Why let it bother you so much?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| KernelShepard May 06, 2009 10:23 AM EDT |
Why let it bother you so much? What difference does it really make? So what if it really is only 1%? So what if it's 99%? Does that make you any more/less significant? Does it make you feel like you chose the wrong OS if yours isn't the most popular? Why is your ego so tied to the success of Linux? Inquiring minds want to understand. |
| jacog May 06, 2009 10:41 AM EDT |
Seems more like a rant about shoddy journalism to me, and indeed that's something worth ranting about. The general public get a plethora of "facts" thrown at them every day that most just eat up as truths. This is not excusable as "just to sell newspapers" as it is a potentially harmful thing to do. |
| phsolide May 06, 2009 10:43 AM EDT |
It's not really the 1% or 6% or 45%. It's the sloppy, biased journalism that rankles. Examples abound: http://www.inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/ms.treatment.... That one calls out newpaper and news service editors for sloppiness and amnesia, but the point stands: mainstream news leans way over to give Microsoft a good slant in just about every article. The internet "trade press" is worse. |
| gus3 May 06, 2009 12:31 PM EDT |
I'm with jacog. Sloppy journalism is used as justification for wasting billions per year at sloppy, shoddy, insecure, and flat-out dangerous programming. Rather than put Linux to the test, a big manufacturing corporation (I have a specific one in mind here) would rather just read a few articles like the one-percent tripe, consult with its IT people, decide that its own IT people are ignorant, and stick with the Windows addiction. |
| tracyanne May 06, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
So what were the reasons, they gave for sticking with Windows, and not taking their IT people's advice, gus? |
| gus3 May 06, 2009 5:12 PM EDT |
The "retraining costs" would be "too high." As if the slightly different look of a web page in Firefox on Linux would cause it to work differently when someone clicked a link. And as if the costs of Windows' forced updates and incompetent anti-malware (I'm looking at you, McAfee) weren't already so high. It just comes down to inertia. They don't want to change, saying essentially "better the devil you know than the devil you don't," and will make any excuse they can to keep the status quo. |
| KernelShepard May 06, 2009 6:43 PM EDT |
gus3: "The 'retraining costs' would be 'too high.'" That's a pretty common excuse and in many ways I'm sure it's true. Think of all the people out there who resist change and complain incessantly anytime they are forced to change their ways (thus causing more aggravation for admins and fellow coworkers). I've worked at a handful of places and at just about everyone of those places, there were at least a few people like that. While it could be argued that those people should just be fired (and I'd agree), managers often simply do not want to deal with problem people. There's also the old adage: better the devil you know than the devil you don't. But don't fret, Linux is constantly improving and people are moving to it. Change doesn't happen overnight ;-) |
| tracyanne May 07, 2009 1:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:The "retraining costs" would be "too high." The training costs too high should be fairly easy to debunk. Perhaps the IT people should do a study, write up a cost comparison. |
| gus3 May 07, 2009 1:46 AM EDT |
Nothing is possible, to the mind which refuses to believe. |
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!