Grygus slandered by ZDNet AU
Josh Mehlman, acting editor, Business and Technology Magazine
\r\n[link|http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20279309,00.htm|A lesson in logic], 3 October 2003
\r\n\r\n\r\na post on the [link|http://luv.asn.au|luv.asn.au] mailing list about my last column referred to an article by well-known Linux fascist Andrew Grygus, whom the author referred to as "an extremely experienced IT consultant". The fact that Grygus is a veteran Windows basher and Linux\r\nfanatic is irrelevant, of course. The logic seems to be, if Grygus says it's so, then Mehlman must be wrong, QED--Grygus knows The Truth.\r\n
\r\n\r\nIn the article referred to, [link|http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit033.html|Microsoft Hides Behind Linux], Grygus claims "Many experts [such as himself, perhaps?] consider [Windows] too broken to fix, ever." He argues, for example, "If something goes wrong, Microsoft provides no way to back the patch out, you have to completely reinstall Windows."
\r\n\r\nThis is taken as gospel in the Linux community and is true, to an extent, in Windows 98 or NT 4.0. In Windows 2000 or later, there are facilities to go back, such as the System Restore function, and most patches can be uninstalled. To be fair, under some circumstances this doesn't work, but to claim it never works is--quite simply--a lie. Either Grygus hasn't used Windows in the\r\nlast five years, or he's willing to tell porkies in order to prove his point. Either way, deferring to his expertise as a consultant is a bit rich.
\r\n
(Emphasis added)
\r\n\r\nWhat's particularly amusing in the highly ironic sense of the term is that Mehlman begins his essay with the sentence "Fundamentalists are people who can't tolerate the idea that there are legitimate points of view other than their own"...then demonstrates this himself. And closes an article mostly consisting of personal attacks against Grygus with a commentary on personal abuse: "since the journalist can't see The Truth about Linux, the journalist must be stupid, not know how to use a computer, not understand logic (ha!), and be slightly less popular than genital\r\nherpes."
\r\n\r\n...this in an article which:
\r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n
- Does little other than insult GNU/Linux users in general and Grygus\r\nspecifically. \r\n\r\n
- Seems mostly to take GNU/Linux users to fault for the very tactics that Microsoft shills used for years, particularly the bit about "technical arguments that are false, outdated or based on generalisations". Gee, never seen that before. \r\n\r\n
- Attacks the accusation that he's on the take from Microsoft...without ever actually answering the question (so, Josh, are you still accepting bribes from Microsoft while you beat your wife?) \r\n\r\n
- Accuses Grygus of lying about Microsoft capabilities and then in the very next sentence says Grygus's claims are true! The fact remains regarding updaterollbacks: there are kluges which allow limited state recovery, sometimes, in recent versions of legacy MS Windows. If they're activated. And if they work. But there is specific method for rolling back specific system updates or patches in the same way that any user of a Debian or RPM based system can back out or\r\ninstall any specific version of a package they choose. And we're not just talking about partial support for some "OS" files or one vendor's software, but 13,500+ software packages. \r\n\r\n
- The Andrew Grygus I know is no GNU/Linux bigot. He's an OS/2 bigot ;-) \r\n\r\n
And this guy is an acting editor of a major publication? Hello?
\r\n
