Does a disagreement on Mac fonts warrant libel and a death note?
Summary: Last week, some blogger in San Francisco has written a hit piece on me complete with a hacked up photo of my face calling me a Microsoft shill despite the fact that I’ve recently praised Apple’s iMac form factor, praised the iPhone, and even called Microsoft Office a zero-day liability. He accused me of rigging a test in my Vista versus Mac font comparison blog which is easily disputed with hard evidence.
Last week, some blogger in San Francisco has written a hit piece on me complete with a hacked up photo of my face calling me a Microsoft shill despite the fact that I’ve recently praised Apple’s iMac form factor, praised the iPhone, and even called Microsoft Office a zero-day liability. He accused me of rigging a test in my Vista versus Mac font comparison blog which is easily disputed with hard evidence. Now I’ve got some crazy zealot who read that hit piece emailing me to go die.
Look folks, OS X does a lot of things better than Windows (such as Mac Expose versus the useless Flip3D feature in Vista). But most people do care about readability first and foremost especially in their web browser and they believe that Vista font rendering - while it takes liberties with Typography - is more pragmatic and proven to be more readable. It’s just silly to represent someone as a shill for simply saying that Vista ClearType is more readable and is a better solution for web browsing.
Since I didn't want to bother giving this person any link love if I called him out in public, I simply sent him an email pointing out the issues point out that:
- I did not "stack the deck" against the Mac font rendering by disabling sub-pixel rendering. I have at least 2 Macs in the SF CNET office building that have 24" Dell LCDs running an obvious LCD resolution of 1920x1200 16:10 aspect ratio (connected by DVI). Mac OS X default automatic mode had sub-pixel rendering off which is optimized for CRT. This is despite the fact that I can’t think of any CRTs that use this aspect ratio or resolution. So the default automatic setting failed, it was not an attempt to cripple and sabotage the Mac.
- As soon as people complained about this, a second set of samples that were LCD-optimized were added to the blog within 10 hours of the original posting to be as fair as possible. The results were still not as readable as the Vista fonts and most experts agree this was because of Apple’s design decision to be faithful to the purity of typography rather than deal with the limitations of the pixel grid. I never represented this as incompetence or ignorance on Apple’s part; just that it was a design decision geared for Desktop Publishing and not web browsing. This design decision in my opinion was the wrong decision since we’re talking about a web browser where readability should take priority over the purity of typography.
The blogger simply refused to acknowledge the errors and claimed that he was merely pointing out that I was "a shill". After a few more exchanges, I didn't bother trying to reason with him and just forgot about it. The problem now is that so-called researchers like Peter Gutmann with the help of Chris Keall (PCWorld New Zealand) started linking to the smear piece to attack me on a personal level which left me no choice but to write this blog.
Blogging is a new and wonderful communication medium on the Internet and I would hope that people won't take it to the gutter level or wish death upon people. It's only an Operating System and some people really need to get a grip. I'm here to stimulate debate and people can disagree with me and criticize me in their blogs or in my talkback without censorship so long as it's not vulgar or excessively personal in nature. But at the end of the day we need to remember that we're there are just human beings and there are more important things in life and let's ease up on personal stuff.
My colleague Steven Warren (contributor for TechRepublic) use to set my priorities straight by saying: What are you doing worried about what someone says on the net when you should go and hug your kids! Well Steven, you're absolutely right and I always remember what you say at times like these. At the end of the day I don't care what OS or web browser or font you use and I have plenty of friends who use Macs and Linux machines (I use Linux myself). So at least for this blog posting, I'm not going to mix it up with anyone in the talkback no matter what anyone says to me.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
You're stubborn, George!
eccentric posting for bashing & ridicule! Apparently, a significant number of Mac-
using readers were unable to reproduce the ugly results shown in your illustrations
(including me) and had no apparent means of of submitting/posting their OWN
'evidence' to refute your claims. Frankly, George, your "high & almighty" "take no
prisioners" approach to so many of the subjects you cover, frequently serves to
foster heated debate & rants, rather than inviting reasoned discussion; you should
wake-up to the fact that the tone of your articles can/does go a long way in
influencing the tone of the responses!
No Justification
I didn't think so.
There is no justification for this sort of response to what was an observational piece backed up with evidence of the behaviour in question.
George Ou has a contract out for A. E. Newman's life
If you abuse the bully pulpit
George is particularly stubborn and refuses to provide for a measured debate or discussion. When he constantly ignores the posts that take issue with his purported "evidence" and "methods," he sets himself up as a target for this type inexcusable behavior.
It's George's bed and he gets to lay in it. It's not much different than going to a NY City subway and yelling that the Yankees suck even if in the past you may have said they played a good game once in a while. You're gonna get your clocked cleaned by some Yankee fan no matter how inappropriate or illegal that clock cleaning might be. Sometimes you just need to remember that "you asked for it."
You obviously read different posts to me
I have always found George accepting of reasoned arguments made against his statements and ready to engage in measured (or unmeasured for that matter) debate on any given topic.
On a side note I am very curious as to exactly what my bias is, as you indicate that my impartiality is obvious in this matter.
On that side note
You bias stems from failing to recognize or admit this. It can only stem from your belief that George has always been right. That too has been shown to be a big fallacy. If you can't admit that, then it shows your bias.
I disagree
I have found George to be quick to engage in reasoned debate; the key word is "reasoned". It's the knee-jerk reactions to his blogs simply on the basis that someone believes he is a "Microsoft shill" that he does not tolerate. There are a couple of talkback regulars in particular that immediately discount anything George posts, just on that basis. There is no "measured debate" involved.
Carl Rapson
No, it does not
Giving someone who may be a bit imbalanced (death threats related to the appearance of a font on one PC platform vs the appearance on another? Big clue here about lack of emotional balance George) further exposure, or positive feedback, as Dr. Pavlov might put it, may even be ill-advised.
This is more of a conversation you might want to have with the local, state or federal peace officers in your neighborhood. Threats against property and life are still against a law or two, in most places.
Feeling a little lonely and neglected George? Is that why you posted this?
RE: No Justification
Absolutely not, and I think the whoever sent the threat should be dragged kicking and screaming through the legal system. I don't know why some people act the way they do in forums and blogs. It's like they think the anonymity of the communication somehow gives them the right to act like an arse. It's one thing to disagree with George (quite an easy thing, actually.) It's something different to claim threats against him.
That all being said, George doesn't bring out the best in people. Maybe the comment about being a Microsoft shill stems from the fact that George is often extremely defensive about MS and quite insulting to posters who post anything that doesn't make MS shine. I've seen it many times in George's blog, as well as others on ZDNet. He often takes seemingly innocent remarks far out of context and starts flame wars in his replies. When expressing a disagreement, he often goes too far, too personal. There are several ways to get a point across, yet George often seems to take a path that leads to angry, heated arguments that cease to be useful debates of any nature. Thing is, George is supposed be the professional blogger in those situations. When other people take it too far, he should be the one who can either let it go in order to let the thread die, or be the one to step in and bring it back down to Earth. Instead, many times he's the one who instigates it. Some days it almost seems as George is surfing around ZDNet forums looking to pick a fight. That is unfortunate, and that type of behavior is what leads to questions about his credibility and what leads to people thinking of him as a shill.
As for the blogger who sent the threat... never read that blog before, and this series of events pretty much guarantees I never will. Regardless of your feelings for George Ou, that type of response is unjustified.
rE: No Justification
<p>
Example. Andrian blog asked for someone to perform a network performance test using Mac or Linux.
Poster "frgough" did the test using a Mac and post the results, per Andrian request. Note* this was Andrian's request of a poster to run a test for him.
<p>
OMG, Mr. Ou found the post;
George's reponse was:<br>
<i>You drew conclusions on Vista by testing your Mac?</i>
<p>
Mr. Ou came in with a blow torch. From then, the thread when down hill, fast.
<p>
frgough reply to Mr. Ou:
"You put way too much emotional investment in Vista. I can't believe you've made this a freaking personal jihad." x-(
"freaking personal jihad." ???
While I'm sure that "frgough's" analysis of Georges line of questioning amounted to a "freaking personal jihad" on Georges part, I remain entirely unconvinced that frgough is impartial enough about critical questioning that focuses in any way on Apple to correctly identify a "freaking personal jihad".
I'm afraid that just enough Apple enthusiasts have expressed just enough over the top radical responses to critical discussions on Apple products to ruin any hope of readily accepted credibility, in so far as their ability to assess the motivations or honesty of others.
Agreed.
I don't know who gets more defensive to comments though: Ou or Ed Bott. I think we need a Microsoft nutswingger boxing match to decide the winner.
Or who not only misses the boat, but the dock: add Mary Jo Foley to the before mentioned names.
Astounding. Just astounding.
Sorry for shouting. Seriously guys. Get a life. I've read responses to (in particular, George's) posts that make me think there might be some seriously unhinged people on this site, let alone in the wilderness of the "blogosphere".
Ed Bott wrote a blog recently about how he was setting up a Vista Media Center in his living room and his personal experience with it. You'd think from some of the responses to this diary-like blog that he had advocated kicking the faces off small animals or something.
The sheer vitriol exhibited in some responses on this thread alone, ironically a thread in response to a blog from George Ou about sadistic and vitriolic and threatening overtures towards him, is just astounding.
And to the guy who said that George has picked out "the one extreme post" and used this as an example of George's supposed sensationalism and antagonsitic blogging style...if you were the subject of that post I doubt you find it insignificant!
Just take your beats?? Is that the idea?
Feel free to say anything nasty about Windows, no matter even if it is preposterous right on the face of it, and Windows users should not complain and take any personal insults that come with the OS's critique or they should be vilified as cry babies and whiners.
On the other hand, to even say that there is some imperfection in an Apple product, or some facet of an Apple product that is inferior to a PC then expect the full outrage and litany of insults and snide remarks an Apple user feels is the just desert's of any criticism of Apple products. And never, never point out that the Apple user is not being even handed in their approach or the attacks are bound to escalate.
So sure, line up the Pro Windows bloggers and point out your assessment of their inability to take criticism, and then we will see how you handle it.
What do you want, his email address?
No
Oh
Maybe
Forget it
Let me try again