Talk:Criticism of Linux

message: I noticed that there was a page "criticism of Windows XXX" for every release of windows.  But none for Linux.  So I created one in the interest of keeping Wikipedia fair.  I am a Linux fan, and if we want to create a better operating system we need to have a better discussion as to what needs work. Hendrixski 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created article 

message: Why is it that the only source for this article is Linux's biggest competitor, Microsoft? Isn't that the equivalent of writing an article based on industry slander? Luksuh 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not promoting the Microsoft POV, we're just stating that there are criticisms of Linux, and here is evidence of that.  It is up to the reader to decide if they believe Microsoft.  Lankiveil 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good points!  We don't want to promote Microsofts POV, so we need to cite more non-MS sources. But who else has negative facts about Linux... everyone else seems to just not criticize it. Hendrixski 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are by no means "promoting" Microsoft's point of view. All the article does is inform readers that Microsoft has a point of view pertaining to Linux, and what these views specifically are. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually Microsoft pays money to promote their image and to make claims about competition, why should Wikipedia present their ads and paid "research" as "Microsoft opinion" for free? I think Wikipedia should use reliable sources, Microsoft is not a reliable source about their competitors, also, the fact that Microsoft has opinions about their competitors is not an Encyclopedic fact (in my humble  opinion) -- AdrianTM 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this analysis. Microsoft are not a reliable source when quoted directly. If a secondary/tertiary source can be found which analyses their results then this would be acceptable IMO.-Localzuk(talk) 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The articles I references are not just some random blogs. They are blogs from actual prominent developers of the ALSA subsystem and Linux itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:E918:0:BA97:5AFF:FECB:AA50 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Verifiable Sources 

message: Isn't this just marketing against a competitor, why Wikipedia should be a repository of ads and marketing? -- AdrianTM 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed that according to: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- AdrianTM 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism by Microsoft

message: I contested the proposed deletion. First of all, the article doesn't meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it survived AFD twice (from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion:Articles that: Have previously been proposed for deletion, Have previously been undeleted, Have been discussed on AfD or MfD are not candidates for .') Furthermore, I believe this is a notable topic, warranting inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This has been proven by the numerous reliable sources. If you believe the article should be deleted, a full discussion at WP:AfD should take place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I don't know what the right procedure is for deleting articles, I will write at WP:AfD -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD 

message: All the points presented here have long been proved invalid(I am refering to the things MS says against linux). So whats the point of presenting them in a page ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.34 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Not Needed ? 

message: Are you serious about have an NPOV criticism page about Linux?  There are a dozen articles about criticism of Microsoft and its individual products, and then you have this lame article that basically praises Linux with faint damnation.  The reader of wikipedia is left to believe that Linux is a perfect piece of software and anything done by Microsoft is vastly inferior, neither of which is actually true.
This should be taken as a challenge, given that wikipedia is rooted in the open source philosophy.  There are plenty of real criticisms of Linux, but who would try to edit this article, just to have them reverted by outraged fans?  I don't think most Linux fans have ever had a conversation with a professional programmer or heard the real criticism that is commonly expressed when game developers or other programmers talk about Linux.  For example:
1. There are so many versions and brands of Linux that complex applications are very difficult to develop that will run trouble-free anywhere and find the libraries and resources they expect.
2. Linux is the center of a political mass movement whose followers have muddied the discourse on software with polemic and misinformation -- both exageration of OSS qualities and daemonization of commercial software.
3. Just like many big corporations, the open source community has settled for safe simple boring UNIX, instead of doing something innovative and imaginative.  This is very old 1970s technology, brought somewhat up to date, but mostly by adding features already found in Windows NT (a proper DDI, journaling FS, asynchronous I/O, etc).
4. Linux has become as bloated and poorly documented as the commecial operating systems it has attempted to replace.
5. An exploration of who really controls and contributes to Linux would be in order.  To what extent is is really a collective action, and to what extent is it dominated by IBM, Red Hat and a small cabal around Linus?  How dependant is progress with Linux on professional commercial engineers, such as at IBM?
6. How secure is Linux?  I've been looking at CERT for years, and the number of reports on Linux and Windows has been about the same most of the time.  What does that mean, given that Windows is more heavily attacked and monitored?  I've talked to professional security researchers who believe Linux is a soft target, lucky to be mostly overlooked by hackers. DonPMitchell (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don: I would invite you to put those criticisms in as long as you can find verifiable sources to back them up they should not be reverted. This encyclopedia needs to include accurate criticism, even in the face of a large group of over-sensitive fans. It is an encyclopedia, not Fancruft. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticizing a Sacred Cow 

message: No one said "Linux has a perceived lack of viable versions of widely used applications" they said "Linux lacks viable versions of widely used applications". That is the claim. That is the criticism. The current weasel worded approach is disingenuous to the claim. Should read "notably because of the claimed lack of viable versions of widely used applications". Perceived is a statement of fact without a reference.121.209.145.205 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of "perceived" lack 

message: I just suggested a reference on the discussion page of Criticism of Windows. It's the article 10 key differences between Linux and Windows. I stated, that an essential part of criticism of Windows should be shortcomings compared to other operating systems, such as Linux and MacOS, and I think the reverse is true as well. Ben  T/C  10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting the link. It is a good article, but there really isn't a lot of actual criticism of Linux in there, perhaps a couple of points can be extracted and referenced. It is more a comparison and so may be more useful over at Comparison of Windows and Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did manage to extract some useful criticisms from the article, although they are all past-tense. The extra text also made the article look rather "text-dense" and so I have added some images of Linux desktops from Commons to dress it up a bit and make it more appealing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Ben  T/C  09:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External reference 

message: The article says at the top that it is addressing criticisms of Linux as a desktop system, but in various places the criticism is more general. The section about Microsoft is about server usage. I vote the "desktop system" disclaimer at the top be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.79 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article is Criticism of Linux, not Criticism of Linux desktops, so it should cover servers, embedded devices, cell phones, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It is probably time that a split could be done along those lines. The only thing to be aware of is that on Wikipedia the use of the term "GNU/Linux" is considered POV. There is a wide and longstanding consensus that these operating systems are referred to as "Linux". - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

text: There haven't been any "oppose" votes here, so go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that would be an improvement. However, just splitting this into separate articles might not be the best way. If a resulting criticism page would be very short ("too" short), just add it as a section to the article it belongs to. But you were probably already going to do that. --DanielPharos (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Servers or desktops or...? 

message: The Microsoft section says, "Microsoft has criticised Linux on servers extensively through its Get the Facts campaign." How long did the campaign last for and how much money did MS invest in it? Unless we can substantiate these factors, using "extensively" strikes me as an example of false dichotomy; exaggerating the threat Linux poses and the rivalry between Linux and Windows.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.52 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "extensively" refers to the amount of criticism, not the amount of money and/or time spend criticising. That said, I agree: it sounds like a weasel word. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another weasel word appears here: "In September 2007, Walter S. Mossberg, writing in The Wall Street Journal said of Linux desktop systems in general at that time...". It seems a bit odd to include "at that time" in the sentence, especially since a date is given at the very beginning. I mean, duh, what else would he be talking about? Linux 15 years in the future? Besides, it gives the impression that the criticism is no longer valid, which isn't the avenue of Wikipedia. I'm gonna do a little weasel-word weeding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.8.204 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "extensively" 

message: Hi, i want to discuss if and how this can be an useful part of the section "linux non-readiness for desktop usage"
my original entry was not well polished (and therefore removed):
Dominic Humphries confession Linux is NOT Windows from 2006, which is often cited and translated to many languages, presents a inadaptiv, defensive relationship of the linux community to the users. The existing hackers culture is presented as more important then a user focussed culture:
''
But overall, i think this reference (or page) should somehow mentioned because the linux community presents themself here in a specific geeky way, and this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture. the point which is the essence for criticism, is that the hack-ability of an OS is more important then the useability for the community. and these development goals are in conflict, heavily. And there is the culture of re-define usability as hack-ability (as the REAL usability), clearly in conflict with usability. 141.52.232.84 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the bit of that that would need serious backing up is that "this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture".  Assuming that a single, random, non-notable guy's personal opinion, in the form of a 2006 internet essay, is representative of the entire Linux community is very WP:OR.  (And is clearly wrong: for a start, there's no such thing as 'the Linux community'; only a huge conglomeration of communities, some of whom don't care about usability in the traditional sense, and some of whom do (witness the amount of money e.g. Novell has put into Gnome usability studies)). -- simxp (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "linux is not windows" 

message: It seems peculiar that Criticism of Linux page has a link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, but not vice-versa, it appears biased. Anyone mind if I remove it? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the link in the See also list I would suggest it might make more sense to add one to the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article than remove it from here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Microsoft link 

message: http://lwn.net/Articles/392862/
might be an note-worthy addition Shaddim (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a about kernel politics rather than about the Operating system that uses Linux. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: about problems/focuss in the development process, which in the end must result in some problems in the product. could explain some characteristics. Shaddim (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the link to the article must be explicit otherwise it is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: quote: In the course of working with Linux, Gordon says that he discovered that "Linux sucks at a lot of important tasks." He noted that Apple has solved a number of the things that Linux does poorly (though he ceded that Mac OS X also does many things badly), and that Linux developers should be "stealing some stuff" from Apple. sounds very explicite to me.... also, the term "linux" is used here (as in this wiki article) in the (common) sense meaning of "the linux ecosystem of distributions" (not the kernel)Shaddim (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ryan C. Gordon]] about problems in the kernel development process 

message: Windows software for which there are no alternatives available for Linux? This list is bound to help the community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.131.165 (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you can find refs it could be added here or as a separate list article, but I think you would find these days that it is a pretty short list! - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

text: If Windows software are not locally found in Linux or BSD they are needed to be downloaded like in Windows and install to Windows emulator is not an emulator, but you ŃEVER run it as root otherwise this is as risky as in Windows.124.217.188.67 (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of missing software 

message: * the also given wiki-link (Decision_theory#Paradox_of_choice) motivates the problem with the fragmentation and Overchoice: Observed in many cases is the paradox that more choices may lead to a poorer decision or a failure to make a decision at all.
* some older ref Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability on the same topic Shaddim (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure what the suggestion is, we've already got something in the article about the number of distributions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yupp, amount of distributions is mentioned in the article. The consequences (and mechanisms) from this are not so obvious, the first ref brings in one accepted concept from the decision-theory, paradox of choice, which make the problem with the sheer distributions amount more clear for the reader, therefore I think this ref (and some concepts) should be included. Also restructuring the chapter (and title) from "distributions" to a more general "Fragmentation / paradox of choice" could be useful. While distributions are the best known domain in the linux eco-system suffering on fragmentation, it's not the only one. Shaddim (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first ref is a blog and so is unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any specific sources that mention the paradox of choice w.r.t Linux. As a side note, I also would point you towards Criticism of Desktop Linux where it may be more relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many refs (here another one fragmentation,) which specifically mention the parodox of choice (resulting from fragmentation) wrt to the linux ecosystem, 2 given above (if both are fitting the WP def of reliablity is another question, first one is at least non-anonymous, second one is a reviewed tech-page). also, while the paradox of choice is a problem for the end-users (-> desktop linux), it's also problem for developers e.g. on the missing standardization on APIs for GUI or multimedia development(), or the missing inter-distribution compatibility ("which distributions should we support? Which API is covered on most?" "If someone comes and says, 'I want to write an audio application. Which API should I use?' I don't have a good answer," Lennart Poettering (Creater of PulseAudio about Linux Sound API jungle)). Shaddim (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles don't call it the "Paradox of choice". It refers to something specific. We would need a source that uses this term explicitly. Also remember that anything to do with the desktop belongs in Criticism of Desktop Linux. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe you confuse "explicitly" with "literally"? also, when the linux desktop domain is only one example of an deeper/more general linux problem (the fragmentation), it can be mentioned here for sure (too). Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does does not appear to be explicitly stated in reliable sources, it is a synthesis of sources combined with original research to draw such conclusions. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  *sigh*, another quote: "LSB aims to reduce Linux fragmentation: The LSB is intended to solve the challenges confronting ISVs and individual developers trying to stay compatible with the proliferation of endlessly changing Linux distributions, says the LF. By reducing the differences among individual Linux distributions, the LSB "significantly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support," says the organization."  so, you really try to say, it is "original research" to conclude that the linux platform is fragmented using this refs? what you call disrespectful "synthesized", should be better called "multiple aspects of the same underlying concept" Shaddim (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "Paradox of choice", which has specific meaning is not mentioned here which is your proposed addition. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text:   doesn't seem to have due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't follow you here : For users coming from a Windows, or Apple, background the possible Linux choices are overwhelming: [...] Paradox: The problem is not that there isn’t a “right” version of Linux for each and every user it is that users are likely to be overwhelmed by the options and ultimately find their final choice unsatisfactory. It’s called the “Paradox of Choice”, a term coined by writer Barry Schwartz. Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what due weight is, please see WP:DUE. The website/author isn't very notable so the opinions on it don't have due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: you are wrong: alexa info according to alexa it is on of bigger south african sites overall, rank 27. see also:  Shaddim (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the use of this term is only by Rudolph Muller (I've seen no other sources use it), you could add a mention in the Criticism of Desktop Linux article but you should have it as something said by Rudolph Muller. His comments appear to be about desktop linux specifically. It doesn't apply to servers, mobile etc. I would still argue it doesn't have due weight even for that but at this stage WP:DGAF applies for me. Here is the relevant section Criticism_of_Desktop_Linux#Choice IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Interview 05/07/11 with Lennart Poettering, PulseAudio creator, on API fragmentation as weakness of the Linux platform (for developers): Linux is still too fragmented, and a developer targeting Linux will have to choose from a variety of APIs, a bazaar of somewhat matching but mostly just chaotic choices that will work on some systems but not on others. I think it would be in our greatest interest to streamline the platform top to bottom, and thus have a clear message what the Linux OS is. And of course, I believe my work in cleaning up the lower levels of our userspace stack is helping to work in that direction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism_of_Desktop_Linux#Audio_development. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: NVIDIA Developer Talks Openly About Linux Support - Published on October 20, 2009 Written by Michael Larabel Q: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome? The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel interface changes, but generally is not too much work. That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable. 2) The (recently, more quickly) changing ABI in the X.Org DDX. As in #1, this isn't a large obstacle for us: in recent driver branches, we can fairly easily build in support for multiple X server ABIs. 3) Being very careful about library and symbol dependencies in any of the binaries we distribute. The classic newbie mistakes here are things like: a) Compiling/linking something on a new distro against a fairly recent version of glibc, and then trying to run that binary on a different distro, with a slightly older version of glibc. Classic errors are things like: undefined reference to `regexec@@GLIBC_2.3.4' undefined reference to `__ctype_b' b) Linking against the C++ runtime library (libstdc++) but then a different distro having a different version of the libstdc++. libstdc++.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory We avoid these problems by a) explicitly linking against a very old glibc, and b) avoiding use of the C++ runtime. However, it requires careful attention. -> in short: fragmented API/ABI ecossystem  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You shnotould not be inferring things from primary sources. Even specifically he say it isn't a large obstacle. Also "#1 and #2 are our own fault" and he also says "To be fair, my experiences with the problems in #3 are a bit stale". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: that's your personal interpretation. fact is when asked  [...] Q: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome? they answered: The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. [...]. because as professionals they had to say that this is solvable... technicians are paid for findign solutions for even the ugliest circumstances. Shaddim (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

text: It is not my interpretation it is his own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragmentation of distributions/paradox of choice/fallacy of choice 

message: I recently improved a cite in this article, and I noticed a problem with its structure.  Unless anyone can argue "against" you need hardware in order to program software for it.  And you need a kernel, OS, etc., before you can create a desktop.  This is, indeed, how your criticisms creep.
My big problem is two different kernel sections, that should be one, because we have this thingy called "sub-sections".  Furthermore, there are other kernel criticisms "out there", not yet here, that belong to that section, as sub-sections to it.
So, per BRD, I'm combining kernel criticisms, and re-arranging the sections as the hardware support morphs to the software interface that users see (mistaking gas pedal for engine).  
In the diffs, if you look closely, I will not remove or modify any of the article's actual current content.    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure:  Form follows function 

message: The Bryan Lunduke Why Linux Sucks? series of vids (documenting a series of Linux event lectures with Lunduke as a guest speaker) at the very least seem to have some *nix notability going for them:
* https://www.techbeast.net/2013/04/30/why-linux-sucks-why-linux-doesnt-suck-2013-bryan-lunduke/
* http://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/linux/13958-why-linux-sucks-bryan-lunduke-at-linuxfest-northwest.html
* http://www.linux-netbook.com/video/bryan-lunduke-talks-about-why-linux-sucks-and-why-not/
* http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/05/19/1926213/linux-sucks-video
* https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/771738-linux-video-of-the-week-linux-sucks-but-actually-its-awesome
* http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/66970.html
Frankly Ahunt, I'm left wondering whether you took the time to watch any of the videos before removing the link. As they seem, at least to me, to unambiguously relate to—and expand upon—the subject of this Criticism of Linux article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reposts of self-published material still don't make WP:ELNO unless the author is considered a "recognized authority". There seems to be enough evidence that he is considered to be, which is why I reformatted and left it there after your revert. Personally I think this would be of more value if used as a ref to expand the article, than as an external link, provided the requirements of WP:SPS can be made. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunduke vid(s) in 'external link' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007074633/http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity to http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are the Richard Stallman criticism of the nonfree Linux kernels missing here? That is just why Linux-libre is here to remove against binary blobs.124.217.188.67 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Linux-libre

message: Microsoft's high-profile objection to Linux is notable. Their "Get The Facts" campaign seems like an early use of alternative "facts" in that real facts are objectively true independent of any observers. GTF references seem selected to uphold Microsoft's case, understandably, rather than presenting an unbiased, honest, candid exposé of all salient information on both sides of the story. That would really furnish the public with the facts. Since Get The Facts functioned more as Get Our Opinion, it seems like the kind of promotional propaganda behind more recent alternative "facts". Is this a wikilink we can make? 49.195.68.154 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Facts