Re: [tlug] Microsoft adver-FUD on SourceForge

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com> writes:

    Edward> That is my point, Unverifiable data from untrustworthy
    Edward> sources is not useful information to draw conclusions
    Edward> from.

You're just plain wrong, as anyone who has bought marijuana (except in
a few enlightened jurisdictions) knows.  Honor among thieves, etc,
etc.  Knowing when it's worth extracting the information from the
unreliable data is what separates the rich from the bankrupt; it's not
a priori easy.

    Edward> Translation for Stephen, Just because it does damage to
    Edward> Microsoft does not mean it isn't painful for whoever has
    Edward> to deal with it.

It's still a non sequitur.

At least where I grew up, even four-year-olds learn to chant "sticks
and stones may break my bones / but names can never hurt me" and "I
know you are, but what am I?"  That is, until somebody acts on the
words, nobody gets hurt.  So all it takes is a public debunking.
Those who aren't kidding themselves will listen and be saved.  Those
who are kidding themselves will be caught by the charlatan.  Some
things change, but that never will.

What's especially annoying about your position is that even ten years
ago it could be argued that getting your rebuttal to Microsoft into
the public eye would be too expensive, but these days any Tom, Dick,
or Harry can set up a website, manipulate their Google foo, and get
the word out.

I have to conclude that what upsets you most is that you recognize
that many consider you a less reliable source than Microsoft, despite
their history.  You complain that "in the cooperate[sic] world [one
has to deal with] people who are more likely to be confused by the
explanation then[sic] to understand the difference."  Considering the
average quality of your posts to this list, I'm not surprised.

I imagine you're expert enough at what you do, but that's not enough
in an organization.  You also need to communicate to folks who are
experts in their own domains, and convince them that you understand
*their* business well enough to tell them what *they* need to know.
If they conclude that you don't know where they're coming from, they
will consider any information from you unreliable because they can't
be sure it properly addresses their needs.  Even if you're Linus
Torvalds himself.  (But Linus is a great communicator, in fact.)

And that's the message.  "Where do you want to go today?  [we at
Microsoft are listening]." Every one of those case studies is going to
have statements like "The Microsoft engineers listened to us, and
showed us how we could reorganize our network to get a faster, better,
and cheaper Intranet."  That's what we're competing with, not bugfixes
and BogoMIPS.

And as Jim implied, we're mostly not listening anywhere near enough.
Until that changes, we have no shot at dethroning Microsoft or any of
the great 21st-century robber barons.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.