| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times)Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times)Posted Sep 30, 2008 17:13 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)In reply to: Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times) by nettings Parent article: Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times)
Wow, there are quite a few judgmental remarks here (parent poster and others) about a guy who has a few snippets with very little context quoted in the article. Perhaps you don't agree with his assessment, or the fact that he appears (again, he is perhaps being quoted willy nilly) to be making these quotes on the part of a foundation representing linux.
But, he really is not saying anything terribly evil and I certainly don't think that he qualifies as a "jerk" because someone else wrote an article quoting him. I expect more out of LWN commenters than I do out of some guy being quoted in an obviously low content article. Nothing he said about an OS (not eve a person), was nearly as disparaging as your comment about him. At least you control how your words are used and in which context they are used on this system, what's your excuse?
(Log in to post comments)
Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times) Posted Oct 1, 2008 10:44 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
martinfick, thanks for your critique.
assuming for now that zemlin's utterances are not misrepresented, i still find it perfectly valid to criticize him on the basis of those (admittedly sparse) quotes. a marketing guy should know what he's doing when feeding juicy quotes to the press.
linux has never needed bad-mouthing of competitors, much less fellow open-source operating systems it has taken many good ideas from.
despite its long commercial history, *open* solaris is a fledgling project with its own set of promises (and problems). it deserves some leeway while it grows, not bickering from the open-source camp.
i for one am very happy to see that most lwn readers are irritated by such "analyst" bullshit from a foundation that is very much regarded as a representative of the linux community (whether that's true or not).
as to my choice of words, having checked all possible connotations of "jerk" in a few dictionaries, i apologize. what i should have said was: i consider his statements idiotic and unworthy of a representative of a significant linux institution, for the reasons stated above.
Questionable professionalism Posted Oct 1, 2008 12:08 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]
Given that Zemlin hasn't tried to correct the citation over the past week on a medium he has full control of his words over, like this comment section or his Linux Foundation blog, I think criticism of this smear job and Zemlin as the person behind it is warranted.
Rather then getting personal with the criticism, I think the more interesting question is about Zemlin's professionalism: Sun is a Silver member of the Linux Foundation. That's the same level like Red Hat.
How much sense it makes for the Linux Foundation to have someone in Zemlin's position going around smearing its members in the New York Times, is something for the Linux Foundation membership and board to think about.
|
|
||||||||||||