Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 349767
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-01-03
I don't disagree with the contention that Slashdot piece was FUD, but I disagree with the contention that anti-Microsoft FUD "Hurts the Alternatives to Microsoft". Your title seemed quite interesting to me, but the content of your article didn't really match the topic. Your last sentence is a thesis sentence, and you don't go into any detail.
But I disagree with your contention anyway. FUD is an extremely effective weapon against the target of the FUD. That's why it's used by many organizations.
Maybe you want to play "fair" (whatever that means) but I think FUD is an extremely powerful PR tool. In fact, simply with FUD and FUD alone, I believe Windows 7 reputation can be ruined before it's even out the door. That is what happen to some extent with Windows Vista.
But in the end of the day, FUD is just a weapon. Like any weapon, it can be used for good or bad. So don't really concentrate on the weapon itself. That is not important. Concentrate on what the weapon's being used for, and who is using it. That's ultimately what matters.
Edited 2009-02-19 07:34 UTC