Checking Twitter yesterday I caught a link to "Command Line Idiocy," a post that rips apart an article on "10 powerful CLI tools." Here's a short sample of the flavor of the piece:
It would seem Linux users can’t catch a break. Every year, blow-hard journalists will try out a Linux LiveCD, decide it’s actually worthwhile, and declare
date +%Yto be the year of Linux on the Desktop, only to run around screaming about how Linux isn’t ready for mainstream users after they manage to screw their system over while fiddling with sudo.Combine that with the fact that the majority of journalists who do routinely cover Linux do so as an off-shoot of their Windows coverage, and thusly you end up with ignorant writers “informing” the masses. There are precious few good sources of Linux news (cough, lwn.net), yet a truly staggering amount of shoddy journalism.
So, here we have member of the Linux community that's dripping with contempt for people who cover technology that aren't as expert as they are.
And, indeed, a case can be made that this happens frequently: A writer or journalist that covers tech "discovers" Linux and decides they want to spread the word. In their enthusiasm, they bite off a bit more than they're ready to chew, and get some (often many) things wrong, and put up a piece that more expert Linux users recognize as flawed. The results of which can vary from mildly amusing to somewhat harmful if the author has given either a very wrong impression or faulty advice that might lead others to futzing up their systems.
So, by all means, a response is called for. It's the flavor of response that I disagree with. Where some might approach the author and gently correct their errors, and perhaps even offer help and resources to allow them to create better materials, others take the piss out of the hapless author and try to demonstrate their superiority by ripping mercilessly on the author.
Which brings me to the title of this post: Real Linux advocates educate, not humiliate.
The Linux community is, unfortunately, saddled with a reputation for being populated nearly exclusively with arrogant elitists who enjoy mocking noobs and generally being asses to people who know less than they do. The "Ubuntard" response to this author simply reinforces this attitude.
Worse yet, instead of helping to correct the situation they've put a writer or journalist on the defensive and made it entirely likely that the author will either stop writing about Linux and FOSS out of fear of getting it wrong again, or ensured that they now have a negative attitude about Linux which is unlikely to benefit the community at large should they choose to cover Linux again.
We should be better than this.
Not for a minute am I suggesting that the article go uncorrected. By all means, drop the author a note or leave a comment that gently corrects the errors. For added bonus points, offer to help spot-check the next piece they care to write, or point them in the way of some better resources.
I give the original author credit for a few things:
- They actually sign their name to the things they write. In my book, you lose several thousand points of credibility unless you're willing to use your name when writing, unless you have genuine reasons for not doing so. (i.e., someone living in an oppressive regime that fears reprisal for political commentary -- not someone taking the piss out of named tech authors online.)
- They were actually trying to be informative. OK, minus many points for missing the mark, but they tried.
- They have enthusiasm for the command line. Getting some CLI stuff wrong doesn't irk me half as much as the "OMG, not the CLI!!" pieces that pop up so often about how Linux is unsuitable because you might need to touch the shell once in a great while.
That's material that can be worked with. Yes, the original article was flawed. But if approached correctly, many of the writers who want to cover Linux can be helped to get it right. And what we want, at least what I want, is more people spreading the word about Linux. The odds of the humiliation approach being effective are zero. You've just gotten off on the wrong foot with a potential advocate and this approach will do absolutely nothing to correct the next newbie journalist before they write their first flawed article, because they're not going to read this sadistic diatribe before penning their first piece. It's only perpetuating the arrogant elitist stereotype, which many others have been working quite hard to correct.
It's important to remember that most journalists are generalists, not experts. And right now, most of those generalists are scrambling like mad to meet deadlines and try to pump out as much material as possible. Yes, they'll get things wrong from time to time. Most people eff up in their jobs from time to time, the primary difference is that journalists and bloggers do so in full public view. Nearly every error is going to be on public display. (Plus the ones made by subsequent editors and people in the editorial chain, assuming one is working for a publication that still has an editorial chain, but I digress...)
While it's important to correct errors, the approach is important too. One commenter claimed that the newbie author "deserved" the treatment -- which is complete and utter garbage. What they "deserve" is to be met with an understanding community that's willing to forgive some errors in the hope of a better long-term relationship and future, more accurate, coverage. You'd be deeply surprised by how much better that approach is, and how much more effective.
29 Comments
What do you do when the people you're trying to educate humiliate you by asking questions, for example about gender differences in a particular technology area, and then get offended when you give them an honest answer and ask for their help in return to fix it?
@James Not sure I understand the question. I guess context would make it clearer.
You must be very naive.
We all know what sorry state the trade press is in. You claim they tried to to be informative and that they have an enthusiasm for the CLI.
I claim it's at least just as likely that that they are deliberately trying to mislead their audience, and their only enthusiasm for the CLI is that it is such a amazing tool for scaring people.
While there are some truly amazing people within the Linux world. I've also found a higher than average range of some of the most arrogant, abusive, and plain holier-than-thou people I've met who have been linux "enthusiasts". Their idea of help seems to be abusing you for your ignorance and lack of understanding. This elitism is one of many reasons why no matter how good linux gets, it won't progress. Your community is sadly, holding you back.
"Your community is sadly, holding you back."
I don't agree with this. The vast majority of people are good folks who are pushing things ahead very well. We aren't being done any favors by a small and vocal subset of the community, but I think that saying the community is holding us back is a bit too drastic.
You need look no further than your own OpenSuse forums for some truly stunning elitist and arrogant behaviour that borders on abusive, from no less than your forums "moderators". In such a context, ask yourself why the community is as it is.
You need look no further than your own OpenSuse forums for some truly stunning elitist and arrogant behaviour that borders on abusive
I am aware of this. I certainly don't approve of it, or encourage it.
" In my book, you lose several thousand points of credibility unless you're willing to use your name when writing, unless you have genuine reasons for not doing so."
That is ok because you have zero credibility with us, we are legion... Besides you get a name, then you denounce the name and ignore the idea that is being espoused. ;-p Anonymity has its place, especially in the "community" where a person will get death threats and all sorts of lovely harassment from people.
@anonymous
how very cynical of you, no matter the reason for the errors in the article nor the motivation, calling the author names will either upset him because he made a genuine error or in your narrow sceptical world reinfoce his view that cli users are vicious unthinking selfish nerds
This is a rare article. It must be because it dares to advocate common decency and politeness to a Linux enthousiast crowd.
Implying (and stopping just short of saying out loud) that the more vocal Linux enthousiasts are doing Linux an enormous disservice by associating the brand-name "Linux" with "Intolerance, flames, 'RTFM u N00b' adepts and nerdy bickering" is heady stuff, and not likely to be welcomed.
Of course journalists who write about things they aren't an expert on often get things wrong. And since a journalist almost by definition isn't an expert in *any* field (except writing coherent, intelligible pieces of prose on what they have just seed, heard, or read (and usually don't understand)), newspaper articles usually abound with lots and lots of serious (if not hilarious) mistakes.
Just look up a few newspaper articles about chemicals spilled in accidents. About 80% of those articles contain the purest balderdash about the name, nature, and health effects of said chemicals. Journo's typically don't know a ketone from an acid, a base from an alcohol, or a salt from a isomere. And their articles about chemicals don't give you a clue about what's actually going on. But how much do we hear about that? Not too much eh?
And why not look up a few articles in general newspapers about Science in general, or Mathematics. Seen any journalists who actually have a clue about evidence on real impact of say, sweeteners of the use of mobile phones on public health (i.e. nil)? Who can pen a coherent story about the pros and cons of vaccination from a public health point of view? No?
Perhaps that is because 99% of the public doesn't know either and doesn't care? Because 99% of the public *will not* pay for their news so that such articles are corrected by a proper fysicist / chemist / epidimiologist / statistician?
Sorry, but market forces show that people would rather be entertained than informed, and that news quality doesn't interest them to the extent that they will buy (let alone read) the Times instead of the Sun. It's awful, but there it is. But what can we do? You only have to look at the current state of the BBC to see what subsidized news agencies turn into.
One approach would be to denounce every single member of the public and every last journalist who doesn't have the Science taught in their O and A-level classes down pat, as a complete idiot. And you could do so with some degree of justification. Only, you'd soon run out of ink, paper, time, and breath. Oh yes, and you'll run out of an audience long before that.
Another approach is to (with a modicum of politeness) try and correct the mistakes journalists make.
Can you guess which approach is more welcomed by the general public and most likely to be read?
I can, and it isn't the rabid attack on all "ignoramuses" you tend to see in "letters to the editor" when there isn't much news.
So, back to IT.
The problem with Linux is that 95% of all desktop machines runs MS Windows. That's what people know (about).
And no, the fact that MS Windows is more vulnerable to viruses doesn't matter one iota because people can buy virus scanners and anti-malware software. And no, the fact that MS Windows needs a host of tools to keep it running doesn't matter either. People are used to it.
All that counts is that MS Windows is well known, (admittedly) looks neat, presents the end-user with a congenial and well-known interface for just about anything they're likely to need, and that (polite and helpful (!)) advice about it can be had in every magazine, every bookshop, and practically any online forum.
That's the environment we live in. People don't care a rat's *rse about Linux and how it's supposedly better that MS Windows. And journalists have just as much experience with it as does the general public (which is: nothing), so they get things wrong.
I agree with the article that the important thing is that journalists *write* about Linux. That offers Linux enthousiasts a foot in the door to tell their side of the story. And perhaps someone will even read it if it's well-written, polite, and informative.
And besides: Linux has come a long way since the TTY-only days, but it simply isn't completely there yet in terms of friendly user interfaces compared to MS Windows (although KDE 4.3.3 is really getting there), clear documentation (I most certainly don't count "Man pages" as good documentation), and friendly support (don't get me started on support on Linux forums).
If you'd believed the rants of Linux enthousiasts 5 years ago, Linux was a finished work of art, (any critics were to be soundly flamed and then staked), and ready to overthrow MS Windows if only ... (insert favourite excuse here). Now compare how much Linux has improved in the past 5 years and you'll see the true value of such comments.
The world at large (and journalists in particular) will embrace and do justice to Linux when they're ready for it, not before. Grin and bear it.
I never condone ripping on anyone, but you picked the wrong website to go after. You are giving credibility to a site that is akin to boycottnovell.com.
Let us let idiots rest vs putting them in the spotlight. Also, there is no need to make excuses for poor journalism. It used to be that people wrote about what they knew or consulted those that knew more to verify, but that's not the case with most these days.
Constructive criticism goes a long way, though.
You make it sound like he was ripping on some poor sap for being new to linux. That's not even remotely the case.
He's not nailing the guy for bad linux skills. He's nailing him for piss poor journalism and misinformation.
Scores of non-linux-expert journalists are capable of writing helpful articles introducing people to linux as they describe their own discovery. They probably also have the good sense NOT to write as though they have knowledge that they don't have. They talk about little mishaps like burning the ISO too fast and not being able to boot the first time. They're genuine and straightforward about their experience.
But the schlep being described in Command Line Idiocy was trying to do a howto on something he didn't know how to do. It serves no one but himself to try to look like an expert while misleading people.
It's completely happenstance that it's even about Linux. It could've been about how to build a birdhouse or fly an ultralight. If you don't know what you're writing about, you better do some solid research, and then run your final draft by a real expert before publishing.
That's just good writing, everything Linux aside.
He's not nailing the guy for bad linux skills. He's nailing him for piss poor journalism and misinformation.
@Jason - you've utterly missed the point. The point is that the Ubuntard author is "nailing" someone instead of showing some grace. You don't need to "rip" anybody to correct misinformation.
Quote: The Linux community is, unfortunately, saddled with a reputation for being populated nearly exclusively with arrogant elitists who enjoy mocking noobs and generally being asses to people who know less than they do.
Is this an example of the educative approach?
I don't know that it's limited to the Linux community. This type of behaviour is not uncommon online. However, it can be a bit more peculiar w/ regard to Linux. I've seen new users ask for help & be labeled "Troll" simply because they didn't like an application or an element of a distro. The attitude is that it's impossible to have a bad experience with FOSS or a Linux distro. Everything's perfect & if you say otherwise, well, you clearly work for the vole. It makes me laugh, then it makes me mad.
I'd like to be more helpful to new users, but being abused by them because something is "different" than they are used to isn't worth it.
Linux doesn't have training wheels. Get over it.
You don't expect to play a beautiful piece the first time you sit down at a piano, similarly, new users shouldn't expect Linux to be trivially easy to conquer either. It takes time and effort - years. If you are unwilling to spend the effort, choose a different OS, please.
@JohnP Good point, I guess, but it has what to do with this topic?
I strongly agree that the community is full of people who will snap at you just for asking a question they consider "dumb".
However, I think that from a tech journalist we should expect a bit more awareness, willingness to get well informed before writing articles. Everybody has been a newbie, the difference is most newbies do not get paid to write uninformed and misinforming articles on an OS they do not know.
This is one of the single most important things the end user can adjust in order to grow Linux. It's unfortunate that so many of us are content to have linux outside the mainstream.
Good article.
Zonker,
Great points you make. I suspect that some of the folks that post these types of responses, instead of helpful information, have another agenda. I always try to ignore such things.
And, for JohnP, "years," not from what I have seen. Most people that I have shown a live cd distro, are able to use it within a few minutes.
The folks that claim Linux is hard because you sometimes have to use the command line, must think Windows is hard because, sometimes, you need to use the Registry Editor or the Device Manager. How many people do you know that can use those properly? Thats what I thought...
I tend to agree with the comments people have made over the community and the general feeling of being faced with an elitist men-only private-club that pervades many facets, especially the (opensuse) forums. It's the reason why I absolved myself of any participation there and went to my local bookstore instead.
It's not fun being put down and belittled for asking questions that when you're starting on a new journey, queries you're not aware are perhaps simple in their nature. I wonder how many other people, good people, who could have contributed, have walked away from linux because of that bastion of testosterone that seems to make up this "club". I wonder how many people have been lost that could have balanced out that atmosphere and made it significantly more friendly than it is now.
While this article deals with the issues surrounding journalism, - the root cause lies deeper in the lack of clear rules of conduct and behaviour, both within forum and more generalised communities.
My journey with linux will continue on alone, and I think that's a shame, because the people that are being pushed away by such issues, are perhaps the ones who would give the most..
I would like to "gently" remind you of flaws in your article.
(1) You make a presumption -" I assume" - that some or even majority of these article writers referred to really appreciate being 'educated' and corrected gently' about Linux, Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) and any serious flaws in their articles.
Nothing is further from the truth.
(2) It has been "proven" that certain so-called tech journalists have an "agenda" in writing false and misleading articles on FOSS, with some actually inadvertently revealing their associations with Microsoft and/or it's partners -directly or indirectly.
(3)
In many cases the deceit of their intent is obvious when they would e.g. strongly criticize CLI options in Linux or BSD, only to praise very useful and powerful CLI options for Windows later in same article.
Yes, there are crazies in the Linux eco-system, but it is destructive to mention them without giving credit to all the Microsoft or Apple crazies as well. My point is, do not mention negatives on one group if you do not intent to list all.
The two observations I can clearly make about supposed" zealotry in these groups are:
(a) Linux advocates are quickly called zealots and fan boys even when they make no derogatory personal comments and just stick to "technical" corrections.
(b) Many of the Microsofties who jump quickly to defending Microsoft technologies in any comparison or evaluation almost always use fallacious arguments:
(i) Countering a technical distinction with "market share" quotes - which are obvious poor and wrong analogies.
(ii)Deflecting posed technical advantages of Linux over Windows on "personal, aesthetic visual appeal" grounds Personal tastes are just that - personal, therefore not qualifiable in regard technological stories.
To a large degree, I can sympathize with many reasons why those who use, understand and appreciate Linux/FOSS for the technical, common sense, economic and fun reasons get short with unwarranted criticisms of Linux/FOSS. After a while of constantly listening to and reading crap from these sources any sane human being will strike out - even if ill advised.
I recently responded to a question from a leading open source advocate, for whom I have more respect than at least 99% of the population, about why women were not well-represented in technology. I responded that, at least for the technology I was interested in, the patent situation made it hard to deploy functional systems necessary for education, and I asked for help addressing the situation, sending copies of emails to the responsible government officials to the questioner. I was told that I have overstepped some political boundaries which had not been delineated in advance, and to refrain from making any reference to the original question.
Frankly it was one of the most humiliating things I've been through this year.
Is it only me or does anyone else think that there could be a bunch of M$-loyals acting as "Linux community veterans" and deliberately spoiling the atmosphere for newbies?
This is a serious doubt I have because I dont understand how someone would spend hours configuring/debugging stuff on the command line, figure out how things work, make a nice script or make a nice GUI utility, and then go out in the community and insult anyone who comes asking for help.
IMO, there are three types of people who would do this:
(a) FSF types - they are "broken records" and very touchy about even minor errors - (and other publicly unspecifiable vitriol)
(b) arrogant experts who learnt from someone in the local LUG "back then in the good old days" when everyone was using Doze 2000
(c) "superlusers" who seem to forget basics in life even if they remember basics of the CLI very well -
that their BIG male balls came from a female womb WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
that society progressed greatly only after publishing came about,
that their computers are built by *cooperation* by physicists and scientists,
that Linus and RMS *contributed* their works towards a common goal,
and that Linux is actually computer software which therefore has a Golden Rule attached to it:
Without end users, software has no purpose.
Without end-user training software companies have no work.
Bashing the bashers is fun
Doesn't this sound sick?
No, really.
http://ubuntard.com/2009/12/real-linux-advocates-see-shades-of-grey/
Sorry, I disagree. Her article was full of errors, so much so that it may have been damaging to FOSS in general. A response was deserved. I don't really think the response was that harsh given the high error rate. If she really wants to excel in writing she will write a corrected follow-up article.
Never said a response wasn't deserved, though I think the "damaging to FOSS in general" vastly overestimates the reach and influence of the publication.
The harshness wasn't, period. Remember that there's a human being at the end of the byline, and ask yourself if you'd feel it "deserved" if you were the one getting the response.
I think there is a third situation you don't reference. We can agree that ripping a new 'hole in a writer is a bad approach; although we know it can feel good sometimes to rail against other people, it's bad to do it in public.
The other option you suggest is kind suggestions, which I presume are delivered via comment or another blog post. One thing I've learned, some writers on e.g. CNET don't address or even read the comments on their posts, and sometimes I cannot blame them. In such cases, the only viable option is to call someone out in public, although again, being nice or at least fair is key. That is the approach I took here:
http://iquaid.org/2009/08/17/let-me-say-it-again-get-off-our-freedoms/
But there is a huge amount of content out there now that is being produced for pay, for very little pay ($15 to $30 per article), and under tight deadlines. I hadn't heard about this being so rampant, although I had noticed the influx over the last few years of this fast-and-furious writing:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_demand_media_produces_4000_new_pieces_of_content_a_day.php
I can't be sure that the article that started this whole discussion is actually one of those targeted, low-pay, fast-and-furious articles, but it might be. It certainly seems like it, from its niche market focus and sloppier fact checking.
The writers working for low pay on a lot of content have no incentive, even disincentive, to listen to criticism. Where a wiki article gains from feedback, the content farms are distracted by feedback.
When I wrote this response to an article earlier this year:
http://iquaid.org/2009/06/17/people-still-write-business-articles-like-this/
I didn't realize it, but that content was probably an example from a content farm. It also doesn't have a way to take feedback or comments. There is no function in the website, the author link goes nowhere, and it's pretty inobvious how to respond other than to give the article a star rating (guess how many stars I gave it?).
In the face of a behemoth that can produce 4000 pieces of search-engine targeted content a day, it is often not an option to contact an author and have it make a difference. Even if you get in touch with someone, they may be only one of ten-plus people who touched the article, and are not incentivized by their publisher to respond to feedback and critical suggestions.
@Karsten totally agreed that there are some cases where contacting the author does no good - but I think we also agree that, in no event, is the "ripping a new hole" approach warranted.
The content farm approach is a problem for a number of reasons, not just because it produces sub-par FOSS content.