Eric Lee Green
November 15, 1999
In the year since the original release of the FUD101 paper, much has changed, yet much has not. I've moved to a new employer (Enhanced Software Technologies, http://www.estinc.com where I am working on ``neat stuff'', Red Hat has gone IPO in a spectacular way, and Microsoft has stepped up their FUD attacks against Linux. Linux is now seen as a potential enterprise operating system rather than being dismissed out-of-hand as it was a year ago. Microsoft is now officially a monopoly as determined via a finding of fact in a U.S. court of law.
For the one year anniversary edition I have updated the document with many new examples of FUD attacks, thanks to Microsoft's willingness to provide such examples. I was tempted to include a detailed analysis of the elements of FUD in Microsoft's latest FUD attack on Linux, but resisted. I have added some new sub-categories of the major FUD attacks, as well as removed a number of dead links. I have updated the ``FUD counter-arguments'' section in order to deal with all of the support options and maturing desktop solutions that have occurred during the past year. The core, however, remains the same. FUD is FUD, after all.
There are a variety of ways that can be used to hinder the entry of new competitors into a market. There is tying (i.e., threatening that you will not sell a monopoly ingredient needed for the product if the manufacturer uses another vendor's non-monopoly ingredient as part of his product). There is de-commoditization by adding features to monopoly ingredients which insure that they will not interoperate with non-monopoly ingredients, such as the by-now famous error message in betas of Windows 3.0 when they were used with DR-DOS. There is decommoditization by inventing entirely new protocols, such as Token Ring, DECNet, or the MCA Bus, and making sure that your own products work best with these new protocols. Patent laws can be used to attack a competitor. Thus see, for example, http://research.microsoft.com which has the primary purpose of producing patentable technologies that can be used to deny entry to competition.
Perhaps the easiest, most common, and most misunderstood method, however, is FUD.
FUD stands for ``Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt''. According to the New Hacker's Dictionary, FUD was defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, basically, was to say that IBM was the safe choice, while buying machines from a competitor could doom your IS department. FUD in that era came to be summarized as ``Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM''.
The power of FUD comes from the nature of the computing environment in corporations. Corporations generally operate upon a three to five year deployment cycle for new technologies. Thus they tend to be very conservative about what technologies they adopt. If, two years into a four-year cycle, a vendor goes out of business or discontinues the product you're basing your business upon, your options are to memorize the mantra ``Will there be fries with that order, sir?'' or to trade in your executive suite for the janitor's closet. Similarly, if you have invested two years into a five-year plan and find out that the technology you chose just won't do the job... again, ``will there be fries with that order, sir?''
The purpose of FUD when preserving a monopoly is to paint the opposing technologies as unreliable, untrustworthy, unsupported, unsupportable, and offered by fly-by-night companies that do not offer the stability of The One Right Choice. The purpose is to scare companies away from using superior technologies in favor of the One Right Choice. The monopoly status of the vendor of the One Right Choice is used to imply all of the opposite attributes: reliability, trustworthiness, supported, supportable, and offered by a company you can depend on.
There are four basic strategies here, usually combined:
This is the most insidious form of FUD because it is the most difficult to counter. There are a number of ways to exaggerate your opponent's weaknesses. Amongst those are:
Option #2, inventing weaknesses, is most common because it is the easiest to do. This also is the reason why FUD option #2 is the least effective method for creating FUD - it is too easily countered. Thus FUD method #2 is usually disguised by sandwiching it between other FUD methods in hopes that granules of truth ooze out and hide the fact that you're lying, or by application of distraction techniques and techniques of propaganda such as ``leading questions'' or ``the big lie'' in order to bluff your audience.
The ``big lie'' method is especially useful if you are a monopoly seeking to keep out competition, because as they say about negative campaigning in politics, ``if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick''. The goal is to get your customers to associate the opponent with unsavory things. It doesn't matter whether those unsavory things are true or not, you're merely trying to keep your customers from switching, much as a successful politician may launch a ``third party'' mud-flinging attack using ``soft money'' against his opponent in order to keep voters from switching to that untried/untested opponent.
For example: ``Linux security is weak ... Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator.'' (http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp). See the discussion of distraction techniques below (especially 'sandwiching', which Microsoft uses heavily in the text surrounding this statement). The point is to associate the opponent with insecure, unreliable, etc., and truth isn't necessary in order to do that.
This is the trickiest use of FUD because it's hard to identify what exactly is going on. There's actually several possibilities here:
This is a classic, starting at grade school and continuing onwards. What you want to do is associate the opponent in your customer's minds with being the tool of unreliable associated nuts, flakes, and ideologs. For example, in http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/pcwk/1521/317585.html , it is stated that ``Linux is a Communist operating system in a capitalist society''. The implication is that users of Linux are Commies, flakes, failures, people who you should not trust around your computer operating system, and that you would be a Commie (i.e., a follower of a failed philosophy) to use it.
Note that this is often used in combination as part of a distraction technique with FUD method #2 (outright fabrication). Thus, ``No business in this country is going to wait for a 17-year-old beatnik to [answer its newsgroup post and] fix its problem." ( http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1109linux.html) . Note how it smears all Linux users as ``17-year-old beatniks'' .
An important sub-category for any discussion of FUD is distraction techniques. Basically, the purpose of distraction techniques is to disguise your FUD as seemingly-sincere statements of fact.
Distraction techniques can be categorized thusly:
This is primarily used with FUD#2 (outright fabrication). Your fabrications are sandwiched between two true statements in hopes that their status as a fabrication will be obscured by the particles of truth oozing from the surrounding statements. Thus: ``Linux only provides access controls for files and directories`` (true - remember, the whole philosophy of Unix is ``everything is a file'') sandwiches between ``Linux security model is weak'' (FUD#1, exaggeration), and ``Linux security is all-or-nothing'' (FUD#2, fabrication) in Microsoft's ``Linux Myths'' document. Microsoft's FUDmeisters perhaps went overboard here, it is generally more useful to sandwich your fabrication between two true facts because then there's more ``ooze'' and more willingness on the part of the target to believe the fabrication, but it may have been theorized that this was a case for ``The Big Lie'' (i.e., if you're going to lie, lie big, because if you're caught the penalty is the same whether it was a little lie or a big lie).
This distraction technique is almost always used with FUD#2 (outright fabrication) but is also used with FUD#1 and FUD#3 (exaggeration, ``spinnning'' of strengths. For example, ``What if Linus decides to take Linux commercial?''. The fact that Linus does not hold copyright to most of the code in the Linux kernel is irrelevant here. The whole goal is to imply that the opponent is not safe for long-term use, is fly by night, or may go away tomorrow. The point of the ``What if?'' is to avoid appearing to lie, while strongly implying the lie.
This is a more subtle method of the ``What if?'' distraction technique, of the ``Have you stopped beating your wife?'' vein. That is, you wish to ask a question that implies that your opposition is unreliable, unsupported, unfit for use, without actually ever stating such. For a subtle example: ``Will the Linux community be supportive of 5-year-old hardware driver problems?'' (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1109linux.html). The intent there is to paint the opposition as unsupported, unreliable, not a good choice for long-term use such as the typical enterprise environment. The answer to the question is irrelevant.
This is primarily used in conjunction with FUD#2 (outright fabrication). It is aimed at distracting people away from fabrication and aiming attention instead at the people advocating the solution. Thus this sneering comment: ``No business in this country is going to wait for a 17-year-old beatnik to [answer its newsgroup post and] fix its problem." ( http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1109linux.html) Note that there are actually two fabrications in this statement: the implied statement that paid support and support contracts are not available for Linux ( see \htmladdnormallink{http://www.caldera.com}{http://www.caldera.com} ), and the implied statement that 17-year-old ``beatniks'' are the primary users and supporters of Linux (see http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue33/bentson.html for a survey of kernel programmers detailing their actual age and years of experience).
This is usually used when the FUD has received an effective counter from the FUDee, and is used to distract attention away from the fact that the FUDmonger has no effective response. It is usually stated obliquely so that it is difficult to spot it out in the open. For example, ``the skeptics generally scoff at the notion and accuse the zealots of putting Microsoft-bashing ahead of their better business sense'' ( http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1109linux.html ) is an example of FUD#2 being disguised behind questioning the FUD victim's motives. The FUD is the implication that ``the only reason you'd want to use Linux is if you're a Microsoft-basher''. XXXX XXXX, a (former?) Microsoft employee, similarly slammed James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology on the MSNBC Technology bulletin board as being biased because his cousin is a vice president of Caldera. Again, an attempt to distract the bystander's attention from the merits of the argument.
This misdirection attempts to convince you that the person is sincere when they are actually spinning FUD. It usually starts with ``I like using product X, but ...'' and then follows a lot of FUD about product X in a very regretful tone of voice. The goal is to make you feel sorry for the users of product X, rather than questioning the validity of the FUD. For example: ``It's not that the skeptics don't like Linux ... [but] only fools rush in to a bet-your-business relationship with an operating system that is still primarily controlled and supported by its user community.`` ( http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1109linux.html). This is an example of FUD#3 (``spinning'' a strength into a weakness) combined with the misdirection of fake solicitude.
Dealing with FUD includes several factors, such as:
In writing this section I must give much credit to the authors of the Linux Advocacy Mini-HOWTO, who have done a great job of detailing right and wrong ways to do Linux advocacy. See http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP for the home of the LDP's Mini-Howtos.
Remember that most people repeating FUD are not the originators of the FUD. Rather, they are merely repeating FUD that was told to them by someone else. Now that so many IS departments are headed by people from accounting or marketing, there is not the kind of knowledge at the top for these people to separate FUD from fact.
The probability is that most FUD spread in this way originated from vendors who are selling to this ``pointy-haired boss''. Salesmen are trained in their own technology, not in other people's technology. So if this potential client says ``Hey, what about this Linux thing I've been hearing about?'' the salesman has no facts to give. Rather than look stupid and lose the sale, he's going to say something, anything, such as ``Yeah, it's a good operating system, but it doesn't have any support, you know? And besides, NT 5.0 is gonna blow it into the weeds. Those pimple-faced teenage geek hackers who write it can't keep up with real programmers like Microsoft's.''
Please keep this in mind: The original FUDmonger is usually long in the past. The person spreading the FUD is generally merely repeating FUD that he was told by someone else. Thus attacking him for being deliberately deceptive is unwarranted. It is possible to attack him as being a cretin (for believing a salesman rather than his own IS staff). But attacking him for being a cretin is counter-productive, as I discuss down below.
One thing to think about. As I stated, the ``pointy-haired boss'' rarely consults his own IS staff. That is because he knows almost nothing about computers, and furthermore does not want to know anything about computers. All he wants is for his IS staff to keep the books straight and produce reports on time, he doesn't know a thing about how they actually do this.
That does not explain why he does not consult his IS staff, though. What does explain it is the reaction of his IS staff when he asks a question. They are likely to use highly technical language that he does not understand and make him feel like an idiot.
Point: Make sure to use easily-understandable language when dealing with the PHB. If you must introduce technical details, be sure to explain them in terms of everyday things that he understands (like MONEY, the PHB knows a lot about money, since he usually came from accounting or finance). For example, rather than talking about resource requirements, you might say ``Hey, Linux runs on our current hardware, while we'd have to spend a lot more money on new computers to run Windows NT.'' If you can quantify the money, so much the better - PHB's like little charts with x dollars on the left and y dollars on the right. It's something they understand. Using buzz-words and highly technical jargon just won't cut it in PHB-land.
One thing to keep in mind is that the FUDmonger wants to appear to be the sane voice of reason while painting the FUDee as just this bunch of nuts with no product plan and no source of support. If you fly off the handle at the lies that the FUDmonger is spreading, you are playing into the FUDmonger's hands. After all, remember the whole purpose of FUD: to paint the opposition as unreliable and as something you don't want to base your business upon. Remember: Every Linux advocate who reacts negatively to FUD attacks reduces the credibility of Linux as an enterprise solution.
Yes, we all love our favorite operating system or etc. But responses to FUD must appear as impartial as possible. Responses that start with ``You know, I have Microsoft NT certification and have used NT a lot in business, but ...'' are likely to get more credence than statements that begin with ``I've been using Linux since version 0.1 and I won't have a Microsoft product on my computer because Microsoft products suck.'' Remember, the FUD victim (the person that the FUDmonger is trying to convince) probably has used Microsoft products. Telling him that Microsoft products ``suck'' is not going to convince him of anything except that you are biased against Microsoft products. Also remember that he has no basis of comparison. Most probably he has only used Microsoft products so he does not know that other products may supply a more reliable solution for a particular business problem. You must educate him.
Note that the appearance of impartiality requires you to present both strengths and weaknesses of the product that is being attacked by the FUD. You want to emphasize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses, but not to the point where it is obvious that you're ``spinning''.
There is nothing as damaging to the cause of truth as being caught out in a lie. Make sure you have the facts at hand. If you don't have the facts at hand, do not comment - go find out the facts. You might say ``That's an interesting issue, let me research that and get back with you.'' That does two things: it makes you look impartial, and it gives you an excuse to get back with him preferably at a time when the FUD is not so recent in his memory.
Using facts is the best defense against FUD#2 (outright fabrication). However, be aware that the proper groundwork must be laid. In particular, you must come off as being a credible commenter, meaning that you must demonstrate a level head and present the appearance of impartiality.
For a look at spin in obvious action, see: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/snotley/iscari.gif (This is a ``Bob the Angry Flower'' comic strip).
An entire paper can be written about spin, and probably has been. The essence of spin is distraction. Spin can be summarized as such:
Remember, spin must appear sincere and must be subtle. Spin is most helpful with dealing with FUD#1 (where actual weaknesses in your product are exaggerated). Thus, for example, if the FUD is ``Linux support providers are small'', the counter-spin could be ``You're right, they provide individual attention and have real motivation to help you, unlike company X, where if you don't like their support there's no competitors to go to.''
I list this here because it is often useful. But: use it moderately if at all.
Counter-FUD is often employed as part of spin. For example, if the FUD is ``this Linux stuff is great for hackers but I wouldn't run my business on it'' (the FUD being that Linux is unsuited for ALL business uses), one way to ``spin'' this is to use Counter-FUD. For example, ``well, maybe, but did you hear about how Microsoft is scared Linux is going to drive them out of the server market? It was in all the computer magazines last week!'' (the FUD being that Microsoft may not be a major player in the server market in the near future). Note that counter-FUD must be employed rarely, if at all. Remember, you must appear calm, impartial, and factual at all times when battling FUD, and a lot of counter-FUD makes you appear, well, partial.
The ideal thing to do here is counter-spin. If the spin, for example, is ``there are a bunch of Linux vendors and I'm not going to buy into Linux until I know who the winner is'', your spin might be ``you do know that all of these vendors are using the same basic components to make their Linux, right? It's like with ketchup, they all use the same components, you just get to choose which one you think is best instead of being locked into one vendor.'' Then you'd go on to supply facts about how they'll all run your program, so if a vendor doesn't satisfy you, you can change vendors and be assured that your program will still run.
Apply generous helpings of truth, in a calm, regretful manner. Note that FUD#2 is usually heaped high with distraction techniques in order to distract the casual fud-victim from the fact that it is, in fact, FUD. ``What if?'' is the easiest of these, because you just answer the question (e.g. ``What if it breaks? Who's going to fix it?'').
Beware here, though. I have encountered at least one FUDmonger (http://www.halcyon.org/ dick) who uses this distraction method effectively by asking questions which cannot be answered but which implicitly state that your product is evil, bad, or nasty. This is the one case where using counter-spin that attacks an individual may be helpful. For example, ``All reputable sources say that Rails to Trails projects actually reduce crime in a community. The only person who says different is some California consultant who makes his living by going to where these projects are happening and scaring people into hiring him with these ridiculous stories.'' Please note, however, that this only works when you have identified the source of the FUD, and where you have identified that the people who are spreading the FUD are not, in fact, the people who originated it. The originators of this kind of FUD are often bright, seemingly sincere, and utterly convincing. That is their profession. Thus you must do research to find the source of the FUD, else you're going to be continually blindsided by new FUD from that person that you have no immediate response to. I've seen it in action. It's not pretty. You also must be aiming to convince a larger audience, not the person who ``bought'' the FUD - that person is not going to change his mind, because professional FUDmongers are very effective at what they do.
Attacks on individuals is an effective distraction but can be spun to your advantage. For example, ``I'm not going to use some operating system programmed by pimple-faced geeks with no social life'' is an opportunity to enlighten the guy on the facts (i.e. that the typical Linux programmer has more than ten years' experience in the computer industry, 20% of them have doctorate degrees, etc.). It may be helpful to say ``I wouldn't either. That's why I use Linux, because ...'' This does two things. It makes you appear more credible (since you're actually agreeing with the guy!), and enlightens him as to the true facts.
As I've mentioned before, this is the hardest to tackle. Some typical strategies:
An example of ``spin'': FUD:``Linux is hard to administer.'' FACTS: ``Any competent person on your IS staff can learn how to administer Linux.'' SPIN: ``Well, it does take a competent administrator to run Linux, and like you say, any idiot can administer NT. But if you allow idiots to administer your mission-critical systems, you deserve what you get.'' i.e., the difficulty of administering Linux is actually being spun as an advantage here: it keeps idiots from screwing up your mission-critical systems. Tossing in a few examples (like the fact that almost no NT DNS servers have reverse DNS properly set up because it doesn't help to be able to point and click if you don't know what the bleep you're pointing and clicking on) and you're all set.
It is difficult to categorize all the different forms of FUD used to attack Linux because the inventors of such FUD are, well, inventive. In this section I will attempt to categorize the FUD and appropriate counter-arguments as best I can.
``I'm not going to use some unsupported hacker-ware on my system.'' This is an example of FUD #2 (outright fabrication). This is the easiest argument to counter. Point them at http://www.caldera.com or http://www.linuxcare.com and point out that they can buy a service contract there or get per-incident support there.
Due to that, the more clueful have modified their support FUD:
``Linux is supported only by small companies that don't offer the nationwide support that Fortune 500 companies need.''
This is an example of FUD#2 (fabrication). IBM and HP now offer support for Linux, one of the things that has changed in the year since I originally wrote this document. Need I say more? So now the even more clueful have modified their FUD.
``There is no single point of support for Linux.''
This is an example of FUD #3 (spinning a strength into a weakness). The ``spin'' applied to a Linux strength is that having multiple support companies is a weakness. The most effective counter here is to point out that, since the Linux source code is available to every support vendor and not just to a single monopolistic company, they can hire any support vendor to support their Linux. That is, they are not tied to a single vendor for all of their present and future support but, rather, can choose the vendor who best services them, similar to the way that they currently select hardware vendors. Then apply the counterfud: ``Do you really want to be at the mercy of a single monopolistic vendor?''.
A prime example of FUD#1 (exaggerating a weakness) is: ``There's no software for Linux''.
It is enough to point out the fact that Informix, Oracle, and Sybase are all releasing their SQL servers for Linux, that there are three commercial office suites and two Open Source office suites (one each for the GNOME and KDE projects, and that all Linux distributions come with the premier web server software in the world, the Apache server. Linux now has a full suite of server software, and has all desktop software needed for everyday business applications. We run a 100% Linux desktop environment at Enhanced Software Technologies Inc., and even the sales and marketing guys have no real complaints. As long as they can click on the icon for ``StarOffice'' and click on the icon for ``Netscape'', they're happy - they have what they need to do their job.
Granted, software availability is a weakness in the Linux workstation market. There is no commercial-quality software available for many specialty applications such as high-end CAD work, music, or video production. For example, using Linux for serious music work is impossible at this time. There is no Linux equivalent to Cakewalk (a Windows-based product beloved by professional musicians for its power and comprehensiveness), while the selection of games is limited. The games issue can, however, be spun into a strength: - ``You're right, there's only serious software available for Linux, things like office suites and SQL databases. If you want to play games, buy Windows 98.'' I.e., misuse of Linux workstations in the office is difficult because of the limited availability of ``frivolous'' software.
These attacks imply that Linux is not a long-term credible solution.``Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft'' is the best way to summarize them.
``No long term roadmap ... and no way to get one'' - Microsoft spokesperson (see: http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html )
``no intellectual property protection means that the deep investments needed by the industry in infrastructure will gravitate to other business models.'' - Microsoft spokesperson
``Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run.'' - Microsoft spokesperson.
This kind of FUD is the easiest to counter. As was stated in the ``Halloween Memo'': ``The OSS systems are considered [long-term] credible because the source code is available from potentially millions of places and individuals.'' (http://wwwopensource.org/halloween1.html). That is, the chances of Open Source solutions disappearing from the face of the earth are slim. The source code is always there waiting to be modified if your needs change. A Fortune 500 company needing a change in the Linux source code to add a feature for their own use merely needs to hire a consulting firm to add the feature.
Most of these arguments are a combination of FUD#2 (outright fabrication) and FUD#3 (``spinning'' a Linux strength into being a Linux weakness). Unfortunately, there is a bit of truth in the ``violate IP rights'' bit - primarily dealing with encryption. RSA public key encryption is patented in the United States until November of the year 2000, and is additionally subject to arms export controls. Thus certain features, such as encrypted OpenLDAP connections or SSL capability for Apache, would violate IP laws if released for commercial use as open source. There is nothing, however, prohibiting them from being released as closed source atop the Linux platform.
``Are you going to trust your company to some software written by pimply teenagers with no social life?''
This is an example of FUD method #2, outright fabrication. As such, the counter is simple: facts. The majority of Linux kernel programmers, for example, have more than ten years experience in the computer industry and one-fifth of them have doctoral degrees. Point the skeptical towards http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue33/bentson.html .
This counter also works for the ``I don't want to use some freeware written by a bunch of hackers.''
Also be sure to point out that, unlike Windows NT, where remote administration is a kludged-on hack that does not address all facets of administering the operating system, Unix and Linux were designed from the first to be remotely administered. Thus you need far fewer administrators for Linux than you need for NT. Again, feel free to use me as an example - as a part-time system administrator I administered over 200 servers scattered across a two-state area for Executive Consultants.
``But doesn't the fact that people have the source code make it easier to break into the operating system?''
This one is classic FUD that might initially look difficult to classify. It also points out a good method for disguising FUD. This is, of course, an example of FUD#2 (outright fabrication), which the author is hoping to slide by you because he has phrased it as a question rather than as a statement.
Point to the fact that Linux is a Unix look-alike and that there has not been a single incidence of a virus ever afflicting a Unix or Unix-like system (a worm is NOT a virus, BTW). Also point to Eric S. Raymond's classic ``The Cathedral and the Bazaar'' and point out his insight that ``all bugs are shallow with enough eyes on them.'' ( http://www.earthspace.net/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ).
In honor of this, Microsoft has now produced a tome claiming that Linux is insecure because ``Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices.'', using the technique of ``sandwiching'' to hide the fact that they're using FUD#2 (outright fabrication). The Unix ``groups'' system, SUID bit system, and utilities such as 'sudo' have been used for years to delegate administrative privileges. For example, there are currently six people who have administrative privileges to change the internal RFC (design document) pages within the EST Inc. intranet without being logged in as 'root' - something which Microsoft claims is impossible.
``Linux is like Unix, it requires you to memorize all these cryptic commands and type them at a command line to do any little thing.''
This is ironic, coming from people who were espousing the superiority of the C: prompt over the Macintosh user interface only a few years prior!
In any event, this is a case of FUD#1, Exaggeration. Few Linux workstations run in command line mode anymore. All current Linux releases come with the ``X'' window system. Even with ``X'' Linux can be more difficult to use than Windows, but that difficulty can be masked by using a desktop like the ``K'' Desktop Environment ( http://www.kde.org ). An IS department can set up a pre-defined desktop for all of their users so that all of their users' applications can be invoked via point-and-click operations. At Enhanced Software Technologies Inc. we do this even for our sales and marketing teams, who managed to survive with no special training and who seem to be happy as long as they can get into their Netscape for web and EMAIL, StarOffice for word processing and spreadsheets, The Gimp for image handling for new web page graphics and such, and 'ical' for access to the corporate calendar. No special training was required, even for the Mac-centric users.
Point out that ease of remote administration means that users do not need to administer their systems, which is about the only time they'd ever need to see a command prompt (since you have to ``su'' to root first in order to administer current Linux systems).
Also point out that Linux is not intended for use by naive home users, but rather as a mission-critical server and workstation OS where there are trained IS professionals available to handle support issues, either on an in-house or consulting basis. While we Linux advocates like to dream of ``Linux everywhere'', reality is that, like all tools, it does certain things well and other things not as well. Would you use a flyswatter to hammer a nail, or a hammer to swat a fly?
``There are no drivers for Linux.''
This is an example of FUD#1, exaggeration. Point out that Linux supports supports virtually all hardware currently used in mission-critical server operations, and that there are a variety of hardware vendors willing to sell you completely configured solutions with guaranteed Linux compatibility. Also point out that various hardware compatibility lists show that Linux supports virtually every piece of hardware supported by Windows NT. While there are certain areas where hardware drivers are lacking (particularly in the area of computer music, where there are no drivers for any professional-quality sound devices, and also in support for the latest and greatest 3D game playing video cards), in areas of interest to the corporate environment Linux supports all commonly-used devices and many that are more obscure.
``Cost of software is a minor portion of the cost of a project.'' This is a case of FUD#3 (``spinning'' a strength) carefully disguising FUD#2 (the implication being, ``the only reason to use Linux is cost'').
Point out that:
An interesting thing to do once you've considered how FUD can be used against Linux is to consider how FUD can be used against Microsoft. Note that I am not advocating use of FUD against Microsoft but, rather, examining ways in which Microsoft is vulnerable to FUD.
This is, of course, the main target of FUD: to imply that the long-term viability of the product is in jeopardy. Thus statements like: ``Are you sure you want to bet your business on Microsoft? What if the Department of Justice breaks up Microsoft tomorrow?''. Note that ``What if'' is a common predecessor to FUD because it's hard to counter an ``implied'' FUD. This is, of course, an example of FUD#2 (fabrication), since the likelihood of Microsoft being broken up anytime within the next four-year deployment cycle is similar to the likelihood that the Earth will be struck by an asteroid within that time period.
Another example of a long-term viability FUD is to point out that the industry is moving toward low-cost commodity operating systems, and that it is always more expensive to build an operating system from scratch than to build one from commodity components. The reality is that Microsoft is likely to be hurt badly by the move to commodity operating systems, but Microsoft is in no way in danger of going bankrupt anytime within the next ten years, and certainly not within the current four-year deployment cycle. The example of DEC shows how long it takes a major company to spiral downwards once it has ``missed the boat'', so to speak - it took over ten years between the time that microcomputers became ubiquitous and the time that DEC was finally broken up and its pieces sold off to the highest bidder.
Emphasize here that if you've bet your business on Microsoft, Microsoft can come back and hike your license fees as high as they feel like because it'd be more expensive to switch to another platform than to pay the fees. This is an example of FUD#1 (exaggeration of a weakness), but one to which Microsoft is especially vulnerable due to their past history of doing this.
This is a use of FUD#1 (exaggeration of a weakness), but one to which Microsoft is especially vulnerable due to their long history of ignoring bug fix requests and refusing to issue bug fixes for any but the most critical bugs. It is especially helpful to talk about blue screens of death and the Navy ship left dead in the water because of NT blue-screening. Be sure to use ``talk about the blue screen of death! What if they'd been in combat?''. The goal here is to imply that Microsoft operating systems are unsuited for all mission-critical applications. The reality is, of course, that Microsoft operating systems can be used for mission-critical applications that don't need 24-hour-a-day uptime without much worry. As a simple file and print server, for example, Windows NT works just fine, with 99.9% uptime (guaranteed, even!). It's just when you expect it to do more that problems arise.
In a way, Microsoft is a victim of their own rhetoric here. Their sales people have pushed ``NT Everywhere'' when NT clearly isn't suited yet for all purposes. Flyswatters to hammer nails, anybody?
``Aren't you tired of the Microsoft upgrade treadmill?'' Thus implying that other operating systems don't have a similar treadmill and that Microsoft expects you to upgrade your corporate computing environment much too often.
Again, I repeat: FUD against the market leader generally does NOT work, especially if the market leader is a monopoly. One journalist seemed to read this document as advocating FUD against Microsoft. That is not so, except in very limited circumstances. The problem is that, since Microsoft holds a virtual monopoly on desktop operating systems, most users have no basis of comparison. While those of us who are ``in the know'' know that Microsoft's software is buggy, bloated, and full of ``features'' that look great on a marketing checklist but actually cause instability and difficulty with installation and configuration, most people buy their computers with the software pre-installed and never see any of that. They are happy with Microsoft because they have never used anything better. They are happy with their brand new $500 personal computer, and they believe Bill Gates when he tells them that he, Bill Gates, is personally responsible for the low cost of their new computer (never mind that it would be a $450 personal computer if not required to pay the ``Microsoft Tax''). Attempting to educate these people with facts is rarely productive, and using FUD even less so. Sad but true, most people do not wish to be educated. They merely wish to live their lives in peace without any conflict or discord or anything else that might challenge their beliefs.
The only time that FUD may be effective against a monopolist such as Microsoft is when there is reason to believe that the target customer is unsatisfied with the price or quality of Microsoft solutions. At that point in time, a combination of education and selective FUD may be useful, especially if the FUD is directly addressed at an issue that they already have concerns about (such as administrative or upgrade costs). But again, as mentioned earlier: Use FUD sparingly, if at all. Remember, credibility is a must. View credibility as a piggy bank. Every piece of FUD you put out spends a dime from the piggy bank. If the balance dips below a certain amount, you lose all opportunity to ``buy'' the target customer's loyalty - and you don't know what that balance is until after you've passed that point and lost all credibility.
Point: avoid FUD if at all possible, and stick with the facts. Facts are not always useful in combatting FUD (the whole point of FUD is to convince someone of an opinion contrary to the facts, after all), but using the atom bomb should be a last resort, pulled out after all other possible ways to win the battle have been explored.
Hopefully I have achieved my goals here: To define and categorize FUD, to detail some common FUD used against Linux, and examine how FUD can be used against a competitor. As an organic document this changes over time as the facts on the ground change (for example, a year ago when this paper was originally written IBM and HP were not offering Linux support, and LinuxCare was just a pipe dream). Thus, please send comments, additions, corrections, etc. to:
Eric Lee Green ( mailto:e_l_green@hotmail.com )
This document was generated using the LaTeX2HTML translator Version 98.2 beta3 (July 4th, 1998)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
Nikos Drakos,
Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998,
Ross Moore,
Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.
The command line arguments were:
latex2html -split 1 -show_section_numbers fud101-1.0.0.tex
The translation was initiated by Eric Lee Green on 1999-11-17
