From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:09:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20060103145639.GC20353@thunk.org> <43BAD395.5090801@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , walt , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 03 21:09:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtsTV-0006nW-PD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:09:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932513AbWACUJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:09:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932517AbWACUJi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:09:38 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:39402 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932513AbWACUJi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:09:38 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k03K9NDZ021394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:09:24 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k03K9MWk020912; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:09:23 -0800 To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <43BAD395.5090801@zytor.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.57__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.129 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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