----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyvim Xaphir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ExpertMandrake-List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Club advocates: Post Positive
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:31, Hoyt wrote: > As someone who considers himself a journalist (several tutorials, reviews and > opinion pieces published in MaximumLinux and LinuxFormat magazines; three > chapters contributed to Red Hat Linux 7.2 Unleashed and currently a technical > reviewer for SAMS Publishing), I don't consider a lot of what I see published > on-line as "journalism". It's usually opinion, fluff and shallow writing > because that's what is easy and cheap to offer; on-line publishers don't have > a lot of loot to throw to writers, much less buy them off - neither do Open > Source companies. I agree; I've noticed a painfully discernable difference in quality. Not that there's any high quality material to be found on the web at all; on the contrary, if you look in the right places there's quite a bit of it. Still what you point out holds true enough; the good sometimes is nearly overrun by the amateurish or unprofessional. > Remember that controversy builds page hits and advertisers are happy with > higher page hit counts. My editorial pieces are written that way > (controversial), but I try to avoid that in my factual articles. It's up to > the Editor to see that the two types of writing stay separate; some do a > better job than others and in my opinion, the boundaries are a little less > clear for on-line publishing. > When I wrote for MaximumLinux, Editor in Chief Brian DelRizzo told me that if > a product was bad, write why it was bad; if it was good, write why it was > good; don't pull a punch because they advertise; help them make the product > better. I was told I could write what ever I wanted as long as it was > factual. I have written some unfavourable reviews and the only response I > ever got from an advertiser was that I got the capitalisation of their name > wrong. MaximumLinux was the favorite mag of mine for all time. I loved the genre of users that you guys represented, the new approach to the Linux world that you had. It seemed more aggressive and "hip" than everything that had come before. Sort of a car-racing attitude as applied to Linux. It was very cool. I've still got the premiere issue and every other one I could scarf off the stands. To this day, I still wonder why the publication did not make it, as opposed to the success of Linux magazine and Linux Journal. Never did make any sense to me. > As an intelligent reader, you should be sceptical of everything you read. > Don't let someone else do your thinking for you. Learn to separate opinion > from fact. But there are several ways to consider facts, are there not? Even facts are possible victims of perception. This is easily demonstrable. For instance, take a 16 ounce container. Put 8 ounces of water in it. Is the container then half empty or half full? Both perspectives are true, yet one has a negative slant and the other has a positive. Newsforge has gone beyond the half glass scenario, way into the realm of FUD, by making statements that are obviously lies. For instance, take the assertion recently that the subscription model of business is not a valid business model. It's obvious that the subscription model is already working for many companies, such as Transgaming, which I pointed out numerous times on their site. Yet their writers continue to ignore such points in favor of fuddist oriented attitudes. Can you imagine the tidal wave of fuddism that would have burst through if MandrakeSoft had actually attempted a truly new way of business? It's no wonder that new ideas have a way of being drowned to death in committee. It's not that they are bad ideas, it's just that there's an overabundance of a$$h*les around. Their attitude to the Linux world is irresponsible in comparison to, for example, how Linux Journal handles it. Here your views are verified when we compare the online anti-journalists to the bona-fide Linux Journal journalists. Your points about there being "no such thing as bad press", a la Hollywood, had actually occurred to me; however, to me it is irresponsible to grab for hits at the expense of a new and struggling company such as MandrakeSoft, just so you can cover your own rear. It's like trying to stay afloat by pushing someone else under the water. But Mandrake is not the only one; other distros have taken hits as well. I'm not casting an anathema spell on criticism unilaterally, you understand; quite the opposite, in fact. I'm fully capable of sorting facts from fud; and it's my opinion that there is more of the latter than the former. I don't mind a critical eye; but with the same eye I'm also looking for negativists hunting fodder for their negative orgasms. > I don't believe that the solution is to "post positive" because that > is just a public relations ploy, simply putting a favourable spin on > topics. I suggest that the best approach is to "post truthfully" and > think critically about what you read in others' posts. If a problem > arises with a Mandrake product or practise, they need to know about > it. How they handle it is up to them. Simply putting a pleasant face > on it is a certain invitation to disaster. But as compared to what? Putting an ugly face on it? And that is perhaps less disastrous? I agree with you up to a certain point; I think that the facts do need to be considered, but with some half glass scenario wisdom as well. Not only are the facts not being considered, they are being ignored in favor of fuddism. So now we have the possibility of perception without facts. > If you want to positively influence the on-line press, write a factual review > of some little-noticed Mandrake feature (like multiple network profiles, > msec, and so on) and submit it to the on-line press for publication. Just > remember that spelling and grammar count for things like that, aim for 300 to > 600 words, keep it factual, avoid being superficial, give pros and cons and > make it "tell a story", i.e, have a beginning, middle and end. It's not that > difficult. If you want some advice, let me know off the list. > good heavens! who got this one started!?! ;) Mark a.k.a. daRcmaTTeR
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
