Yesterday, the business section of the NY Times published a provocative article about Ubuntu and the man behind it, Mark Shuttleworth.

A Software Populist Who Doesn't Do Windows

The article's focus is clearly indicated by the title. The author, Ashlee Vance, does a good job introducing the reader to Mark Shuttleworth and his incredible personal story (would anyone like to help me do a documentary on this guy?). Unfortunately, the author added a dash of FUD to the mixture of facts and quotes; resulting in a schizophremic presentation of Linux that does a disservice to the reader. I am definitely disapointed by this article. Here's why:

"The notion of a strong Linux-based competitor to Windows and, to a lesser extent, Apple’s Mac OS X has been an enduring dream of advocates of open-source software. They champion the idea that software that can be freely altered by the masses can prove cheaper and better than proprietary code produced by stodgy corporations."

The "average" person who reads the NY Times business section, has never heard of Ubuntu and (most likely) knows nothing about open-source. Technology authors need to be careful when presenting readers with new terms, like open-source and Linux. It would be easy to read this and conclude that Linux and Mac OS X are both products of the open-source community. Although Apple does participate in the development of some open-source software (webkit), I would never refer to OS X as an open product. 

But, I do understand that Linux is a difficult topic to write about, because there are so many new terms and ideas. The Linux community has repeatedly seen this problem in articles written by the mainstream tech media. These terms and ideas are going to be even more confusing for an author who usually writes about business. I am willing to give authors who try the benefit of the doubt. But, the NY Times unnecessarily contributes to the world-wide supply of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) with the following statement:

"Try as they might, however, Linux zealots have failed in their quest to make Linux mainstream on desktop and notebook computers. The often quirky software remains in the realm of geeks, not grandmothers."

OK. Many of us are zealots, but the rest of this is simply not true. Programs such as FireFox, OpenOffice.org and Gnome / KDE are not "quirky". Emacs is "quirky", but so is the Microsoft registry editor; and I never let my grandmother use either. I have to stifle a scream (I'm at work) every time I see something in the mainstream media about Linux and grandmothers¹. 

In context, this is not a statement of fact. It is an editorial comment. Yes, there are experts in the computer industry who share this opinion. Mr. Vance should have cited a credible tech-industry source for this sort of comment. Opinions should come from domain-specific experts, not the author. Surprisingly, the article notes several recent victories for Ubuntu.

"More than 10 million people are estimated to run Ubuntu today, and they represent a threat to Microsoft’s hegemony in developed countries and perhaps even more so in those regions catching up to the technology revolution."

-------

"Dell started to sell PCs and desktops with the software in 2007. . . "

------

"The technology research firm IDC estimates that 11 percent of American businesses have systems based on Ubuntu."

------

"The Macedonian education department relies on Ubuntu, providing 180,000 copies of the operating system to children, while the Spanish school system has 195,000 Ubuntu desktops. In France, the National Assembly and the Gendarmerie Nationale, the military police force, rely on Ubuntu for a combined 80,000 PCs."

Although I am not an expert on French politics, I rather doubt the National Assembly is a deliberative body of geeks. The pro-linux facts are mostly attributed to their respective sources. I can look up IDC and read more about their position on Ubuntu. I can not look-up an unattributed source who claims my grandmother is unable to use Linux. The author does not present any facts that support his claim that Linux is only usable by geeks. Quite the contrary. The facts in the article make it clear that people (other than geeks) are using Ubuntu.

Yet, the FUD continues:

"PEOPLE encountering Ubuntu for the first time will find it very similar to Windows. The operating system has a slick graphical interface, familiar menus and all the common desktop software: a Web browser, an e-mail program, instant-messaging software and a free suite of programs for creating documents, spreadsheets and presentations.

While relatively easy to use for the technologically savvy, Ubuntu — and all other versions of Linux — can challenge the average user. Linux cannot run many applications created for Windows, including some of the most popular games and tax software, for example. And updates to Linux can send ripples of problems through the system, causing something as basic as a computer’s display or sound system to malfunction."

This is an editorial comment in a paragraph where I expect facts, or opinions attributed to specific persons/organizations. Let's pull this apart. Mac OS X can not run many popular Windows programs, and Apple is selling computers as fast as they can build them. And I can not count the number of times that a Windows update has borked an installation or caused a ripple effect through-out the system. Does anyone else recall the debacle known as SP3?

I am glad to see Linux / Ubuntu / open-source receive more attention in the mainstream media. But, this article's schizophrenic commentary lowers my opinion of the NY Times. Last week, when I wrote about the NY Time's article on R, I was pleasantly surprised by the over-all quality of the article. Although I disagree with some of the opinions expressed in the article, it is clear that they are the opinions of credible industry representatives (SAS Institute) and not a cleverly disguised editorial. I expect more from the NY Times.

Foot Notes:

1) I am also terrified that this one stupid sentence will inspire a tsunami of lame articles in the pro-Linux media where people voyeuristically write about their grandmother's experience with Linux. These articles also force me to stifle angry screams of rage.

Edit: Corrected the gender of the author, Mr. Vance. I apologize to Mr. Vance for this mistake.