Re: [OSCOM] Is Byrne "a friend of OSS?"

On Apr 3, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Paul D. Bain wrote:

> Paul Everitt wrote:
>> The strong feelings below notwithstanding, I would like to be the 
>> first to state an alternate view.
>> OSCOM invited Tony to speak at OSCOM 3 and I specifically encouraged 
>> him to give us a blunt assessment of what we need to do.  I remember 
>> the article you refer to.  I remember a few people took a 
>> stone-the-messenger approach.  From my POV, I was happy to see 
>> someone giving us a critical assessment, especially one that's
>
>      sic; "who has"

:^)

> > been a pretty
>> good friend of open source CMS over the years.
>
> 	I would like to know why you believe that Tony Byrne has "been a 
> pretty good friend of open source [CMSes] over the years." When 
> answering this question, keep in mind the many disparaging remarks 
> about OSS CMSes that appear on Byrne's web site, CMSwatch.com.

Considering the second sentence, I doubt you really want to know my 
POV.  "Considering that defendant is a damn bastard, explain why you 
don't want to convict him." :^)

I base my opinion on the evidence:

1) Tony says good things and bad things about all the software, 
commercial or open source.

2) I have a copy of his report, and I can confirm he says good things 
about open source product, as well as giving his opinion on weaknesses.

3) I heard him talk at OSCOM 3, and I think anyone there would confirm, 
he gave his criticism in a spirit of real desire to help.

4) I have met him in person several times, and he is far from a "damned 
bastard".  Quite the opposite.

But, I'm game for your claims.  Review all the articles in the last 2 
months, proprietary and commercial.  List all the positive and negative 
remarks for each.  Give us the tally, and prove that you are (a) 
unbiased and (b) empirical.

>> Tony's piece was constructive criticism.  We need more of this
>
> 	Yes, constructive criticism is useful to the OSS CMS community. 
> Certainly, OSS CMSes need to improve. However, remarks that are meant 
> to "plug" proprietary CMSes (PCMSes) and to cast OSS CMSes in an 
> unfavorable light (in comparison to PCMSes) do not qualify as such 
> criticism. I suspect that many of Byrne's remarks are meant to have 
> this effect. Why? Because Tony Byrne has a strong financial interest 
> in "plugging" PCMSes and in disparaging OSS CMSes. He derives 
> considerable revenue from the sale of his product, "CMS Report," 
> which, for the most part, covers proprietary CMSes. His disparagement 
> (of OSS CMSes) causes readers to think that they should buy a PCMS 
> rather than consider using an OSS CMS, and, to that extent, it 
> probably increases the sales of his "CMS report." IOW, his 
> disparagement (of OSS CMSes) probably increases his revenue.

Possibly, but not probably.  It's certainly based on a series of 
assumptions that you claim as fact, when they are either subjective or 
hypothetical.

> 	I do not know how much revenue Byrne receives from the sale of his 
> "CMS report," but I suspect that, as a percentage of his total 
> revenues, it is fairly high.
>
> 	Byrne may also derive some revenue from advertisements on his web 
> site. Of course, all of this revenue comes from makers of PCMSes (not 
> the OSS CMS community), giving him further incentive to "push" PCMSes 
> over OSS CMSes.
>
>> and I hope Tony keeps participating.  Geesh, I hope Tony joins the 
>> OSCOM board, but he's probably too busy for something like that. :^)
>
> 	If OSCOM invites someone such as Tony Byrne to join its board of 
> directors, then I promise you that I shall consider _never_ having 
> anything to do with OSCOM again -- other than "lurk" on this mailing 
> list.

Ok.

Either way, please refrain from broad-based personal attacks.  There 
are better ways to make your points.

--Paul