomfortable about. But this altruism can be viewed in a different way: Nothing is really given away because you just help reestablishing the original, free, status. To quote Phil Garcia who put it in a good way: "I work on free software because the practice of restricting what people can do with software goes against my principles. [...] Legal restrictions on software effectively take an unlimited resource and turn them into a limited one." What personally fascinates me every time I think about it is the fact that it is also an equally good idea to work on Free Software for absolutely non-altruistic reasons; but explaining this would lead to far off the path at this point.

    Besides altruism there are several other big reasons why people work on Free Software. Very high on the list also is the desire to write software that makes sense and gets used. This may sound a little weird at first, but working on Free Software gives developers a satisfaction that is extremely rare when working on proprietary software. To say it in Francesco Potortis words: "I like programming and doing real things, i.e. things that work. Programming for free software is not wasted time, as my work will be used by may people."

    Another approach deliberately ignores all social and altruistic sides and focuses solely on the technical part of it. Its followers see software as a mere tool comparable to a medical procedure or a legal proceeding. This has been suggested by Jimen Ching: "We need to view software as a tool, not merely a collection of expressions of an idea. When we do this, then it is natural that software should be free. I mean free as in freedom, not price."

    Long Live GNU and Linux for delivering the goods!

  • Waiting for this breaking story...

    We now have a credible source to reveal the identity of the badly-moderated, yet vocal, Slashdot user 'Anonymous Coward.'

    "Remember what they told us in last week's meeting, Slashdot mention = Slashdot effect = banner revenues!"



  • This is what you get..... (Score:3)

    by m3000 ( 46427 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @12:31PM (#1552027)
    Have you _EVER_ considered that is how the average non-Linux user views Slashdot? Everyone I know that just reads the stories, that doesn't respond, and that don't use Linux view all the Open Source and Linux people the same way as did ZDNet. This is the kind of publicy you get for Linux, whether you like it or not. This is not soley "ZD yellow journalism", this is how the rest of the non-Linux community views the Linux community. I'm frankly disgusted and ashamed at the way Slashdot acted in response to the Microsoft ruling.

  • Thanks for the research.. (Score:3)

    by Wah ( 30840 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @12:32PM (#1552029) Homepage Journal
    ..but I don't think it quite falls under this. Excerpting for a book review or critiqe is a special case, as in a classroom example. In this case actual content for MSNBC (a for-profit compnay) was taken w/o my permission. So here's the e-mail I wrote and am awaiting a response.(I found the author's e-mail on a different story)

    ------
    Alan,
    In your recent article on /.'s reaction to the MS verdict, you wrote..

    "Tough for Slashdotters to pick between between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote."

    Which are my comments first made on /. at this location.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/05/095 1216&cid=132

    What I would like to know is why my comment was stolen, edited, and reprinted without my permission. Each page on Slashdot clearly states "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster." and this is the agreement under which my comments were submitted.

    It would not bother me nearly as much if you had contacted me, not edited the comment or at least attibuted the comment by name. As it stands the comment, originally made in jest, was edited and reused in another context. In reading the original comment one's eyes MUST pass over a link that goes straight to my e-mail address (minus a couple spaces) so I know there was a conscious decision to NOT contact me for permission.

    I am unhappy that such action has been taken and am anxious to hear your reply.

    Sincerely,

    Roy Taylor
    -------
    Roy/Wah, get it?

  • Wow! Accountable media.. (Score:4)

    by Wah ( 30840 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @12:47PM (#1552034) Homepage Journal
    ..who'da thunk it?

    Within 5 minutes of sending the above e-mail I received a phone call from Alan Boyle (the editor of the original article). We talked for a few minutes about the weather, slashdot, and his grandkids, no wait....

    Anyway, I requested that he remove my comment from the story (not a bad idea since it wasn't even a sentence to begin with) and he said he would be happy to. He also said that the purpose of the article was to point people towards the lively discussion that occurs here. Nice guy.

    This goes down as the day I challenged MS(NBC) and won, yippee! hehe
  • TV reporters covering rallies against the Vietnam War would usually point their cameras at the scruffy hippies or the people waving Vietcong flags, and not at the protesters who looked like normal college students.

    Since one poster's comments look about like the next, and no one can tell who's a "scruffy hippie" and who's a necktie-wearing industry insider (not to mention the scruffy industry insiders) just from their text, how are the mainstream media going to determine whose posts to report on? Are ALL CAPS, obscenties, and anonymous posts the text equivalent of long hair, sandals and love beads?

    ...they confused getting their images on TV with having an impact on public opinion.

    Oh, they had an impact on public opinion all right. It just wasn't the sort of impact they wanted.
  • "Ich Bin Ein Auslander" is the excellent first track on "Dos Dedos Mis Amigos" by Pop Will Eat Itself; it's about the rise of the far right, though of course the name is inspired by JFK's famous quote. In fact everything by this band is wonderful and you should go out and get it all.
    --
  • The Encylopedia Brittanica [eb.com] has a rich set of guidelines [eb.com] to fair use and citation of their material. Furthermore, every article on EB has a link, at the bottom, for "How to cite this article." The Slashdot maintainers should consider posting such a guideline.

    In my opinion, the journalizm community has a deep understanding and commitment to copyright and fair use issues. If the comments were not given due credit, it is probably because it was not clear enough what comprises due credit. The reputation and continued success of a journalist depends on his fair treatment of sources. If we make it clear exactly what the Slashdot community considers fair treatment, I beleive that most reporters will respect it.

    Here are some thoughts for possible fair use guidelines:

    • If your article is largely based on a slashdot discussion thread, please give the URL for that thread in the text of your article, or porvide a link at the end. The format for such a URL is
      • http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/1226 255&mode=thread
      (where the date/unique number is replaced with the appropriate value).
    • If you quote a slashdot post, give the real name or nickname of that poster. It is generally inappropraite to refer to "a Slashdot poster" if that person's name could reasonably be used as well. In an online article, please link the user's name to his or her slashdot "User Info" page. Such a link appears below each post, and has the format
      • http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=cm drtaco
      (where the text following "nick" is replace by the user's nickname). Please do not link to the poster's email address, even if it appears in the post.
    • If you wish to cite a slashdot discussion, use the format
      • "Discussion title." Slashdot Discussion. [Accessed date].
      For example,
      • "Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft." Slashdot Discussion. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/122625 5&mode=thread [Nov 8, 1999].

      To cite a post, use the format
      • Poster Name, "Post Title," opinion expressed in Slashdot Discussion "Discussion title." [Accessed date].
      For example,
      • Homunq, "Two words: Fair Use," opinion expressed in Slashdot Discussion "Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft." http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/122625 5&mode=thread [Nov 8, 1999].
    • If you wish to report the representative sense of the slashdot community, please note the mechnaisms by which the community assigns trust to opinions. Posts that have been moderated up, and those by users with high karma, should be given higher weight and maybe considered representative. It is a disservice to the truth and to slashdot to reprint the flamebait ramblings of an anonymous coward as representative views.
    • Anonymous Cowards are a necessary evil, but their comments are neither authoritative nor accountable. If you repeat the opinions of an AC, please make it clear that those opinions are in no way representative of the slashdot community. Before you choose to repeat the posts of an anonymous poster, strongly consider whether it is appropriate. (An exception may be made if an AC post has been strongly moderated up, to +2 or above; such a post may be considered representative).
    • Keep in mind that comments are owned by the poster. It is fair use to quote them, in context, in a story or paper. For deeper questions on the copyright limitations and freedoms, see Stanford's copyright FAQ [stanford.edu].
  • We are witnessing what are known as suits. Behind all the formalwear, gold plated pens, and Florsheim shoes there is only a picture of slashdotters as unemployed biologists who are fascinated by tinkering with basic sciences but offer little justification for stating as sources. To the suit we're all supposed to be flipping hamburgers and cleaning toilets so there's little lost, much gained in not referencing us.

  • A rebuttal to some of Wired's comments. (Score:3)

    by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Monday November 08, 1999 @03:41PM (#1552068) Homepage
    "Linux aficionados who are applauding US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bitter denunciation of their archrival Microsoft might want to read the fine print first. In the 207-page preliminary ruling, Jackson says that "fringe" operating systems like Linux are destined for continued niche market status."

    I'm still applauding. The fact is, Linux does not have what it needs to be a good desktop OS right now. I can't get Opera, or a reasonably stable version of NS under Linux (NS is even more stable under Windows, which is scarey). But Linux does have what I need to use it as my firewall, and to develop for, etc. It's very much a WIP (Work In Progress), but it's only going to get better. And if you do compare the ratio of x86 PCs running Windows to x86 PCs running Linux, then you can also call it a fringe based on that ratio (as would be *BSD, OS/2, and any other x86 OS).

    "When Judge Jackson said: "It is unlikely ... that a sufficient number of open source developers will commit to developing and continually updating the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows," Jackson predicted." (Emphasis mine)

    He was right. How many people do you know (remember the intelligence factor applies) that even understand the concept "there are two kinds of files -- executables and data" or that "executables exist to work with data"? Well, if the Good Times Virus has anything to say on the subject, no. These are the blinking 12:00 generation -- people too stupid, tired, or busy to bother with the simplest of things around. These people expect the PC to know instantly what they want to do, or to be very inflexible and only offer them a few choices so they can go ahead and do what few tasks they know they can do on a PC without having to worry about thinking.

    "In other words, Jackson needed to rule that Linux has virtually no chance to go mainstream. But he didn't mention RedHat's successful initial public offering, or even popular products, such as Apple Computer's iMac."

    Linux going mainstream is still a possibility to many people, that is, people who know how to use a computer. The only other "mainstream" users who will use Linux (for the time being only) will, of course, require a local Linux guru to setup Linux for them before they can start enjoying the benefits of this "fringe" operating systems (this is why we support out local LUG). Jackson ignored this because he doesn't have much direct experience by Linux, besides Microsoft trying to use it as a straw man argument (which may very well have led him to be too harsh on it).

    Wired also tried to decry his ruling with other points. The Red Hat IPO was successful because companies use it on workstations, not because of mainstream users.

    As for the iMac -- how many people bought the iMac for basic, basic word proc/browser usage (which is the "reason to buy" right now) over PCs just because of the case design? A fair amount, I'd say. The iMac is not a choice of operating systems or hardware, it's a choice of flavours! Most people know NOTHING about the insides of a computer, and telling them that they use different proccessors would just confuse them. Instead, slap a pretty shell on it, and it'll sell alright. The same people (whom I've met and talked with) who bought iMacs, where the same people who bought the new beetle for its looks (over, say, its performance stats).
    ---
  • I have a grand time posting as an AC on Slashdot.

    I read that as 'I enjoy being a troll'.

    Anything I can do to make these Linux loonies

    As opposed to Windows loonies.

    look even further like Loonies, I will do. It's great sport, making stirring up a bunch of zealots and using them to discredit Linux.

    That is a pretty transparent technique, and one by which you discredit yourself more than you help your cause.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Close