In a recent column, Chad Simonds, a Webmaster for Tucows Linux, proclaimed that, "A lot of reviewers" from several small Linux news sites "don't tell you about the bugs and compatibility problems in a program, because they keep getting free software in exchange for glowing reviews."
Specifically, Simonds has been told by some of the "authors" of glowing reviews for the new edition of MandrakeSoft Linux that the reason they don't write about problems with the distribution is that "they don't like writing negative things, because they get all this software free from Mandrake."
It's not just Mandrake, however. "Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE seem to have an unspoken agreement that if nothing bad is said about their software, the reviewer will get something in return," Simonds says.
At the time of this posting, Simonds had not returned calls asking which publications and authors were involved. It does seem, however, that he was referring to authors working for free for smaller Webzines, rather than major Linux publications like Linux Magazine or LinuxWorld.
In response, Daniel Morales, VP of US operations for MandrakeSoft, says, "We provide copies of evaluation software to people in the media. What they do with it after that is beyond our control." He goes on to say that Mandrake provides evaluation copies for anyone who asks for one and can show that they publish reviews in print or online. "We don't have a system in place to decide who's really media or not, but after this, we're going to be reevaluating the whole process," he adds.
Other companies are already more careful. Benoy Tamang, Caldera Systems' VP of strategic development, says, "We think our products stand on their own merit. The only thing we give our reviewers," who are checked to see if they're real journalists, "is a single product, a reviewer's guide and a press kit."
It's Not Just Linux
While some will find such claims shocking, journalists are all too familiar with such attempts to manipulate reviews. "This is an endemic problem with publications that don't pay their writers," claims one editor. "You get what you pay for. And, when the only 'pay' is coming from the vendor, well what do you expect?"
Rob Pegoraro, senior technology editor for The Washington Post, reflexes that, "It's not that Linux is special; many software companies see sending out evaluation programs as an extension of marketing. Writers and software makers who buy into this, though, are stupid, because it quickly becomes obvious who's in the tank for a specific company." And, once you've lost your creditability as a reviewer or a magazine, you've got nothing left.
Your headline "Are Linux Reviews Fixed?" is like an oxymoron. Are you being paid under the table by microsoft or what? Why would you single out all of linux in the headline. Are you zionist shills too?