Request for Review

[Robert Bushman]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, George Toft wrote:

> I have overhauled my Linux site, and would appreciate a technical review
> of the material presented.
>
> http://georgetoft.com/linux

Very nice upgrade. The switch to breaking the pages down
by subtopic (I think this is new?) is a definite improvement
to usability.

In particular, I focused on the Linux Advocacy Tenets
section. If 50% of the radicals on Slashdot would put
even 50% of your ideas into action, it would be a much
more useful forum.

There are a few on which I have a slightly different
perspective. Being an ornery and opinionated bastard,
I thought I'd take a moment to contrast :)


"Let's accurately describe the capabilities of Linux and leave
it at that."

I tend to contrast Linux with its primary competitor.
Now, I need to immediately stress that this does not
mean saying, "yeah, but Windows sucks!" Rather, it
means that saying, "Linux has a much better security
record than Windows," when the listener is likely
to be receptive to the information (IE: don't say
this to an MS rep at COMDEX) is fair and productive.

Moreover, clearly Microsoft does not hesitate to
point out what they perceive to be the flaws in Linux.
This is not to say that we should necessarily stoop
to their level in all situations, but that in situations
where it is beneficial to the advocacy of Linux, we
should consider playing on an even field.


"Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone,
their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend
someone, please try to make amends."

I'm not going to disagree with this. Rather, I thought
it was such an important point that I should repeat
it. Try never to forget that all people do what they
believe is right. Always. They just have a different
view of the world than you. Try to remember that you
are capable of mistakes and knowledge gaps as well.
And when you do forget - don't hesitate to apologize.


"There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to
recognize this and offer another solution."

I would contest that as Linux advocates, we do not have
any duty to promote that which is not Linux. When you
go to a Ford dealership, do they say, "oh, a mid-sized
sedan? We're kind of weak in that area. Have you tried
Toyota?"  Of course not. Likewise, as Linux advocates,
we are not responsible for showing the way to the
competition. I would propose that you present a different
image: "Linux has a solution for this problem, and I
can help you to make it work." If they ask about Windows
solutions, and you know that there is a superior
solution, simply say that you are not qualified to
express an opinion about Microsoft solutions.

If the objective is (as the title suggests) Linux advocacy,
then your desire to show your skill with non-Linux solutions
is a non-issue. Forget credibility, noone believes in any
advocate's integrity anymore. The only extent to which, as
a Linux advocate, you should promote Windows is in those--
extremely rare and difficult to recognize--situations where
supporting one Windows station today will lead to two Linux
stations tomorrow. Frankly, it's simply better to only
advocate that which you are advocating - the dynamics of
reverse psychology are too complicated.


I completely agree with your views on how one should make
their point.  I would propose that a more aggressive
position on what points to make could be more productive.