From: Max Bell <>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:17:13 -0800 (PST)

>From: Nathan Meyers <>
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:04:34 -0800 (PST)
>Pat Eyler wrote:
>> I'm not sure I can recommend the article.  It is FUD, through and
>> through.  The theme seemed to be, "sure ... linux *might* work for
>> you, but if it doesn't -- kiss your job goodbye."  This is not the
>> message that we want to spread.  Polite, reasoned letters to Jesse
>> Berst (and/or anyone else at ZDnet) might or might not help.  I'm
>> sending one anyway, and hope that others will join me.
>To those of use who work for a large company, a warning not to let our
>enthusiasm for technology overwhelm our business judgement is not FUD,
>it's common sense. I've seen plenty of projects with technical merit
>sink under the weight of business realities. The "message we want to
>spread" is important, but we don't own the truth.

Such a generalized warning would not be FUD, but implying that Linux is less
dependable or supported than Microsoft products would be.  Linux is based on
28 years of unix developement and is not 'a seven-year-old' operating system.
Linux is available in at least two commerically supported flavors (Red Hat,
Caldera [sp?]) and also has the best user support community in general
(InfoWorld).  I think Mr. Berst is setting out a strawman.  Note the much
larger pro-Linux information section of the page in question.  As the
follow-ups indicate, Linux is proving itself everyday.  Nobody owns the
truth, some just reflect it more accurately than others.