Security is, at best, relative. In absolutes , there is no such thing as a secure computer, military installation, bank, trading floor, hospital or operating system. Not virtually, and certainly not inherently. So what’s the buzz?

“Just the facts, ma'am” vs. “Bragging”

Some time ago, an article about advertising, published in The Wall Street Journal (whose author and title I no longer remember), explained what it is about our legal system that allows a company to make statements of questionable merit. In legal parlance, when a company either bends, stretches, spins or otherwise distorts the truth in a statement about the virtue of its product, it is legally considered “bragging”. (Nevermind the fact that, as children, we were taught that bragging is not cool.) Unfortunately the article didn’t explain how the general public – or even the expert public -- is supposed to recognize the difference between this “bragging” and what is fact.

There are also two criminal cases where the facts were not the only things heard. One of them was publicly broadcast – The State of California vs. (O.J.) Simpson. The other case was The State of Florida vs. William Lozano. Most people I know are acquainted with the O.J. Simpson case; nothing more to say here. In the case against William Lozano – which I believe resulted in a good verdict (acquittal) – counsel for the defense told the press (after the trial) that he had authored a note he read during his closing arguments. This raised my eyebrows because he said that the defendant had written the note, just prior to reading it. These examples of jurisprudence raise many questions.

For me, the answer came in a recent episode of The Practice (re-runs, VPN 20). The particular episode explored the dank, dark corners of what is known as privilege: the legal concept used to keep secret, what is said between an attorney and the client. In it, one of the attorneys observed that the legal obligation of an attorney to uphold privilege, transcends any sense of morality or social values. Further, that when the powers that be (a Bar review board) convene to consider whether privilege has been violated, it is not permitted to consider the moral issue that preceded an attorney’s breach of this client right.

Trying to avoid "Playing the Fool", as they expect

In light of these thoughts, I find it easier to keep my mouth shut (or my hand away from the keyboard) than I might otherwise, when I read titles like, “Linux Riskier Than Windows?”, “Opera Wails about MSN”, or some other similarly slanted title. In most cases though, I still find myself reading further. Another consideration is the source. Consider Cnet, for example. Whether or not it ever was a news source I cannot say. I can say that it is not a news source, today. It is recognizing this that allows me to read most anything one can find on its site, that refers to both Linux and Microsoft.

There are some examples cited, at the end of this writing, but none are from the site I identified as Cnet. The current URL, news.com.com appears to be treating the content on this site as a blog. I say this because of the note near the title that reads, “Last modified on ...”. While any respectable news agency will report errors and omissions, as such, through either a correction or a retraction, this site provides no obvious means to track a change. As a result, it cannot be considered worthy of scholarly review by peers, or worthy of editorial comment.

Putting it in Context

Other headlines leave little room for doubt about whether or not Microsoft is – or has been – up to no good. “Microsoft, Intertrust Iron out Lawsuit”, “Microsoft behind $12Million payment to Opera” (albeit with the typical Cnet spin), “Microsoft to Pay AOL $750 Million”, “Sun Settles with Microsoft …” (another with Cnet spin, failing to include the amount of $2 Billion). There is one other saga that reminds me of these kinds of headlines. The companies have names like “Phillip Morris” and “R.J. Reynolds” and their product was cigarettes. If Cnet had covered these legal headlines, the smokers would have been to blame.

The point I’m making is, why not sit back and let Microsoft’s PR become Microsoft’s own worst enemy? More directly, why not let Microsoft’s PR be Microsoft’s own worst enemy instead of jumping in to give them a hand?

Moving Forward

Every time we criticize something we’ve read on the web, by posting that criticism on the web, we amplify the number of times the thing we criticize shows up in search results. When criticism is limited to whining about what was reported, or when it lacks a presentation of the facts necessary to support the challenge, we give them credibility rather than putting them in their place. The non-technical public – including the business folks out there who must decide which OS to buy – aren’t capable of making the technical decision on their own. So, they look outside. Still, they can’t evaluate technical criticism but this doesn’t mean there are not vulnerable to forming an intuitive appraisal about what they read. So, rather than whining, rather than calling them names, rather than referring to Windows users as “stupid” – point them in a direction that is useful. There is a preponderance of writing in favor of Linux so it ought to be easy to refer to some of it. This makes for credible writing.

Need a place to begin? First, remember not to fall sucker to what might best be described as button-pushing tactics (see example, below). Second, studies that look at Windows versus Linux have been available since at least 2002. Three that come to mind (including the one referenced by Cnet and discussed on LQ) are mentioned below. Third, rather than taking on sound bytes attributed to one or more execs, put them into perspective by using Microsoft's own words to challenge them. See below.

Button-pushing

Here's an example: “"We think our software is far more secure than open-source software. It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because we built it."” This is a bare-assed, naked opinion – nothing more. As such, challenging it requires knowledge of what this person truly believes. Unless you are the Amazing Kreskin (a psychic from a few decades ago), stay away from comments like this. On the other hand, one might raise a question like, “Why does the assertion that they stand behind it support this person's belief that what they have is more secure? First of all, unless they've made a change to their EULA, they don't stand behind it – the EULA says they accountable for software failures of any kind.

Studies and Research:

Cybersource, http://www.cybersource.com.au/, published the first study that evaluated the Total Cost of Ownership, in 2002, under this title, “Linux: 34% Lower TCO than Windows” (2002-04-26). Then, in 2004, Cybersource published “Linux vs. Windows TCO Comparison: The Final Numbers Are In.” (2004-Dec-13). These reports are published in their entirety and – in keeping with the state of the art (if you will) in peer-reviewed research – the methodologies are included. Contrast this with what Microsoft offers from its “Get The Facts” website. There is no study published in its entirety, and what is published lacks all that is necessary for an evaluation by peers.

Res Ipsa Loquitor – the Thing Speaks for Itself

It isn't reasonable to believe that Microsoft believes its own criticism of Linux. They wouldn't discount their own product unless they needed to increase the value per dollar of Windows, in order to compete with Linux. For more than 9 months, Microsoft has been lowering their price for Windows, when trying to close with a customer that says they are considering a switch to Linux. Unless Microsoft knows Linux is equal to or better than Windows, why would it discount its brand? (see “Microsoft: 'Linux is more of a threat than before'”, by Graeme Wearden. ZDNet UK. June 11, 2004, 15:00 BST. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/win...9157443,00.htm).

If you consider most any recent statement about Linux from Microsoft, within the context of what was said previously, there is (suddenly) no reply from the Linux community that could discredit it any better than one of their own statements from the past. As long as we continue to bring those previous statements to the forefront there is little point in trying to do better – let alone bother with name calling or whining.

Remember, if you can cite from a news source, rather than from an editorial, your opinion will carry more weight. So do that. Obtain the reference, read it, then make up your own mind about its meaning, then write a credible, substantiative reply.

Non Illigitime Carborundum -- don't let the [illegitimate child] wear you down!

-- John Crout, M.Sc.

Good points. But I venture to say that there are still many people in the world who will believe whatever Microsoft says and so we also need an active voice in countering their arguments logically and rationally.

Just standing by and watch them discredit Linux using their so-called "credibility" is not something I would wish to see.

We must counter with the truth. Speaking out the truth about Linux when there are lies all around you is the only option. Silence will only help the lies spread faster and give the feeling that Linux users don't really care.

I think you are confusing the word "discredit" with the word "rebuttal". Microsoft has an incentive to try to maintain and/or increase their market share; therefore it should not come as a surprise that they will put out press releases that cast their own products in a good light while making alternatives or competitors appear to be risky, undesirable, or substandard. If/when Microsoft makes one of those statements (such as the "Get the Facts" campaign) I hardly think that characterizing the Linux/ Open Source community's counter-response to such statements as an attempt to discredit Microsoft. Instead, it's simply intended to give the public the other side of the story, with the hope that public will be able to make a conclusion based on all the facts, not just some of the facts.

Keep in mind that Microsoft operates in the world of public opinion, and also that pretty much everything that Joe Sixpack knows about computers is from what he sees/hears in the media. As such, whether a (relatively) obscure technical journal tells a different story is largely irrelevant from Microsoft's perspective, as long as the message in the mainstream media remains "Microsoft good, everything else bad". As a popular TV show said, "The truth is out there", but being silent sure isn't going to help anyone find out what that real truth is. Just my 2 cents -- J.W.

Yes. But one can never sway the entire population. A guy named Arch Lustberg (Google him) was the first person whom I remember, to point this out. Toastmasters' International was the second. As far as any value this may have to others, the credit is definitely not mine. When speaking (or writing, I suppose) persuasively, I seem to be more effective if I make decision about content and technique by focusing on those who are undecided. From your posts, elsewhere on LQ, I gather you know this. So, my point is this: Consider the other two groups. They are those who are already on your side (whom you need not be as concerned with) and those who don't like you or what you say and will never agree to see things your way. This latter group is the tough group to acknowledge because they ought to be ignored. Focus your attention on those why are undecided. But it isn't easy to accept that there are people you will never persuade. Even harder still, is accepting that someone you admire is among them.

After considering what you wrote above, "there are still ... people ... who will believe whatever" and what you wrote below, "We must counter with the truth", these are two points I agree with. I do question, though, whether or not those who accept the manufacturer's statements as easily as you suggest can ever be swayed by logic (or truth, facts or any version of reality as you and I know it).


I agree that we should not be idle. But I believe there is nobody better than Microsoft, who can discredit Microsoft. Forgetting what they have accomplished in court is a death sentence because it stands as a testament to their ability to persuade. Consider the press we've been subjected to in the past two weeks. Not one article mentions "Microsoft" _and_ refers to a derogatory statement about Red Hat (or LInux) as anything other than an opinion. Not an "Expert Opinion" or a fact-based conclusion -- just an opinion. The rebuttals suffer from a lack of supporting data *for this very reason*. That is, no data exists that supports a claim made by rebutting author, that the rebutting author has more or better knowledge of what goes on inside the first author's head. There is no logical argument to supports a statement of opinion. Frankly, I was disturbed by this idea. That is, until I recognized what was happening. I've already alluded to the Microsoft "Dream Team".

Attorneys often deploy a technique that aids in discrediting a witness. It can work even when the facts are clearly in support of a witness's statement. This is what Microsoft has been doing foir the past few weeks. It may not ordinarily be easy to do when the press is in the middle, but when the press makes a living off the advetising revenue associated with Microsoft ads and when their website requires support from same, I doubt that it is all that difficult.

I'm referring to the use of inflammatory statements; statements that are constructed as they are, for the sole purpose of putting the listener off-balance. If it is really effective, the target (listener) isn't just put off-balance, they are insensed. The statements work because we believe others are watching us and we are "on record". Most people -- anyone, I suppose -- unless they've seen it before, will respond emotionally. The alternative is to acknowledge how one feels for the sole purpose of ignoring that feeling, before responding. Typically, the result is an emotional rebuttal which may or may not include an objective reference or some fact. Those who observe the exchange -- e.g. the EEC, these last few weeks -- are very likely to notice the emotional aspect of the rebuttal, rather than its content.

Armed with this insight (assuming it is, indeed, insightful) one can better help Microsoft shoot themself in the foot, by quoting Microsoft's words from some time ago. Even today there is current news that suggests Microsoft may not believe their product is "more secure". One must believe that Microsoft is a philanthropic organization in order to believe they are discounting their own product when a company says they are considering a Linux alternative. There may be more to be said about this, in another post.

I see that I need to work on brevity. But I hope this helps.

I think Joe Sixpack will use whatever is installed in the computer. I don't know about you guys out there, but here in brazil, when I remember the days when msdos/win3.1 was starting to turn into standard computer solution to everything, it was because there was a lack of law enforcement, and everybody had an illegal copy. This way win entered our life. SysOps and support staff used to install it, no alternative, and here we are.
But now there's gnu/linux, and if ms is to ever raise the guard against piracy, people will feel pushed to free software.
Before you ask what it has to do with the thread, I'd say Joe Six will come to work one day, and voila, a gnu/linux desktop! The decision will be of the support/technical staff. Which is why "the need to convice other people" doesn't work quite like that.
Joe will suffer a few months, and after that, he will not even remember win. Think about other migrations. This one has a great deal of ideology, I agree, but the practical side is similar.

To me, looking back to history I can't help think what a window of opportunity unix lost by not porting to i386. What were the guys concerned about? Suing each other?

Personally I do not care what Microsoft says about competitors (Linux for example). They almost always deny words they said previously. It is obvious, you just need to quote them from the right time and compare what they said there to what they say now. If you deny yourself, it is obvious, that one of the two things you said is lie. Simple logic. So we can counter Microsoft by only quoting them.

IMHO We just need to speak truth, and truth will find life of its own in peoples minds. The truth, if it is acctually true, never dies.
We must NOT remain silent!