Sam Varghese
Monday, 07 July 2008 23:37
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 3
I've encountered a guy who wants to define what a Linux review should comprise. His qualifications to offer such a definition are perfect - he has never written a review himself but he has read plenty of them.
We only need a couple more experts like this and you can start rewriting the Ramayana. Or maybe the Mahabharata. Who better to lecture on the writing of a novel than a man who has never written one? There is more than a mite of truth in the saying, "those who can't do, teach."
Welcome to the
wonderful world of Mark Gregson - whom linux.com, where this venerable sage presented his ideas, described as someone who has "used Linux since 1995 and has tried more than two dozen distributions, sometimes because of what a reviewer wrote."
Reminds me of what the late Oscar Wilde once said - 10 years' experience is one year's mistakes repeated 10 times.
Somehow, I suspect that there are some other considerations which led to such rubbish being published. Even by the standards (?) of linux.com, this is an all-time low. But I digress. I won't even mention any of the inanities which Gregson talked about - you are free to read them if you wish.
Without further ado, let me cut to the quick and tell you, gentle reader, what you need to know to write a review - provided you want to write and publish it before you pass your allotted three score and ten. And if you want to write a review not a banal, meaningless volume on a single distribution - which by the time you finish writing would probably have released three new versions, making your review an exercise in futility - then read on.
Of course, you can decide to pick the option of following Gregson and reviewing your own review. Or you have the option of listening to some pragmatic advice from a poor migrant.
