Why is Forbes so anti-linux? [Archive]

carrja99

07-09-2003, 10:45 AM

It seems that just about every article that Forbes runs that includes linux also includes a bashing of linux. For example, a quote from the most recent, What SCO wants, SCO gets (http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html) :

In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.

Why so much hostility?

oubipaws

07-09-2003, 10:55 AM

In the future us linux guys are screwed, all of the big dogs hate us.

But, I was thinking about this a minute ago, what if when MS enters the linux market (you all know it will happen), they won't let linux fall, they will back it and spend lots of money on it and then people will be like "if bill gates says linux is cool, then I think linux is cool"...

Icarus

07-09-2003, 11:02 AM

I think Forbes tried to move to Linux but was not able to learn how to use it in 5 minutes after working on Windows for 10 years...and got angry

That's my theory...

It's different, I don't know how to use it...it sucks!! :rolleyes:

oubipaws

07-09-2003, 11:08 AM

thats sounds absolutely correct mahdi

carrja99

07-09-2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by mahdi
I think Forbes tried to move to Linux but was not able to learn how to use it in 5 minutes after working on Windows for 10 years...and got angry

That's my theory...

It's different, I don't know how to use it...it sucks!! :rolleyes:

I think that's right. I looked at some of the earlier articles pertaining to linux on the site and they seemed to promote and praise linux.

heh...

Strogian

07-09-2003, 12:47 PM

In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.

You say that's hostility? Are you sure that it isn't just the truth? ;)

Tesl

07-09-2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by oubipaws
In the future us linux guys are screwed, all of the big dogs hate us.

But, I was thinking about this a minute ago, what if when MS enters the linux market (you all know it will happen), they won't let linux fall, they will back it and spend lots of money on it and then people will be like "if bill gates says linux is cool, then I think linux is cool"...

ooo im not so sure about that one. To be honest i have never considered the idea that M$ could release their own Linux distro, and use it to become the most powerful Linux distro.

The thing is, i dont think M$ would ever accept the idea that they would have to give away their kernel source code. Of course they would have to, but they could possibly find a way around it, so that they could still charge fortunes for it.

i think it would be a last resort for M$, and if they lost the desktop market their company would collapse incredibly quickly, and i doubt they would have much of a chance to do that.

On topic, there are a lot of people hostile to Linux. They have no reason to be, if they dont like it then they shouldnt use it. The problem is these people feel like they cant use it, when they see other people running them better than windows ever could. This frustrates people :)

oubipaws

07-09-2003, 02:22 PM

People hate us because they don't understand us.. we are the outsiders, the more intelligent beings... so they look at us as such, but what does society treat smarter people as... the stupid ones :p

The thing is, i dont think M$ would ever accept the idea that they would have to give away their kernel source code. Of course they would have to, but they could possibly find a way around it, so that they could still charge fortunes for it.

MS would never release source code to anything... they would create something so similar to linux, yet so different (you get what I mean?).

joelc

07-09-2003, 02:35 PM

Yeah, I get what you mean-- XP.

oubipaws

07-09-2003, 03:05 PM

volumefiend

07-09-2003, 03:18 PM

because, forbes hates anything that isnt corporate.

quip

07-09-2003, 03:24 PM

because, forbes hates anything that isnt corporate
Exactly. How else would you expect a company devoted to the reporting and bolstering of pure greed to act?

hard candy

07-09-2003, 09:17 PM

And probably they have a lot of money tied up in MS stock- they want to see their investment safe.

Nuada Storm

07-09-2003, 09:53 PM

Forbes is about making money. They are about the establishment. They are about big business.

Linux is not about making money in fact your most vehement supporters insist that all software should be free damn the economies of the world. There is no establishment in Linux. Linux is the anti-thesis to big business.

You figure it out.

Now maybe if the most zealous supporters could come to sort of middle ground, big business and then Forbes would come to embrace Linux as a true alternative. However that won't happen and good ideas will be crushed in the mechanism and bad ideas will continue to be marketed to the masses.

glussier

07-09-2003, 11:29 PM

hop-frog

07-09-2003, 11:40 PM

No I mean more like longhorn... From what I have read (and I do do alot of reading about Longhorn), some of the stuff is going to be similar to linux.

Multiple desktops
** RUMOR ** / filesystem (/c /c/programfiles/ /c/kernel/)
OpenBox built in... multiple GUI'sAs if Linux didn't copy all of its features from other operating systems.

People hate us because they don't understand us.. we are the outsiders, the more intelligent beings... so they look at us as such, but what does society treat smarter people as... the stupid onesIt doesn't take a smarter brain to handle Linux. It takes a different kind than many people have. Just because joe Linux hacker can memorize 12 thousand shell-prompt commands doesn't make him smarter or better than the next guy down the block who happens to be a brick layer. We are just wired differently.

SDS

07-10-2003, 01:02 AM

I think it is because Forbes is obsessed with being able to control every aspect of the market. Look, to use Mac OS, you need to: (a) buy a mac computer from Apple that's like $1000 more expensive than something else (or build a Mac clone, which the average consumer can't do), (b) buy a lot of expensive Apple Software, (c) use Apple's Tech support because everything your computer uses and contains is from Apple, and (d) join a creepy cult of Mac users.

The iMacs look cool, but I could probably do something cool a tiny mobo, craft some custom shell and get a nice flat panel monitor that could compete with(maybe out-perform) the iMac for less money, especially when I don't have to blow over 100 bucks on an OS.

Before you complain about my post, realize that I'm rambling on about very few facts(if any); resorting to pulling numbers and stuff out of my *** just to prove a point. Everything should be free.

andysimmons

07-10-2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Strogian
You say that's hostility? Are you sure that it isn't just the truth? ;)

My thoughts exactly. Does anyone here not fit into Forbes' profile of Linux users?

2ndsign

07-10-2003, 01:44 AM

lol

microft using linux!they would turn it into crap.

the point of open software is to make it better.

the point of commercial software is to release it with bugs for job security.

i sure hope SCO doesnt get their way?:(

Nuada Storm

07-10-2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by andysimmons
My thoughts exactly. Does anyone here not fit into Forbes' profile of Linux users?

I don't... I have three machines in my home. 2 have Windows XP installed on them and one has Linux installed on it.

I don't use Linux because I hate Windows. I actually like Windows a lot and find it a very capable OS.

I don't use Linux because Bill Gates has enough money. Personally, I couldn't care less how much money he has and anyone who does care is simply jealous.

I don't use Linux because it is better than Windows. Personally, I don't think it is is. They are comparable in features and stability in my experience.

I don't use Linux because the software is better or because it is free. I paid $149.00 for my copy of Redhat Linux. Not because I had to but because I can and I feel that people who put their hard work into a product should be compensated. There are several other Linux applications that I am either paying for or will be paying for in the next month or so as well. Commercial software doesn't frighten me.

I use Linux because I can and because I wanted to learn a new OS. I have been using Windows for 10 years now and felt like a change. Since my computers are PC based, that meant Linux or another Unix derivative.

Learning new and exciting things on the computer, programming it to do what I want and making solutions for other people's problems is what I started using computers for over 20 years ago. I can do this equally well irregardless of whether a machine is running a Microsoft OS or some free OS. I have no loyalty to any of them.

3eyes

07-10-2003, 02:26 AM

chesskidd

07-10-2003, 03:12 AM

Doesn't IBM support Linux? :rolleyes:

CMonster

07-10-2003, 04:53 AM

Forbes doesn't actually generate $$$$ do they? So they would naturally mosquito suck-up to the big $$$ players -it's a bet on the outcome, and ultimately being anti-linux is being pro Microsoft.... a smart bet at that .... keep kissing that billy boodie

dungscooperdave

07-10-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by tanna
err-yeah, I was about to sy something similar. I mean not everything, bute heck -a good amount, menus' taskbar . . .

but you can shorten that list up. I mean no one said you had to have KDE. or gnome, if it gets some resembelance. But you would still have similar, features, first introduced by other Operating systems. MacOS, Windows, etc.. but linux is an inventor of its own too!;)
Well I would think that the whole idea of Linux being a Unix clone would tend to indicate that it has borrowed a few concepts here and there from at least one other operating system. ;)

Strogian

07-10-2003, 06:31 PM

I really can't. They own Unix. They've put out their own distro of Linux, OpenCaldera, for years, right? They suddenly notice similarity between the Unix and Linux codes after producing both themselves for years? It's laughable! I really just can't believe they're not being ridiculed for this. How could you possibly swallow this nonsense?

That's exactly the attitute that Forbes is talking about. ;) We talk to ourselves about how ridiculous this is, assuming that the "outside world" will just magically share our viewpoints.

And it doesn't matter if you don't match that description. That's what forbes saw, (and might I remind you that it was just describing our reaction to the SCO case) so they wrote it down. And I understand how they could see that, since I see it too. They're just reporting what they see, and they might be wrong. It's just their job. ;)

But this thread is just about Forbes as a whole, not this particular issue. Only problem I have is that the one bit of evidence you put up doesn't convince me. Maybe if you could find stuff where they're actually showing real negativity towards Linux? :)

roamingnomad

07-10-2003, 06:45 PM

Yeah, IBM supports linux. They have a series of ads with the slogan along the lines of "Linux is in the enterprise... can YOU see it?" on top of a pricture of an ordinary workplace, with a gian plastic Tux right in the middle of it all.

anza00

07-15-2003, 06:54 PM

Isn't Forbes own by AOL? AOL doesn't want Linux to take off because than less people will be using AOL. Right now they are hurting bad. That's just my opinion.

plattypus1

07-15-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by glussier
So, does this means that everyone who is a member of Mensa is a Linux user?

No, it means every Linux user is (or could be) a member of Mensa :-)

They're anti-linux because that's their opinion, and they're welcome to it. Free speech, freedom of choice. If they want to be bill-borgs that's their choice, and they're welcome to it.

Nuada Storm

07-15-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by anza00
Isn't Forbes own by AOL? AOL doesn't want Linux to take off because than less people will be using AOL. Right now they are hurting bad. That's just my opinion.

Not sure how bad AOL/Time Warner is hurting. They got over 300 Million Dollars from Microsoft a couple months ago and are dissolving the obsolete Netscape/Mozilla division and either getting rid of programmers or moving them to other projects.

Now to see if Mozilla can survive a purely open source project without hundreds of millions of corporate backing every year.
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3422
http://www.mozillafoundation.org/

However, can't say that I didn't see this coming a year ago when AOL/Time Warner blamed $2 Billion in losses on the software divisions that have no real income.

hop-frog

07-15-2003, 09:51 PM

anza00

07-15-2003, 09:55 PM

You've got a point there.

Citadel

07-15-2003, 11:42 PM

AOL was bought off by Microsoft and now it's locked in.

El_Cu_Guy

07-16-2003, 04:14 AM

OMG!

Simple answer to a simple question.

Why is Forbes so anti-Linux?

They're BSD freaks!

Their site runs Apache 1.3.26 on FreeBSD!

Yinchie

07-16-2003, 05:17 AM

Who is Furby?
Ermm Forbes :D

bs_texas

07-16-2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Nuada Storm
... I couldn't care less how much money he has...

That's refreshing. So many people say "I could care less", which we all know means that right now you care less only up to a point, but then tomorrow you could care less more.

:)

JohnT

07-16-2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by carrja99
It seems that just about every article that Forbes runs that includes linux also includes a bashing of linux. For example, a quote from the most recent, What SCO wants, SCO gets (http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html) :

Why so much hostility?

Not quite hostility when you read it as Linux users are convinced of their own rightousness and rightly so as perceived by judges etc.......rightousness isn't always a bad thing.

bproffitt

07-16-2003, 11:23 PM

I just wrote a column about this over on Linux Today... I really think that the mainstream media is not so much anti-Linux--they just seem to be relying too much on preconceived notions.

Two years ago, they perceive, Linux was hard to use, all command lines. Therefore, they go into any discussion now with that notion in their heads--ideas which have to be disproved for them first before they'll look at Linux like they do other operating systems.

Is it right? Is it fair? No, it's just lazy journalism. But I don't think it's a coordinated effort by any publication or publications to "get" Linux.

Peace,
Brian Proffitt

binarynova

09-17-2003, 09:49 AM

Hey Nuada Storm, just wanted to let you know that someone was listening. :)

I'm the exact same way. I have one PC in my dorm/apartment. It has an 80 GB partitioned to 20/60 (20 for WinXP, 60 for stuff), and it has a little 4 GB that I found lying around, so I installed Linux on it.

I'd tried using Linux before by partitioning, but I always got frustrated and decided that I wanted that space back for Windows. But, with my separate drive, I'm really enjoying Linux.

I have a 12 GB drive sitting in a box around here somewhere, I may move all my stuff over to it and use it for Linux.

But, yeah, I agree. No beef with MS here. No hatred of Windows. There are still many programs I simply can't run in Linux that I can in Windows.

Note: Since installing Linux this last time, I've rarely been on my Windows partition. (^o^)

----

On a slightly more topic related note: I don't really see why anyone would be so anti-Linux, but I guess the idea that someone raised about Forbes being about big buisness and Linux being anti big buisness is probably right.

See ya!

sasKuatch

09-17-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by bproffitt
I just wrote a column about this over on Linux Today... I really think that the mainstream media is not so much anti-Linux--they just seem to be relying too much on preconceived notions.

Two years ago, they perceive, Linux was hard to use, all command lines. Therefore, they go into any discussion now with that notion in their heads--ideas which have to be disproved for them first before they'll look at Linux like they do other operating systems.

Is it right? Is it fair? No, it's just lazy journalism. But I don't think it's a coordinated effort by any publication or publications to "get" Linux.

Peace,
Brian Proffitt

That's exactly right. I still have people ask me if it runs on DOS.:eek: :eek:

Unfortunately, Linux also has an image of being a "hippy OS", which is unfortunate.

randrade

09-21-2003, 02:53 AM

Because Forbes is read by serious businessmen whose time is extremely valuable. Forbes has earned a reputation among these businessmen; its editors can't afford to hype a product that won't do much for their corporations??

You mention cost?? Well, several IT trade publications (most notably InfoWorld, with quite a few articles) have questioned the real value of adopting Linux as a cost-saving measure. Granted, you don't pay licensing fees, but good support from a major vendor comes at a price. Another factor is training. You're a Linux hotshot, but your secretary isn't. Not only will you have to spend money to train her, but she'll also not be productive while in training. Now think of ALL secretaries and other non-technical peons in your company who'll need to go through the same ritual to learn Linux. How about the stubborn ones who'll just refuse to learn a new OS??

Overall, the articles concluded that Linuxx TCO is about the same as Windows TCO. Don't be fooled!

GaryJones32

09-21-2003, 03:29 AM

The capitalist looks at everything in the entire universe as a comodity to be bought and sold for a price set by a marketplace -- and then tries to see how they can manipulate market share of their brand of commodity in a fixed size
(circular) pie chart.................. They even think of those things that don't even exist yet as things to be bought and sold in potential markets of the future.
They see human need as something to be tapped and manipulated like
everything else in nature..........

Poor capitalists.......they have some kind of mental disease..........
and can't see the world around them without their money glasses on.........they must be as sad as they are angry and destructive.....
perhaps they need to be kept someplace seperate so they can't infect young minds..and poison the water and air !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can they ever understand something that's not for sale ?????????????
it's totally imposible for them just like it's imposible for a paranoid scitzophrenic to not think someone is after them.......

je_fro

09-21-2003, 03:30 AM

I'm seriously beginning to think that MS has a few people on staff whose purpose it is to post garbage like you do, randrade.

carrja99

09-21-2003, 09:27 AM

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0929/124.html

Article is not technology related at all, but they feel that it is prudent to include the following line:

Or picture the Microsoft-versus-Linux squabble settled with a single slash of Gates' saber into Linus Torvalds' ear.

Oh what fun! :D

sasKuatch

09-21-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by GaryJones32
The capitalist looks at everything in the entire universe as a comodity to be bought and sold for a price set by a marketplace -- and then tries to see how they can manipulate market share of their brand of commodity in a fixed size
(circular) pie chart.................. They even think of those things that don't even exist yet as things to be bought and sold in potential markets of the future.
They see human need as something to be tapped and manipulated like
everything else in nature..........

Poor capitalists.......they have some kind of mental disease..........
and can't see the world around them without their money glasses on.........they must be as sad as they are angry and destructive.....
perhaps they need to be kept someplace seperate so they can't infect young minds..and poison the water and air !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can they ever understand something that's not for sale ?????????????
it's totally imposible for them just like it's imposible for a paranoid scitzophrenic to not think someone is after them.......

Speaking as one, I can honestly say that it is not entirely as simple as you make it sound. We don't take money baths like the Disney version of Scrooge, and we actually have family and blood in our veins. Your post is a pathetic oversimplification that makes people like you feel good.