[OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[walt]

Forbes magazine just published an interview with OpenBSD's
leader, Theo-The-Rat, who managed to insult almost everyone
in the open-source community -- including our own Linus, of
course.

The article quoted Linus as saying that Theo 'is difficult'.

Speaking as one who has personally been insulted by Theo for
stating something which was demonstrably a fact -- I can only
agree with Linus's assessment.  (I stopped posting bug-reports
to OpenBSD's mailing lists after that incident.)

So -- can I tempt Linus into explaining why he thinks Theo is
'difficult'?  (I admit that my wife has given me a taste for
soap opera and idle gossip.  You can blame her for this post ;O)

Happy New Year to all.

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, walt wrote:
> 
> So -- can I tempt Linus into explaining why he thinks Theo is
> 'difficult'?  (I admit that my wife has given me a taste for
> soap opera and idle gossip.  You can blame her for this post ;O)

Actually, every time I've met Theo in person (which isn't all that often, 
mainly at Usenix), he's been quite nice.

I just suspect that he's even more opinionated than I am (yes, it's 
possible), and thinks that everybody who disagrees with him is wrong by 
definition.

Now, admittedly I do that too, so maybe the difference isn't that big 
after all (and if somebody calls me "difficult", I'd think he's trying to 
be polite too ;).

I think I'm more likely to have areas that I don't care about, and will 
say "whatever" to than Theo. That may be the _real_ difficulty with him: 
anything he doesn't care for, he says "no" to.

		Linus

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "walt" == walt  <wa1ter@myrealbox.com> writes:

walt> The article quoted Linus as saying that Theo 'is difficult'.

I had my first run-in with Theo just a month back, in which I was told
"You are clearly not skilled enough to even compile code".  I blogged
about it at <http://use.perl.org/~merlyn/journal/28032>, including
links to the entire mail exchange archive.

I now consider myself a "made man" on OpenBSD. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:22:18PM -0800, walt wrote:
> Forbes magazine just published an interview with OpenBSD's
> leader, Theo-The-Rat, who managed to insult almost everyone
> in the open-source community -- including our own Linus, of
> course.

If by "Just Published" you mean over six months ago, maybe.
Basically, the troll is Daniel Lyons, a Forbes writer who at every
opportunity tries to trash Linux.  Just ignore him; or better yet,
cancel your Forbes subscription, and a send a note to the Forbes
publishers saying why.  I've completely lost any respect I've had for
the Forbes magazine, partially as a result of the multiple dreck
masquerading as articles published by Dan Lyons.  Speaking personally,
I believe there are much better places for me to get my business news,
including Business Week and the Economist.

					- Ted

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> Basically, the troll is Daniel Lyons, [...]

Oooh, I almost started to take this article serious enough to actually 
read it.

Thanks,
Dscho

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[H. Peter Anvin]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:22:18PM -0800, walt wrote:
> 
>>Forbes magazine just published an interview with OpenBSD's
>>leader, Theo-The-Rat, who managed to insult almost everyone
>>in the open-source community -- including our own Linus, of
>>course.
> 
> 
> If by "Just Published" you mean over six months ago, maybe.
> Basically, the troll is Daniel Lyons, a Forbes writer who at every
> opportunity tries to trash Linux.  Just ignore him; or better yet,
> cancel your Forbes subscription, and a send a note to the Forbes
> publishers saying why.  I've completely lost any respect I've had for
> the Forbes magazine, partially as a result of the multiple dreck
> masquerading as articles published by Dan Lyons.  Speaking personally,
> I believe there are much better places for me to get my business news,
> including Business Week and the Economist.
> 

Look on Groklaw if you want to know more about Mr. Lyons and the stuff 
he's published.

	-hpa

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> Look on Groklaw if you want to know more about Mr. Lyons and the stuff he's
> published.

Well, in the defense of Dan Lyons, I think he's been somewhat vilified, 
and has had a perfectly human reaction of striking back. 

He tends to look for problems, but not every piece he has written has been 
negative. In fact, some of them haven't been _nearly_ as negative as they 
have then been purported to be in groklaw. I think groklaw has had a 
somewhat unfortunate "either you're with us, or you're against us" herd 
mentality.

The fact that Lyons then has been negative towards groklaw has just 
cemented that bad situation further.

It's interesting that Ted piped up, because I know that IBM has had the 
exact same problem with Lyons. He wrote some negative article, at which 
point IBM told its engineers not to talk to him any more, which caused 
subsequent articles to be negative too.

Yes, Forbes is pretty bad. It's a "rah rah" magazine for people who wished 
they were rich. It's a small step up from the check-out counter magazines 
that alternately glorify and vilify Jessica Simpson or whoever is the 
celebrity of the week.

There's no question that you're better off with the Wall Street Journal 
(who has some of the best journalists in the business, as far as I can 
tell, and while I don't know crud about business, I _do_ know journalistm) 
or the Economist if you actually care about business and economy. But 
that's not what Forbes is about.

Quite frankly, I've seen Dan Lyons work, and my opinion is that he's a 
better journalist than many. He may be opinionated and swayed by negative 
feelings, but I've seen at least two stories that he actually did research 
himself, and followed up on. The end result can be skewed by his feelings, 
but that's still a hell of a lot more than some people will do.

So give people their due, even when you disagree with them occasionally. 

And understand that journalists are very much people too, and react badly 
to the kind of totally uncalled for name-calling that Dan Lyons has gotten 
on groklaw over the last year or two (yeah, he got things wrong for one of 
his first pieces on the SCO saga. And he doesn't like IBM, and I can 
pretty much guarantee you that he _detests_ groklaw by now. And it will 
show in his reporting.).

			Linus

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:09:22PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> He tends to look for problems, but not every piece he has written has been 
> negative. In fact, some of them haven't been _nearly_ as negative as they 
> have then been purported to be in groklaw. I think groklaw has had a 
> somewhat unfortunate "either you're with us, or you're against us" herd 
> mentality.

I'm not aware of any positive articles ever written from Dan Lyons; if
you know of any, feel free to send me the URL.  And it's certainly
true that Linux is not the only thing that Mr. Lyons like to trash.
For example, his article in the November 2005 Forbes' cover story
began:

	Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob
	spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their
	potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.

People can make their own decision whether they would consider this
"balanced journalism".

I'm not actually aware of any bad experience IBM had with Mr. Lyons,
and I'm not aware of any "don't talk to Dan Lyons" warning from
management, other than the standard rules requesting IBM engineers not
talk with _any_ journalist or analyst without first clearing things
with press or analyst relations --- but that's pretty standard for any
large corporation.

The only reason why I piped up was because (a) I didn't think six
months ago counted as "just published", and (b) it's not worth wasting
time or helping reward Forbes with ad clicks by reading an article
from someone who has far as I know, has always published nasty
articles about Linux and anything related to Open Source.

> And understand that journalists are very much people too, and react badly 
> to the kind of totally uncalled for name-calling that Dan Lyons has gotten 
> on groklaw over the last year or two (yeah, he got things wrong for one of 
> his first pieces on the SCO saga. And he doesn't like IBM, and I can 
> pretty much guarantee you that he _detests_ groklaw by now. And it will 
> show in his reporting.).

Certainly, journalists are people; but they are supposed to check
their biases at the door when they start writing (except on the
editorials page); that's part of the stated advantages of
"professional journalists" over the undiscplined bloggers which Dan
Lyons so gleefully trashed in most recent cover article.  Given that
he makes no effort hide his biases, at least in my book that makes him
a lousy journalist.

						- Ted

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Andreas Ericsson]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> Certainly, journalists are people; but they are supposed to check
> their biases at the door when they start writing (except on the
> editorials page); that's part of the stated advantages of
> "professional journalists" over the undiscplined bloggers which Dan
> Lyons so gleefully trashed in most recent cover article.  Given that
> he makes no effort hide his biases, at least in my book that makes him
> a lousy journalist.
> 

Not necessarily. I've got a journalist background myself. When I went to 
school we were taught to say what was true, how we came to know that, 
what we *think* is true, why we think that and what our opinions are 
about it, preferrably but not necessarily in that order. Speculations 
and opinions are what differs a journalist from a reporter.

We were also taught that we, as reporters, should be the ones pushing 
the boundaries and our editors should be holding us back. I think Mr. 
Lyons editor is not doing a very good job. Some of the articles I 
stumbled across were not worth the time it took to let google find them 
for me.

I've never met Mr. Lyons or, until today, read anything he's written. 
 From what little I've gathered though, he seems to be stubborn, 
narrowminded and rude, but not eloquent enough to pull it off with style.

That said, journalists are actually supposed to be biased (how can you 
have opinions for something you don't think anything about?), but in a 
stylishly blasé and preferrably entertaining sort of way.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 823 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

> That said, journalists are actually supposed to be biased (how can you have
> opinions for something you don't think anything about?), but in a stylishly
> blasé and preferrably entertaining sort of way.

I happened to read two or three articles of Dan Lyons (yes, I read Groklaw 
and tried to find out if Dan Lyons really investigated the facts, or left 
out unpleasing details deliberately). I found that he not only lacks in 
style, but in presenting all the facts.

It's one thing to be biased.

It's another thing completely, to leave out facts you don't want to be 
true.

As Linus said, everybody is opinionated. But if somebody twists the facts 
to say something what they didn't originally, I don't read his articles 
any longer. As simple as that.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Linus Torvalds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2332 bytes --]



On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> I'm not aware of any positive articles ever written from Dan Lyons; if
> you know of any, feel free to send me the URL.

Well, here's one I know Dan researched..

	http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/180_print.html

The fact that you don't like the man, and that he's more critical than 
over-the-top enthusiastic, hey. That doesn't make him unprofessional or 
mean that he has no journalistic integrity. Being critical is way too 
seldom seen, and as you admit, Lyons is by no means one-sidedly critical. 

So maybe his glass is half full. Still no reason to dismiss him.

> 	Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob
> 	spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their
> 	potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.
> 
> People can make their own decision whether they would consider this
> "balanced journalism".

Hey, he's been vilified by some of those blogs. Unnecessarily, I say. 

> I'm not actually aware of any bad experience IBM had with Mr. Lyons,
> and I'm not aware of any "don't talk to Dan Lyons" warning from
> management, other than the standard rules requesting IBM engineers not
> talk with _any_ journalist or analyst without first clearing things
> with press or analyst relations --- but that's pretty standard for any
> large corporation.

Yes. And when trying to clear it with IBM legal, Greg KH was told not to 
talk to Dan Lyons. 

> Certainly, journalists are people; but they are supposed to check
> their biases at the door when they start writing (except on the
> editorials page); that's part of the stated advantages of
> "professional journalists" over the undiscplined bloggers which Dan
> Lyons so gleefully trashed in most recent cover article.  Given that
> he makes no effort hide his biases, at least in my book that makes him
> a lousy journalist.

What naïve school did you go through where journalists aren't idealistic 
puppies with an agenda?

The fact is, they all have their biases. The fact that open source tends 
to strike a chord with them and they almost universally end up 
understanding about freedom of the GPL kind is usually a big help. The 
fact that some have other biases don't make them worse journalists. It 
just means that you see different kinds of stories from them.

			Linus

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> The fact is, they all have their biases. The fact that open source tends 
> to strike a chord with them and they almost universally end up 
> understanding about freedom of the GPL kind is usually a big help. The 
> fact that some have other biases don't make them worse journalists. It 
> just means that you see different kinds of stories from them.

Btw, I actually in many ways prefer the critical ones over the positive 
ones, which may be one reason I actually appreciate Dan Lyons even though 
obviously a lot of people don't. I find it interesting to see what the 
other side thinks, even if it's often something you know is wrong.

The fact is, journalists seldom get any tech story really right. If they 
did, they'd be technical people.  You can react to it two ways: either 
realize that some people see it that way (which can be illuminating - if 
only because you might realize that stories you _believed_ in might not 
be exactly true either) or just dismissing the story and the teller of the 
story.

Yeah, I even watch Fox news occasionally. 

I think the news stories that disagree with our own beliefs are often the 
ones that tell us the most. 

Admittedly, sometimes they just tell us that people are idiots ;)

			Linus

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Chuck Lever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
>>I'm not aware of any positive articles ever written from Dan Lyons; if
>>you know of any, feel free to send me the URL.
> 
> 
> Well, here's one I know Dan researched..
> 
> 	http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/180_print.html
> 
> The fact that you don't like the man, and that he's more critical than 
> over-the-top enthusiastic, hey. That doesn't make him unprofessional or 
> mean that he has no journalistic integrity. Being critical is way too 
> seldom seen, and as you admit, Lyons is by no means one-sidedly critical. 
> 
> So maybe his glass is half full. Still no reason to dismiss him.

as one of the people featured in the "peace love and paychecks" article, 
i found the reporting to be surprisingly accurate (ie it could have been 
much much worse).  i often tell people who ask me "what do you do" to 
read a copy of it.  i haven't read any of his other pieces, though, so i 
can't really comment on bias or accuracy over the body of his work.

[-- Attachment #2: cel.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 254 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:Chuck Lever
n:Lever;Chuck
org:Network Appliance, Incorporated;Open Source NFS Client Engineering
email;internet:cel@citi.umich.edu
title:Member of Technical Staff
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.monkey.org/~cel/
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:55:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > I'm not actually aware of any bad experience IBM had with Mr. Lyons,
> > and I'm not aware of any "don't talk to Dan Lyons" warning from
> > management, other than the standard rules requesting IBM engineers not
> > talk with _any_ journalist or analyst without first clearing things
> > with press or analyst relations --- but that's pretty standard for any
> > large corporation.

If you ask IBM PR, I'm sure they will be able to give you the reasons
they don't allow IBM employees to talk to Dan.

> Yes. And when trying to clear it with IBM legal, Greg KH was told not to 
> talk to Dan Lyons. 

Yeah, and because I wasn't allowed to talk to him, he wrote a funny
(well, funny to me at least) article about how IBM was muzzling their
Linux developers.  It was quite accurate, and I've not had any problems
in dealing with him since I left IBM (probably due to my current
employer allowing me to talk to him...)

thanks,

greg k-h

RE: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Brown, Len]

 
>Yes, Forbes is...
>... a small step up from the check-out counter magazines 
>that alternately glorify and vilify Jessica Simpson or whoever is the 
>celebrity of the week.

While not the WSJ (which I actually read) or the Economist (which I haven't
had time to read since parenthood), I think that Business Week is also
a step up -- as evidenced by its classy cover!:-)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918002_mz001.htm

RE: [OT] Shameless troll ;o)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Brown, Len wrote:
> 
> While not the WSJ (which I actually read) or the Economist (which I haven't
> had time to read since parenthood), I think that Business Week is also
> a step up -- as evidenced by its classy cover!:-)

I prefer the Jessica Simpson covers personally, but hey, I can't fault 
your taste.

		Linus