From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [OT] Shameless troll ;o) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:06:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20060103145639.GC20353@thunk.org> <43BAD395.5090801@zytor.com> <20060103222802.GA29610@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , walt , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 04 01:07:18 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 1EtwBK-0003Lm-MY for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:07:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965060AbWADAHB (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:07:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964842AbWADAHA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:07:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:57277 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965160AbWADAG7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:06:59 -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 k0406XDZ003178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:06:33 -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 k0406XO3032457; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:06:33 -0800 To: "Theodore Ts'o" In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.58__ 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, 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