A little research goes a long way

Story: ComputerWorld Employs Ignorant JournalistsTotal Replies: 12
Author Content
SFN

Sep 12, 2006
10:18 AM EDT
From this genius' own article:

Quoting:Microsoft never claimed that Shared Source was open source


From Microsoft's "Shared Source Initiative Home Page": http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Articles/Mic...
Quoting:Microsoft has been learning from the OSS community regarding the benefits of deeper collaboration and increased transparency leading to better communication with customers. We believe the most effective pathway for a commercial software company is to strike a balance between investing in research and development and the release of intellectual property assets in the form of source code for both reference and collaborative purposes.

The increased competition resulting from the proliferation of OSS has been constructive for the industry as a whole. The implications of OSS within multiple market segments are causing organizations to figure out what is most important to them. It has placed a higher premium on innovation and a drive to deliver greater value for lower costs. The big winner in this equation has been the software consumer, whose choices have increased dramatically.

The Shared Source Initiative is the manifestation of these factors within Microsoft. With more than 80 source code offerings being used by more than two million developers, Microsoft is looking to apply the best of open source while helping its customers avoid many of the model’s pitfalls. There is no one, correct way to create software. The ecosystem as a whole will benefit from a rich tapestry of development, business, and licensing models.


Is he going to be so disingenuous as to suggest that, in those paragraphs, Microsoft never intended for people to believe that they were beginning to buy in to the Open Source model? Or did he just not do his homework?
Scott_Ruecker

Sep 12, 2006
10:34 AM EDT
I think he did his best to write something that MS would like. He is probably clueless as to the actual issues and facts involved.

I think that it is nothing more than tag lines combined into an "article".
tuxchick2

Sep 12, 2006
10:52 AM EDT
Research? What is this word?
Scott_Ruecker

Sep 12, 2006
11:12 AM EDT
Research: Its the stuff you do when you want to know what your talking about.

You should know Carla, you do it all the time.

:-)
techiem2

Sep 12, 2006
11:12 AM EDT
> Research? What is this word?

I think it's one of those archaic words that's been removed from the dictionary.....
devnet

Sep 12, 2006
11:16 AM EDT
I still can't believe half the crap this guy slapped into his article.

It's written blog style but not for a blog? Is that what journalism is coming to? Everyone will write for agencies like it is their own personal blog?

*sigh*

Thank God it's computerworld and not Linux Format :D
Scott_Ruecker

Sep 12, 2006
1:38 PM EDT
Is it just me or is Independent Journalism under serious attack? I know I know, it is.

The only people who proofread my stuff are my fellow Editors because then I know that any crap of mine that might have made into the article is found and dealt with.

You know, REAL EDITING.
dcparris

Sep 12, 2006
3:55 PM EDT
Actually DevNet, the guy works for InformationWeek. Did you do your research? ;-p
devnet

Sep 13, 2006
3:39 PM EDT
I did...and it was published on infoworld, not computerworld. He may work for infoweek, but they're all IDG.net

Computerworld didn't post a link back to the original article which is how I originally made the mistake.
dcparris

Sep 13, 2006
9:08 PM EDT
Yeah, I my bad. It's InfoWorld - not Week. Oh well.
devnet

Sep 14, 2006
9:02 AM EDT
you'd think they would post a back link...maybe this will learn em?
dcparris

Sep 14, 2006
10:06 AM EDT
McAllister has said he doesn't have control over how his articles get propagated, and really doesn't know much about it. We've been in contact regarding this article he wrote.

I pointed out that the problem many of our readers have is that his viewpoint was pretty lopsided. He says he's trying to avoid the religious dogma, in a manner of speaking. I explained that Microsoft throws around all this deplorable rhetoric, but we get labelled as "religious zealots" because we (a) call Microsoft on the carpet for the way they treat people, and (b) we believe people should be free to improve the software. Oh, I so feel another editorial coming. :-)
tuxchick2

Sep 14, 2006
10:27 AM EDT
sic 'em Chief. It is lopsided, because Microsoft's BS gets freely propagated as "news."

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!