Inappropriate title re sabotage [LWN.net]

Inappropriate title re sabotage

Posted Feb 10, 2006 1:39 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080)
Parent article: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption (SearchOpenSource)

The article indicates some limitations of OpenOffice (it wasn't quite clear whether these were problems of importing MS Word files or problems in creating pure OOo files); and mentions reduced availability of drivers for Linux compared to Windows; but AFAICT the article doesn't include any evidence of “sabotage” by Microsoft.

The article does link to some other pages (requiring registration) that may present such evidence. An LWN article entitled “... Microsoft sabotages ...” should link directly to an article that actually shows “ways that Microsoft sabotages”, not merely problems with OOo and Linux; or else the LWN article should be retitled according to the actual story presented.

Please let's be diligent in keeping LWN a credible voice: a strong claim such as “sabotage” should link directly to the evidence supporting the claim.

(Log in to post comments)

I think that's the article author's fault

Posted Feb 10, 2006 3:14 UTC (Fri) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Also, there is nothing Microsoft-specific in there at all. These are exactly the same kind of challenges faced by any innovator against any incumbent.

Inappropriate title re sabotage

Posted Feb 10, 2006 22:37 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

And, while "sabotage" was the quoted author's word, our usually capable editor has to take the blame for saying that the article explores "Microsoft's strategies", when the article says nothing at all about Microsoft doing anything, aside from one unsupported quote that claims they coerce hardware manufacturers.