From FUD to Freedom

[GreyGeek]

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/7029/1/

FUDcast Backfires
I'd not been at it very long when I came across an article by Lance Ulanoff titled Diary of a Linux Virgin. I am really glad I had already done my own installation, because I might otherwise never have done it at all.

You see, Mr. Ulanoff was apparently intent on generating FUD in support of his publication's proprietary-system advertisers like Microsoft and Apple. He described his experience at installing Ubuntu 8.10 as if it were the most computer-threatening, nerve-wracking, brain-challenging experience of his life. Zapped computer. Several required reinstalls of Windows XP Pro (which he made sure to say he tossed off quickly with his indominatble expertise). Finally, with a lot of help from experts both in his office and online, he heroically managed to get it up and running. There was no account of what he actually DID with it.

And here's a thing for all Linux fans to take into account: the working (read "paid") reviewers derive their income from corporations that advertise in the publications for which they write. How likely is it for them to heap praise on a system that offers a viable, inexpensive, and sometimes superior product to the ones which are the ultimate source of their pay?

Most of us know this already. We gripe a bit, grumble, comment prolifically on their articles, and let it go at that. But what about all the people who haven't yet tried Linux -- or even heard of it? Is their only source of information the Fudcasts of the advertising-driven press? And to put it in the bluntest possible terms, how the heck is Linux going to grow additional market share if it doesn't quit preaching to the choir and start marketing to The Public? That means writing about Linux in a way that assumes the reader is a very intelligent but severely underinformed user of a computer who is interested in learning more about it. I'll probably get flamed for the following, but even offering Linux as simply an inexpensive potential hobby could bring a whole lot of people close enough that they'd soon be won over.

[lcorken]

Re: From FUD to Freedom

Wasn't familiar with the term FUD. So I just googled it. That got me to the urban dictionary. Hmm.

Well, most of us have been there at some point. I know I have. Still find myself there from time to time.


Ken.

[GreyGeek]

Re: From FUD to Freedom

I know you realize that I am referring to "FUD" (upper case) and not "fud", a meaning which I hadn't heard of before I looked at your urban dictionary citation.


Microsoft replaced IBM as the FUD master in the 1980s and has remained the top FUDster every since. In fact, they created a department devoted entirely to generating and spreading FUD, run by James Plamondon. His gang of digital terrorists were called "Technical Evangelists", a term which Microsoft softened by referring to all of their sales reps as TE's.

The existence of Microsoft's "Technical Evangelists", created and formerly headed up by James Plamondon, was revealed in the Combs vs Microsoft trial: http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/

The exhibit you want to look at is "Exhibit 3096", at the Combs site but also outlined in GrokLaw at http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
Pertinent parts include:

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate 'independent' praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. 'Independent' analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). 'Independent' consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). 'Independent' academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). 'Independent' courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.

or

...
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.

Groklaw describes the Slog and the Stacked panel here. Since then we've been treated to the ISO payoff debacle and the ECMA 334 & 335 trap.

Plamondon himself does a mea cupla on his website, cited above, where he lists documents he wrote that describe his FUD tactics.

Those documents have been entered into the public record in a series of anti-trust actions against Microsoft. They have become known, collectively, as "The Plamondon Files." He goes on to say:

It has been expedient for Microsoft to deny that these documents accurately reflected Microsoft's practices at the time, to disavow any authority I might have had to define Microsoft's policy (neglecting to mention that the training materials were sanctioned by DRG's Director), and to discredit me in various ways. Yet the the public record contains (a) a description of me as "an uber-evangelist" (by Darryn Dieken), (a) a description of me as DRG's "theoretician" (Marshall Goldberg), and (c) the statement that "everything James says [in the DRG Summit presentations] is true" (also Marshall Goldberg). The record also shows that Marshall was also a very senior evangelist, meeting regularly with Bill Gates, so his comments cannot credibly be dismissed.

Does Microsoft still utilize the TE techniques described in the Plamondon Files? Many in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community believe that Microsoft does.

Many? Probably most, and with ample proof abounding, besides his admissions. As recently as the MONO debate one person posting as a "Linux user" in support of MONO was exposed as a TE. His name was Wong. He made the mistake of bragging about his new position as MS TE just days before he posted pro MONO comments in a Linux forum. As many have pointed out, the anti-Linux rants are well coordinated, and always increase in volume around Microsoft releases, and always seem to follow the same script. The new tact this time is the one about codecs. It ignores the fact that not all laws in all countries are the same, and that in America Linux users have a Constitutional right to fair play of their media, since the Sherman-Clayton Anti-Trust act specifically forbids tying of a product from one company to a product of another company as a condition of sale of the first product.

Despite the ECMA debacle (ECMA is a European standards org), and the hijacking of the European Open Source Document Report, which the current CEO of Canonical comments about here, and Glen Moody does an even better job. Microsoft has been relentless in its $ubversion of Europe's politicians who are influential in software matters. The European Community's resolve to free themselves from proprietary software (European Software Strategy) has been all but destroyed. As in the ISO and ECMA debacles the key to understanding is following the money trail. Their politicians are as easily corruptible as the American politicians are.

The SCO jury has reached a verdict which eliminates ANY claims about the ownership of Linux that SCO put forward. During the trial we read depositions where "reporters" and "journalists" were coached or paid to write pro SCO/anti-Linux stories. Maureen O'Gara comes to mind. SCO went broke before they paid her, so this "reporter" is on the list of creditors to whom SCO owes money. Paul Murphy, Daniel Lions, Laura Dideo, Insider-Linux and other "pro" Linux sites and users who always seem, in the final analysis, to put more stock in SCO's claims than in the Open Sourced and vetted Linux Kernel, maintained a steady drum-beat of anti-Linux FUD.

[lcorken]

Re: From FUD to Freedom

I have to admit that I Grok the FUD factor (fear). When I first installed linux I went so far as to disconnect my XP drive so as not to screw it up and install a new one to try linux. After a couple weeks of copying files and learning linux my XP drive became a dust collector.

Unfortunately the Slog and Stacked panel situation isn't limited to MS at this point. It's rampant in politics, religion, food, drugs. my cat and so on. OK, my cat is only a panel of one, but you get the point.

I get nervous when I see major players like Sun and Trolltech change hands, but the wheel will turn as it will. I don't pretend to understand the politics of all this, just hope for the best and contribute as best I can.

When MS announced there new search tool "bing" I tried a sample search, "linux audio" I think it was I searched. The first several results in bing basically showed how much linux sucks while google and several others gave some useful info. Haven't used bing sense. For the fun of it I just now searched for "search engine" in google. The first entry was "dogpile" and the second was "bing". The same search in bing showed bing on the first and second page. Google was on the fourth page.
Then looking at googles second page I found a sponsored link to bing. Decided to click that.
What's my point? I don't know. I forgot.
Anyhow, be good, but try to have fun anyway.

Ken.