distorted perceptions
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Aug 20, 2006 1:43 PM EDT |
Reading the introduction to this interview I couldn't help thinking "What a FUD!". As too many other similar articles the introduction to this one effectively crowns Linus Torwalds as THE guy who started it all, who is responsible for the "open source community". And in that light it effectively shuns a certain group of people and certain kinds of thinking as "the cult-like worship by open-source enthusiasts". Here's the full quote: Quoting:He lives in Portland, Oregon, out of Silicon Valley’s spotlight, and has often expressed his dislike for the cult-like worship by open-source enthusiasts. Of course it doesn't mention it, but I'm sure at least some of you will find it pretty clear who they are. Linus is so antagonistic against FSF and the Free Software ideology that he's been very ready to bash that particular group of people and that particular point of view as a "cult", a "religion" that should just be dismissed. It's like "we don't need them, they're only ruining our image, those religious freaks blah blah". Linus wants to create a whole different perception of the Free Software movement which he considers as nothing but a superior software development methodology. There is no concept of "rights" and "freedoms" for him to be validly consider. No, that would be too political for him, too religios, heck, too cult-like for his polico-phobical mind. He's doing a great job not only at organizing the Linux kernel development (kudos for that), but at creating a distorted perception of Free Software, a perception that completely and utterly burries the true purpose and meaning of Free Software from view, the freedom to control ones own property. This so clearly reflects in his misunderstandings of GPLv3 and attempts to explain them as valid and it so clearly reflects in almost anything he says about Free Software. After ESR has pretty much gone low-profile, Bruce Perens admitted that "open source" marketing had a bad side of it, Linus is the one who is left as the key proponent of the apolitical, anti-FSF, para-pragmatic "Open Source" philosophy. And sadly, *everybody* is so keen on listening to him and following that line of thinking deepening this distorted perception. There is no cause there. The non-cause is simply better software. If there would be a case where proprietary software development would make better software, despite the problem of rights and freedoms, Linus would jump on it without question (well, just as he did with BitKeeper). |
| Libervis Aug 20, 2006 2:58 PM EDT |
I realize now I probably misread the statement mentioning the "cult-like worship by the open source enthusiasts" statement. It was apparently meant in sense of Linus disliking when people worship him. Still though, Linus did call Free Software/FSF advocates as religious crusaders before... And I can't agree with the imposition of perception which treats Free Software as just a better methodology of developing software: Quoting:Open source has already overcome the biggest challenge—of acceptance and perception. From a purely technical standpoint, the open-source methodology is simply superior This technical perspective is not even the only reason why people accept and adopt Free Software. Why hide the other reason? Alot of people and even organizations have testified that it is also freedom, not just technical matters that brought them over. In fact, most of the reasons usually do come down to freedom. It's freedom that allowed for this superior model in the first place. I can't agree with him when he promotes the perception which percieves only a very small part and even less significant part of the picture. |
| ravenhawk Aug 20, 2006 3:20 PM EDT |
I think what bothers me is the way some people treat Linux like a religion. This is why Linux users have trouble getting respect, is some of us keep perpetuating this idea that this is all a religion or something. I am a passionate user of Linux, but I don't think its going to cure all the worlds ills, and it still could learn a few things from the proprietary OS's about how to make the gui interface more user friendly for non-technical users. But it is a vibrant technology that is growing and changing fast and it is reinvigorating the software industry world wide. I just wish people would stop talking or refering to it as a religion and people like Linux as a prophet, I hate articles that do that. |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2006 3:56 PM EDT |
> I think what bothers me is the way some people treat Linux like a religion. I suppose you have never met anyone who treats Microsoft as a religion then? Lucky you. People are people. Given a large enough sample, all types will be represented. The same things that can be said about Linux users (both good and bad) can be said about the users of almost any other OS. |
| Libervis Aug 20, 2006 4:00 PM EDT |
That's the thing. Neither Open Source philosophy nor Free Software philosophy is a *religion*. So why do some people from our community try to paint others as "religious crusaders"? Because they disagree? Because the fail to see their point of view? Because they want to discredit those with different ideas? Neither of these are good reasons. Free Software is about users rights and freedoms, not about God or nature of the universe. As a matter of fact many differing religions find it easy to embrace Free Software because it fits while being agnostic to religion. So it's really a stupid and low attempt to discredit someone when calling them "religious" and mentioning religion in the context of Free Software. |
| crusadingknight Aug 20, 2006 5:29 PM EDT |
The correct term is "idealist crusaders" actually, which the FSF will happily own up to being. |
| number6x Aug 21, 2006 5:23 AM EDT |
But didn't Microsoft say that they are the reason behind open source? I mean if Bill and Steve said so it must be true, right? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/09/how_microsoft_invent... Who do these Stallman and Torvalds guys think they are. The reason Free Software came to be back in 1974 was in anticipation of the founding of Micro Soft (as it was known at first) in Albuquerque in 1977. Now don't let those dates bother you. There is a reason Microsoft was founded in New Mexico (please insert your favorite UFO or secret government testing lab theory here). |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2006 6:36 AM EDT |
Libervis - Personally, I have always foung the "religious" label insulting in this context, primarily because it has nothing to do with religion. People are using religious to mean rigid, small-minded, and not open to reason. It has nothing to do with the religious people I know, but, then, I tend not to associate with people like that, religious or not. In free software circles, I see too many people willing to accept the small-minded stupidity and/or evil of anyone whose opinions differ. How often do you see an argument start with "You just don't get it, or so-and-so just doesn't get it." It's as if nobody who understands the issues could possibly disagree. |
| Libervis Aug 21, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
Dinotrac;Quoting:People are using religious to mean rigid, small-minded, and not open to reason. It has nothing to do with the religious people I know, but, then, I tend not to associate with people like that, religious or not. Well, that's exactly what I mean. It is probably more likely that the one using the label "religious" in this context is exactly what he's trying to frame to the group he labels that way. And that's someone I wouldn't like to be associated with. Quoting:How often do you see an argument start with "You just don't get it, or so-and-so just doesn't get it." Sometimes there are cases where someone just doesn't get it. But I get what you mean. :) Quoting:It's as if nobody who understands the issues could possibly disagree. Well indeed.. freedom to disagree is important. Sometimes the acknowledgement of that is really necessary to prevent any discussion from deteriorating into something worse.. Calling names like "religious" though, is already a sign of deterioration of dialogue, IMO. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Calling names like "religious" though, is already a sign of deterioration of dialogue, IMO. Absolutely...unless somebody is referring to my church attendance. |
| jimf Aug 21, 2006 1:58 PM EDT |
> Reading the introduction to this interview I couldn't help thinking "What a FUD!". Well, essentially you're right. but remember that the preface to the interview is the interviewers spin and not anything that Linus said in the interview. So it's this 'P Ganapati' that's full of it, and is trying to put words in Linus's mouth. Actually, Linus has only said, on numerious occasions, 'but not in this interview', that he doesn't want to be regarded as the head of a cult. I think we can all understand that one. So again, here's a journalist who's just trying to stir the pot... Pass the FUD please ;-)... |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 21, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
On religion, if I may. Let's go back a few thousand years. Tribal cohesiveness is a survival trait. The shaman and the warrior basically share power. The Pope and Emperor, King and Bishop, Chief and Medicine Man, Arthur and Merlin. This is more than just a Joseph Campbell exercise in myth, it is a practical method of serving the "needs" of the tribe. One person presents the material world, the tribe and its relationship to its physical surroundings, the other the position and relation of the tribe to the world around them that people do not understand. People tend to need to be reassured that what they don't know won't kill them. Ritual is a _great_ way of doing this. Torvalds is not a warrior and there is only one option left. He is to be a mystic in the eyes of people for whom what he does is not understood. The journalist isn't so much spreading fud as he is demonstrating his own tendency to ascribe to religion anything he doesn't already understand. BTW, I was reading Thomas Cahill's _How The Irish Saved Civilization_. He discusses how the classical Greek and Roman ability to logically reason had been lost, how the "dark" ages were a time of emotional reaction to imagery while people were generally illiterate. I think television is doing the same thing again. People do not get their news by reading, they do not discuss it with others and work through meaning with rhetoric and dialectic, logic and reasoning. They are being spoon-fed images and emotions. We are, in fact, reverting to a state of illiterate emotional reactivity. Politicians and "big business" love it because people are much easier to control this way. |
| perseis Aug 21, 2006 8:53 PM EDT |
I like, so way agree with you dood. I think it was yesterday when one of my girls said, "Like, have you seen the new Ima Stoner Video? I said, Like, yeah. It's totally awesome. And then we went to the mall and looked at some shoes then checked some Sk8R boyz out then went to my howz and watched Big Brother. My husband came home and fruited up everything. Like, if he doesn't zone on the newz at least three timez a day, he's like, I dunno, having a cow over some doods killing some other doods in Greenland or somewhere. I dunno if thats the exact place, but its one of those totally hot places. Like, why don't they just balance their diets and quite smoking so much? I shur wish Billy Carter wuz still the Prez. At least he didn't let those Egyptians push us around like they crack on Prezident Delay. Gotta go down to Starbucks, my girlz are meeting me there for a Sidney Sheecan Rally. Luvs... Deb |
| jimf Aug 21, 2006 9:02 PM EDT |
It's scary that you can even do that parody Deb :) |
| perseis Aug 21, 2006 9:06 PM EDT |
Being spoon-fed images and emotions? I wuz watchin' that new movie by Al Gore, and from what I wuz seeing, its only because of the global warming that people are so dumb. So I guess like, I so way agree with you dood. I think it was yesterday when one of my girls said, "Like, have you seen the new Ima Stoner Video? I said, Like, yeah. It's totally awesome. And then we went to the mall and looked at some shoes then checked some Sk8R boyz out then went to my howz and watched Big Brother. My husband came home and fruited up everything. Like, if he doesn't zone on the newz at least three timez a day, he's like, I dunno, having a cow over some doods killing some other doods in Greenland or somewhere. I dunno if thats the exact place, but its one of those totally hot places. Like, why don't they just balance their diets and quite smoking so much? I shur wish Billy Carter wuz still the Prez. At least he didn't let those Egyptians push us around like they crack on Prezident, uh, president, I can't remember his name but he'z the bald guy that used to own Enron I think. Gotta go down to Starbucks, my girlz are meeting me there for a Sidney Sheecan Rally. Luvs... Deb |
| Libervis Aug 21, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
Jimf, Quoting:Well, essentially you're right. but remember that the preface to the interview is the interviewers spin and not anything that Linus said in the interview. So it's this 'P Ganapati' that's full of it, and is trying to put words in Linus's mouth. Yeah, that would be right. My criticism towards Linus is not so much about him spreading any FUD in that interview, as he did say some good things, such as about software patents threat. It's for his definition of Free Software as just a superior development methodology which I don't think it is and I don't think people should percieve it that way. But then again, what do I expect from Linus? He's admitted being apolitical (no matter how much I doubt that is even possible and of course no matter how much I think that's equivalent to seeing only parts of the picture rather than whole). And also I think some of those religion related remarks are partly fueled by his past talks, especially those "kind" words directed at the FSF. I'm calmed down about this though, if you will. Getting all too worked up wont help it. I'll better be trying to respond rationally to whatever next thing he says or point he makes than go balistic. ;) Bob_Robertson, Quoting:The journalist isn't so much spreading fud as he is demonstrating his own tendency to ascribe to religion anything he doesn't already understand. Interesting point. However, we should then be trying to help him understand instead of just confirming his view of it as "religion". He may not be the originator of FUD he may be spreading, due to his misunderstanding, but he still does spread (relay) it nonetheless. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2006 3:21 AM EDT |
>He may not be the originator of FUD he may be spreading, due to his misunderstanding, but he still does spread (relay) it nonetheless. Journalists originate their fair share of FUD in this world, even when just passing on the "facts". How this works is best seen in a jury trial. Both sides have the same facts to work with, but present opposite cases based on their selection and connection of the facts. Journalists are far more than mere relays. Like lawyers, they color everything they do by selection and presentation. |
| jimf Aug 22, 2006 7:00 AM EDT |
> Journalists originate their fair share of FUD in this world, even when just passing on the "facts". And lest we think this is some kind of new age phenomenon, one has only to look back to the yellow journalism in the 19th and even 18th centuries. It's usually even worse than this guys. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2006 7:51 AM EDT |
jimf -- I think what's changed is not so much journalism, but journalists estimation of themselves. They are believing their own PR these days. Can anyone whip up a head of righteous indignation faster than a journo whose reporting you question? |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2006 8:35 AM EDT |
> Can anyone whip up a head of righteous indignation faster than a journo whose reporting you question? Hmmm. A federal official accused of an ethics violation? No. A WV official accused of accepting bribes and/or vote buying? No. A prominent minister accused of infidelity? No. A prominent corporation accused of accounting irregularities? No. An LXer editor accused of intellectual dishonesty? Well, maybe :). I'd say you're right. All the others seem to have a much more realistic assessment of themselves. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 22, 2006 11:18 AM EDT |
> I think what's changed is not so much journalism, but journalists estimation of themselves. It used to be that the bias of a particular news source was recognized, known and dealt with. The Post City Democrat would not be kind to Republicans, for example. As long as everyone, even the paper, admitted it, there wasn't so much FUD because the bias could be worked out of it. Now, there is this absurd expectation of "neutrality", of "fairness". A schooled (spit!) Journalist may very well believe that they are being fair just because that is what they have been _taught_ is fair. John R. Lott's second book, _The Bias Against Guns_, cites many cases where firearms accidents and people killed by being shot made headlines not just where they occurred, but across the country, while a far greater number of deaths due to accidental drowning or murder with a baseball bat didn't even make the front page of the local paper. ...Because they are so _RARE_, while other kinds of accidents and deaths are much more common and therefore don't sell papers. So the impression of readers is that there is some kind of flurry of firearms-related events, when there is no such thing (except in Washington DC). I don't mind if you want to disagree with the subject, I know firearms aren't for everyone. It is this effect of journalists asserting their own bias while endlessly proclaiming their "fair and balanced" coverage that I want to make clear, and firearms are one of the most egregiously abused things in so-called "news" stories. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 22, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
>Now, there is this absurd expectation of "neutrality", of "fairness". A schooled (spit!) Journalist may very well believe that they are being fair just because that is what they have been _taught_ is fair.< I couldn't agree more, what comes to mind first for me is the FOX News tag line "Fair and Balanced"..my ass! They might as well be BUSH News for as "Balanced" as they are. Journalism students are taught how to get published, not how to observe and record impartially. But lets be honest, no one is impartial. Its not possible. It is hard to be enthralled by a writer that is not in some way emotionally involved with the subject matter. Whether or not you agree with the writer, emotional writing is usually a good read. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2006 6:33 PM EDT |
Scott - But everyone knows where Fox news comes from, and I don't see them denying it very seriously. Compare that to the spasms of "NO NO NO NO you stupid person -- you just think I'm biased because you're a dim-witted ordinary person who doesn't know diddly about journalism, how it works, and why you should kiss my feet" you get from most other news feeds. |
| jimf Aug 22, 2006 7:08 PM EDT |
dino, anyone in this society with an ounce of intelegence learns to read between the lines early on. Consider the source is a must. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 22, 2006 7:22 PM EDT |
Your both right, the problem is that most people are entertained by Drama and that's most of what passes for news and journalism. Real News Informs, Real Journalism Reveals. That's my opinion. :-) |
| jimf Aug 22, 2006 7:36 PM EDT |
> Real News Informs, Real Journalism Reveals. That's my opinion. :-) Well, that's the ideal. In fact, there is little real news any more. Mostly just heavily biased commentary that passes for Journalism. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2006 2:01 AM EDT |
jimf & Scott - I'm actually optimistic about the state of journalism today, which, I guess, is bucking the conventional wisdom. Two big reasons: 1. A decline in traditional media. Competition and fragmentation have taken a toll on the newspapers, networks, etc that have provided our news. While bad in terms of cutting resources, it's good in puncturing the balloon. BTW -- I include cable news in traditional media even though it is a relatively recent arrival -- gaining traction just over 25 years ago with the Iran hostage crisis. CNN sprang from a traditional media mindset, traditional media sources, power,etc. Only the use of a coaxial cable and the ability to be on all the time made it different. Others may argue, and it certainly is no slam-dunk. 2. The rise of Fox and non-traditional media. I put Fox in the camp of traditional media because, though a late-arrival, it is more like the other cable news networks than anything else. I think it operates in much the same way as the other traditional news organizations. The only difference is that the people who put on the news have conservative views whereas the people who run the others have liberal views. Fox may even have higher standards of fairness, given that it is a natural target for those "other" news organizations. 3. Blogs, baby! Whether it's bringing down Dan Rather, highlighting plagiarism, or the recent expose of photoshopped and other faked photos coming from Lebanon, bloggers have made it riskier for journalists to lie. My favorite example of that didn't even require bloggers to leap into action -- their mere existence was sufficient. I am speaking of a Molly Ivins column in which she made the statement that the American Invasion of Iraq had killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam. She retracted the statement very shortly after it appeared. She treated it as a simple error on her part, but I believe she realized that bloggers would rip her to shreds and she moved to head them off at the pass. Why? If she hadn't retracted the statement, somebody would point out that a reporter with here liberal credentials would know a thing or three about Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of which kept a pretty decent tab on Saddam's atrocities. That realization would show her "mistake" to be a lie. Not good for credibility or future opportunities. |
| jimf Aug 23, 2006 8:02 AM EDT |
> Two big reasons: Ahh, that's actually three dino :) > 1. A decline in traditional media. I'd also argue that the level of traditional journalism and of journalists as well as their integrity declined exponentially as the type of media changed and 'News' began to be valued only for its entertainment value. No more Murrow's, no more Cronkite's... > 2. The rise of Fox and non-traditional media. Fox was never 'fair and balanced', though, it may have tried to be early on. Now, it's just a wholly owned subsidiary. It's disturbing that you would believe otherwise dino. > 3. Blogs, baby! This is a very mixed bag... The up side is that there are many very fine Writers and Journalists who now get heard. It's also amazing the quality and quantity of information that we now have available to us. But... The down side is that 'any ass' can ( and does) have his own Blog, so, the overall quality of information is abysmal, and the level of disinformation is appalling. Blogs 'can' expose untruths, but, they can just as easily perpetuate popular myths and lies. The old programming adage 'garbage in, garbage out'. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2006 9:08 AM EDT |
jimf - GIGO rules! The big win is independent quality control on the folks who used to control the flow of information. Lots of s**t out in blogland, but, if you're a journalist, you face the same problem the DHS (in the US) faces in fighting terrorists: They've got to be right everytime, the bloggers (or terrorists) only have to break through now and then. A career can be ruined by getting caught once. |
| jimf Aug 23, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
> A career can be ruined by getting caught once And 'everyone' screws up at least once. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 23, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
So in essence, what it really comes down to is if the person doing the reporting or writing is worth reading. Whether or not you feel that they are giving you the truth as they see it. I can forgive someone for getting something wrong if they did not have all the facts, or the facts change. I am guilty of that as we all are. But to be intentionally lied too and expect to take anything they say seriously after that, No. Sure it takes time to figure it sometimes but once you do, you can never go back to believing them again. |
| helios Aug 23, 2006 10:14 PM EDT |
I will never be a still target for the label of "biased". My beliefs, loyalties and goals are well stated by most anything I have written to this point. As well, a to-the-point question as to my "politics" will give you a direct, honest answer. Bias is only present when the presenter hides or distorts his direction, motive and feelings concerning the topic. I finished school late in life and had the privilege of attending ASU for my final semester. I took some BS classes (pun fully intended even if none was perceived) and one of them was journalism 101. The first thing Dr. Latts asked: "How many of you are entering this field so you can make a difference?" more than half the hands in the class raised. "Good!" he said, I knew there was a problem when I walked in. There are too many people here. The School of Social Work is two blocks away. You can "make a difference" there. Here I am going to teach you how to recognize, gather and report the news...not your opinion of it. It is painfully obvious way too many journalists did not attend Dr. Latt's classes. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!