Xunil

This article was first published in July 1998 on my website.

The rapid growth of Linux, which has come out of nowhere to become the fastest growing non-Microsoft operating system, has taken many by surprise:

• Journalists, who are supposed to keep their eye on the industry, have to cope with an OS that lacks a PR firm, yet boasts an army of articulate and zealous advocates who will eagerly pounce on a writer's ignorance.
  
• Software vendors looking for markets to sell to, have no idea whether Linux is as good a market as some say, or as bad as others claim.
  
• Other operating system vendors, that is those who acknowledge Linux exists, don't know what to make of it; nobody can even get a good count of how many of its users are out there!
  
• Resellers, distributors, and VARs struggle to figure out how to make money from a product that people can download, with source code, for nothing.

From observing the history of Linux as well as that of Unix before it, one can observe that the open source community sometimes exhibits difficulty dealing with the reaction it gets from the rest of the computing world. Part of this difficulty arises because the computing world has shown so many different reactions, from appreciation to total indifference to active hostility and everything in between.

According to this analysis, attitudes towards Linux in the computing world tend to follow a pattern, and go through four distinct phases in consistent order: Ignorance, Denial, FUD, and Acceptance. Understanding these phases, their motivations and tactics, allows those who wish to encourage the use of Linux to better advance their position.

Phase 1: Ignorance

Of course, not knowing the facts never stops people from offering opinions or judgment. But don't be fooled by those who don't know what they're talking about.

A sure sign that someone is in Phase 1 is some offhand comment that "Linux is just a hacker system"; while it indicates that the speaker has heard of Linux and knows it's some kind of computer software, you can't take anything for granted past that. (For all you know, the speaker may just be playing dumb and is really at Phase 3.)

Of course, there are a great many computer users who still have never heard of Linux; while their number is shrinking, it's still quite considerable. Remember that the entire Linux world's advertising budget probably amounts to what Microsoft spends on ballpoint pens. We don't have an army of PR flaks, spin doctors, marketing mavens, and advertising reps like The Other Guys do. In some media, if you don't buy ads, you don't exist; so someone could be reading a fair number of Windows/PC magazines and never know that such a thing as Linux, or any other alternative to Microsoft, exists.

The lack of press Linux gets in many PC-centric magazines is compounded by a narrow Wintel-centered view of the computing universe shared by many business computer users:

People who labor in a PC-only realm (and there are far more of
them alone in PC-land than in UNIX country) simply do not understand [...] professional, technical computing" --
Mark Hall, Performance Computing magazine

Microsoft has been very successful convincing much of the North American populace that any computing job can be solved cleanly and easily, if you only throw enough NT servers at it. This, combined with Microsoft's attention to ease-of-use features, is a very tough nut to crack.

So how to deal with the Ignorant? Many people who have never heard of Linux will probably be interested to know that alternatives exist. Microsoft's recent problems with US federal and state governments have
called public attention to the company's unfair business practices, and many people will at least be open to listening to alternatives.

• Do make every effort to talk to people on their level; try to avoid technobabble wherever possible, unless you know your audience can get your point.
  
• Emphasize Linux's popularity, its growth, and the fact that it's trusted by a growing number of companies and government agencies.
  
• Don't expect people to embrace Linux immediately; introduce the concepts, maybe offer them a few URLs, and let them come around at their own speed. Nobody likes to be rushed.

Avoid Microsoft bashing, especially at this point; if you can't introduce Linux without bad-mouthing Windows, you'll turn off your audience. Give them enough credit, that they'll know themselves about the limitations of what they normally use. And if that means that Windows is "good enough" for their needs, then be prepared to accept that. You'll have planted the bug in their ear, and they'll know there's another choice when "good enough" is no longer good enough.

Phase 2: Denial

While most end-users will totally bypass this level, it's a common resting ground for vendors, software developers, media types and potential competitors who believe that the best way to treat Linux is to pretend (or convince themselves) that it doesn't exist.

Typical of this is the Adobe reaction to the question "why don't you port your apps to Linux?": While they'd been asked this question enough times to warrant a FAQ-style web page (which they've since deleted) to respond, Adobe's answer dismissed Linux as too small a market to bother with.

(Adobe's deleting these pages means one of two things; they've either moved onto another phase or gone even deeper into Denial.)

Then there are magazines that claim to cover the whole PC universe (PC World comes to mind); but to go through their pages, you'd never know a thing about the world's fastest-growing operating system. To those who believe that even bad attention is better than no attention, being treated as a non-entity can be the most frustrating attitude of all.

Right now, Deniers have a strong fact on their side; nobody really knows just how many people out there use Linux. We know there is a "Linux counter" web site, but that only registers in the tens of thousands, and you know that's not accurate.

But just how do you count Linux use? You can't just go to Linux vendors and count shipments like you can with IBM or SCO; all of what's commonly known as Linux (before vendors add on commercial elements) can be freely distributable; once you get a Linux CD, its open source components (which is the vast majority of any distribution) can be passed around to everyone.

On the other hand, if you buy the 14-CD, multi-distribution Linux: The Professional Edition, just how many Linuxes should be counted? Because of the low cost of getting it, people can try out many versions, many distributions, before settling on one. And because of the price, only a few distributions even bother with special update packages; most people can easily just buy the next release complete. Some CD makers, in place of an update contract, simply sell subscriptions to their Linux CD packages.

All this makes it very, very difficult to accurately count exactly how many computers around the world boot Linux. Professional research companies such as International Data Group, usually adept at doing this kind of thing, are having fits. At least one IDG report is quoted as accepting the research done by Red Hat president Bob Young, who derives a 1998 Linux installed base no smaller than five million and possibly higher than 10 million.

So have pity on the Deniers; time is not on their side. IDG reported that Linux is the only non-Microsoft operating system to be increasing its percentage of use on the world's computers. As Microsoft runs into legal problems and its products' flaws become more exposed, the world will look for alternatives; and Linux will be at the top of the list. In the meantime:

• Do approach those organizations and people that you believe should be including Linux in their work but aren't, and find out if they're genuinely lacking in facts (in which case they're still in Phase 1), or deliberately staying silent. Try to convince them, using facts, that Linux is no longer a niche, a plaything, or a social experiment.
  
• Emphasize the data in the IDG reports, the Red Hat paper, and the recent moves by Corel and Netscape to embrace Linux as primary platforms. Demonstrate the market potential to software developers. Feel free to suggest that anyone who claims to know the industry, yet actively ignores such an active phenomenon as Linux, risks losing credibility amongst a populace that's becoming more aware each day.
  
• Don't insist that everyone must support Linux or even call attention to it. Some folks just like sticking to a certain kind of expertise, or have their preferences, and Linux isn't going to win every battle. Live with it.
  
• Avoid getting into useless arguments with those who refuse to acknowledge what they know is out there. Whether it's pressure from advertisers, irrational bias, or other agenda, Deniers have reasons for their actions that simple logic alone may not be able to counter. In these cases, it may just be necessary to wait them out.

Phase 3: FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)

Here, things get interesting; this is where the genuine Linux-bashers hang out.

FUD is the realm of those who have discovered Linux and acknowledge its popularity, but refuse to engage in head-on competition. Instead, they actively seek to retard its growth by spreading mistruths, rumours, or information that's been out of date for ages. This is done with the specific purpose of inhibiting the acceptance of Linux into the mainstream.

(Of course, don't confuse FUD-spreaders with those who have merely heard all they know about Linux from FUD-spreaders. These folk are really still at Phase 1, except that there's a little un-learning to do.)

The term "FUD" goes back to the IBM mainframe days, when one of the best tactics to put down a competitor was merely to suggest that things might not work as promised, that things worked better merely if/because IBM said they did, and who wants to trust their business to these upstarts anyway?

Well, now it's happening with Linux -- by the truck load. Anyone who doesn't want Linux to succeed, yet is confronted with it too much to be a Denier anymore, arrives in to the land of FUD.

FUD takes many forms, but most often shows up in the mouths of those who believe they stand to lose something (money, prestige, power) from the success of Linux. No, money need not be the only incentive; a writer may have too much time, effort, and emotion invested in something different; so rather than consider Linux as an alternative, the answer is often to put down Linux -- as if offering an excuse for not considering it.

Two key words will always expose a Phase 3 attack: "no support".

Over and above the official, commercial-grade support programs that Caldera and Red Hat have developed, the Linux community-based support model has been winning awards for its effectiveness. And the support network grows still, thanks to Red Hat and Caldera partner programs that help bring professional support right to the door.

Yet the FUD-mongers continue to write and announce and proclaim, whining that Linux lacks any kind of organized commercial support.

Why? This is a classic FUD tactic. While features, reliability, and flexibility can be measured and charted, support can't easily gauged this way. Furthermore, lack of support is the kind of accusation that can make a corporate computer admin fearful and uncertain; "would you trust your company and the computer facilities on which it relies, to a system without adequate support?" Can Linux run as well and reliably as a company who over-prices their goods in order to give clients the warm-and-fuzzies?

It's a tune that plays well in the more insecure and bureaucratic corners of corporate computing. To some, the hand-holding is more important than the computer itself, and there's always the knowledge that if things go wrong, you can always blame the vendor.

(Of course, blaming the company, or sitting for hours on hold on a tech-support line, is no guarantee you're going to get things working. But supposedly it makes some people feel better...)

To be sure, there are other Linux myths that have become popular FUD fodder;

There are others, but you get the idea. Their common element is being based on information that was either never true or rendered obsolete long ago. Also watch for style of presentation -- FUD-mongers rarely make direct accusations or assertions, their main intent is to cause doubt and confusion about Linux rather than attacking it head-on. When dealing with these people;

• Do confront the innuendo and rumours directly. And do your homework -- being well-versed in the state of Linux today is essential for rebutting tired and obsolete complaints.
  
• Emphasize fact and logic rather than beliefs or emotions. Most Phase 3 types would love nothing more than to portray Linux users as fanatical and irrational.
  
• Don't mistake informed criticism as FUD. Linux isn't perfect and has a long way to go in some areas. There can often be legitimate beefs mixed in with a lot of garbage; don't go blindly attacking everything that's said before measuring FUD-factor.
  
• Avoid wasting too much time with Phase 3 folk directly. They know about Linux and have chosen to undermine it -- some may even be getting paid to -- so there's already an agenda at work you may not be able to counter. At a certain point you may simply have to give up on them, and concentrate efforts on presenting a balanced view to their audience. In this combat zone, the only real weapon is fact.

Phase 4: Acceptance

Note, this phase is not called "love" or "conversion", or anything like that. Accepting Linux need not mean using it or even liking it. There's no point writing about how to "deal" with people and companies with which you agree totally. Acceptance includes all who take Linux seriously and deal with it on its merits, and not all such reaction can be expected to be favourable.

Few computer vendors publicly acknowledge Linux as competition, so the community hasn't had to deal with it much -- yet. Linux hasn't been explicitly attacked in advertising or public statements the way Dell has gone after Unix or how Sun has attacked Microsoft. It'll be interesting to see when that starts happening, and what effect it will have. While nobody likes being attacked, just the fact that Linux will have become a target gives it legitimacy in the eyes of some.

A small but growing number of software companies are reaching this plateau, and some have gone as far as to incorporate open source models into their own development. However, just because a commercial software company chooses not to support Linux does not necessarily mean they're hostile or ignorant.

Linux continues to provide some significant obstacles to commercial software developers that can't be explained away. Different distributions have chosen varying approaches to file placement, software management, and other subtleties, in such a way that makes it almost impossible to make an applications distribution that will install and run cleanly across the Linux spectrum.

When Interbase says its Linux database product is only supported on Red Hat, it's not because the company wants to blow off the rest of the market; it simply need a reference platform its people know and can support. This kind of problem, expressed nicely by John Taschek, in his column in the May 25 1998 issue of PCWeek, must not be dismissed as Linux-bashing.

(Indeed, the problem of a standard porting base is significant enough that a project called the Linux Software Base has received unanimous endorsement from Linux International in an attempt to solve this exact problem.)

Microsoft, in getting its feet wet in Phase 4, claims that the open source software model lacks a marketing component which allows other companies (like Microsoft) to incorporate user needs (rather than developer needs) into products. While the situation is not as bad as MS claims, they're not totally wrong; the community cannot ignore, shout down, or ridicule those in our midst who are knowledgeable, yet skeptical or even aggressively critical.

As Linux makes its way further into the mainstream of computing, and becomes increasingly used by non-developers, expect to hear more informed criticism describing what's wrong with Linux. When hearing them out:

• Do listen to complaints and engage in fair and rational discussion about the problems that people and organizations experience with Linux. If you think they're valid, try to bring them to the attention of the greater community. If you can, suggest and help implement solutions. This is, after all, a community effort!
  
• Emphasize the openness of the process by which Linux has evolved, through which individuals from everywhere in the community can and do make a difference every day. The concept of "peer review" does not end at the source code; all facets of Linux are open to ongoing evaluation and revision as necessary.
  
• Don't mistake FUD as informed criticism. Occasionally comments that appear on the surface as real concern are just pretexts for FUD-based bashing. Don't get sucked into an argument you don't stand a chance of winning; phase 3 tactics apply.
  
• Avoid making an issue of personal preferences. Part of Linux's power is that it's so darned flexible; but that flexibility means it can be different things to different people. Don't confuse "what you like" with "what Linux ought to be"; just because Linux is great for power-users doesn't mean it can't be made easy to use, for example.

Advocating Linux is rarely an easy task. Often it means going up against multi-million-dollar hype machines, and the massive inertia of people who simply can't (or won't) be bothered to explore alternatives. Take heart from the knowledge that Linux has momentum, it has a strong grassroots family around the world, and it's been making inroads into the computing world despite the best efforts of those trying to stop it.

These are indeed interesting times. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks to: Rick Moen