Each of us has an opinion. That opinion may be based on information or emotion, but we have one, nevertheless. What's important is how we view those that disagree with us.
Mr. Enderle quite obviously sees proprietary software as important to the future of IT, and Free Software, a potential detriment.
Most of his opponents, he seems to feel, are simply not aware of the risks associated with the use of free software (of course, his examples prove that he has a different definition of free software from the rest of us).
Anyone who spreads statements that he disagrees with are guilty of dealing in propaganda (of course, his own statements are not themselves propagana, are they?): "I did refer to Groklaw as a propaganda site, which it is. Any site that claims to be against something and then generates a lot of it is a propaganda site in my view."
In addition, it would seem that, if that "propaganda" consists of the facts, then those statements are "FUD" as well: "Groklaw claims to be an anti-FUD site, but it generates more anti-SCO FUD than almost any other site I could mention. ". I'm beginning to feel like Alice on the other side of the looking glass!
Mr. Enderle claims in his article on Linux News that he's been mis-quoted and misunderstood. "If you separate yourself from bias, you will see that I never said that all folks who buy the concept of free software are idiots -- only some of them.". Perhaps, but I really think it's an issue of not understanding how a rational person could disagree with him. You have to either be an idiot, or part of some diabolical Master Plan to do so.
The truth is, if Microsoft wasn't such a monopoly -- if there was enough competition -- then Linux wouldn't be seen as a threat, it would be just one more competitor. It is a threat (to the Monopoly, anyway) because it's one of the few alternitives to Windows, and because it's immune to Microsoft's standard Engulf and Devour strategy.
If Mr. Enderle had more of his facts straight, and separated his keynote from his own bias, then perhaps more people would have listened to him. . There's nothing wrong with having an opinion others dislike, but there's a right way and a wrong way to express it. His keynote speech was definitely the wrong way.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Is True Objectivity Even Possible?
Posted by: Prototerm on August 13, 2004 01:16 AMEach of us has an opinion. That opinion may be based on information or emotion, but we have one, nevertheless. What's important is how we view those that disagree with us.
Mr. Enderle quite obviously sees proprietary software as important to the future of IT, and Free Software, a potential detriment.
Most of his opponents, he seems to feel, are simply not aware of the risks associated with the use of free software (of course, his examples prove that he has a different definition of free software from the rest of us).
Anyone who spreads statements that he disagrees with are guilty of dealing in propaganda (of course, his own statements are not themselves propagana, are they?): "I did refer to Groklaw as a propaganda site, which it is. Any site that claims to be against something and then generates a lot of it is a propaganda site in my view."
In addition, it would seem that, if that "propaganda" consists of the facts, then those statements are "FUD" as well: "Groklaw claims to be an anti-FUD site, but it generates more anti-SCO FUD than almost any other site I could mention. ". I'm beginning to feel like Alice on the other side of the looking glass!
Mr. Enderle claims in his article on Linux News that he's been mis-quoted and misunderstood. "If you separate yourself from bias, you will see that I never said that all folks who buy the concept of free software are idiots -- only some of them.". Perhaps, but I really think it's an issue of not understanding how a rational person could disagree with him. You have to either be an idiot, or part of some diabolical Master Plan to do so.
The truth is, if Microsoft wasn't such a monopoly -- if there was enough competition -- then Linux wouldn't be seen as a threat, it would be just one more competitor. It is a threat (to the Monopoly, anyway) because it's one of the few alternitives to Windows, and because it's immune to Microsoft's standard Engulf and Devour strategy.
If Mr. Enderle had more of his facts straight, and separated his keynote from his own bias, then perhaps more people would have listened to him. . There's nothing wrong with having an opinion others dislike, but there's a right way and a wrong way to express it. His keynote speech was definitely the wrong way.
#