Piestar

Just thought I’d have another bash at ‘IT News Today’ and point out the obvious bias and dishonesty in the alleged ‘reviews’.  Just to get started here’s the definitions of ‘bias’.

bias
often supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way by allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment.

I am going to compare his ‘review’ of Windows 7, with the new review of Mandriva 2010.

It’s fairly obvious his ‘review’ method largely consists of deciding on an outcome, then going on a search for facts that fit this outcome.  For example take these two sections compared side-by-side:

“Mandriva 2010 also sports a great selection of packages. I like how both Konqueror and Firefox are included, so those of you that don’t feel Konqueror can compare to Firefox (like me) will feel right at home. All of the usual KDE applications (such as Dolphin, Kmail, Kopete and others) are included, and even GIMP finds itself in this release.”

Two web browsers and a myriad of other applications all usefully starting with a K.  Great.

“Another problem that Vista had was software bloat. I was very happy to hear around the blogosphere that Microsoft would finally be doing something about this and would stop installing everything AND the kitchen sink by default. Unfortunately, this problem (or tradition) continues in Windows 7 and has not been fixed, despite what any other blog may tell you. From a quick look at Windows 7’s start menu, the following apps were found: Internet Explorer, DVD Maker, Fax and Scan, Media Center, Media Player, XPS Viewer, Sync Center, Sticky Notes, Wordpad, and Remote Assistance.”

So if Linux does it, two web browsers is great.  If Microsoft bundles one, BLOAT!  Who’s betting if MS did strip out everything he’d say ‘no useful apps bundled’.  Fair and Balanced.

Then there is the usual confusing pro-Apple commentary in this:

Windows 7 Premium alone will cost you almost $200 for a retail license, while Linux is completely free and Apple gives away Mac OSX with every Apple computer they sell. Upgrading your Mac to the latest OSX whenever it comes out only costs around $30 the last time I checked.

Newsflash: Apple are charging $30 for the upgrade.  I like how it’s “last time I checked”, despite the fact that Apple have historically charged $120 – the same as Home Premium Upgrade – and are only charging $30 this time because it’s at best an enhanced service pack.

Then the further dishonesty that ‘Apple gives away OSX with every computer’, where in reality the cost is bundled in the price, just like Windows 7 would be on a new computer.  You want the new OS on existing hardware then prepare to pay.  Despite Apple and Microsoft having exactly the same deal with regards to OS sales apart from the one-off $30 SL pricing, he’s somehow twisted it so MS is bad, and Apple are good, despite them doing the same thing.

Needless to say he spends the rest of the review whining about the price, and the fact that it takes 20gb hard drive space, which will give you problems on an early model SSD based netbook, but is fine on absolutely everything else.

Looking at the price for Windows 7 though, lets assume you go for the upgrade at $120, and use your computer for 6 hours a day for 3 years until the next upgrade, you’ll be paying just under 2 cents an hour.  Would you rather pay nothing for an inferior product, or pay for something better?  You’d be unable to make your own mind up though based upon this review as he’s decided for you ‘it’s too expensive’.  Heaven forbid if reviewers reviewed and let the customers decide if the price is too much, rather than spending half the article bashing the fact.

The final score for Windows 7 – 2 out of 5.  The lowest scoring review on his site.  Windows 7 is worse than every other Linux distro that he can run.

The final score for Mandriva 2010 – 5 out of 5.  He couldn’t even find anything wrong with it thus was unable to come up with any cons for the summary.  It’s perfect, apparently.

It’s this simple:  If you cannot separate your bias when reviewing something, you should not review it! It is no different than the racists in America complaining about Obama simply because they don’t like black people, rather than basing their critique on his actions.  And while that example is fairly inflammatory it makes the point – a biased review is only appropriate reading for someone who shares your bias.

If I wrote a review of the Obama administration so far, and was a closet racist, I am sure you would equally think that I was an intellectually dishonest idiot – and you would be correct.  The same applies to the 99% of the population who read such reviews, expecting them to be useful, but in fact they are just lies and propaganda to support an agenda.

The fun result of this is you pretty much cannot trust any information coming from the Linux ‘community’ as intellectual honesty left a long time ago.   I am now unable to know when something actually good comes from the FOSS world as everything is hailed as being fantastic (despite often being just the same old crap polished).

Every point release of Gimp brings the reviewers out of the woodwork to claim how it’s now better than Photoshop.  And when one day it finally is, everyone will still ignore it as there is utterly no way of knowing since you never get any truth.