Linux 6.0-rc3 Released In Marking 31 Years Since Linus Torvalds Announced It

[skeevy420]

My first thought, an hour before the first post, was, "Damn, if Linus knew the Linux 6.0-rc3 release date 31 years ago he should start playing Powerball!"

While I wouldn't call this "fake news" it does go to show the need that Phoronix needs a change in the editing department.

Luke_Wolf The amount of Linux searches on Google and DDG that end up at a Phoronix article means that Phoronix needs to hold itself to a higher standard than "the locals know what's actually correct so inaccuracies here and there are acceptable because WE know what's really correct and WE know what he really means." Some random person from Google probably won't know better. Inaccuracies can be anything from oddly worded headlines and phrases, typos, and even the word though randomly strewn about the place (it's hard to unsee once you see it).

To add to that, when most people see minor inaccuracies all over the place they likely don't trust the source. I'm not talking about Phoronix, but anything in the world where you have to rely on another for accurate information. The fact that all but two of the posts so far are going on about the badly worded headline shows that even "the locals" would prefer it written in a more legible manner.

Ironmask Just because Michael writes professionally doesn't necessarily make him a professional writer. A professional knows enough to use writing tools like LanguageTool, Grammarly, or LibreOffice (for the checkers). Most of the stuff Michael misses would have been caught with a spell and grammar checker.

You are right about that professional comment. Most professionals would want constructive criticism from their peers regardless of what they do. Since Phoronix is basically a one-man operation the only thing I can suggest is to wait one to two days between writing and proofreading/editing. It can be nearly impossible to correctly proof a paper when the correct, intended words are still fresh in your mind.

[Vistaus]

Luke_Wolf The amount of Linux searches on Google and DDG that end up at a Phoronix article means that Phoronix needs to hold itself to a higher standard than "the locals know what's actually correct so inaccuracies here and there are acceptable because WE know what's really correct and WE know what he really means."

Isn't that the point of this website? There are already plenty of other tech sites that appeal to the general public. What I like about Phoronix is that it's more technical and often covers stuff that most other sites wouldn't cover, like news about BSD, Haiku, small Linux DE's, etc. Sure, Michael could proofread a bit better, but even professional journalists make mistakes. I'd like for Phoronix to stay as it is, a site for techies, mostly focused on Linux, with a small but vocal community full of enthusiasts (with the exception of a few users) that knows how Michael's mind works. If I wanted something for a wider range of people, there are a gazillion other sites I could turn to.

[skeevy420]

Isn't that the point of this website?

Yes and no. In regards to the things the locals know, there are "KDE Wayland Fixes" and then there's the Linux 6.0-rc3 31st anniversary. One of those is a jab to the regulars because he's a GNOME user and the other is an accident. One of those the regulars will bicker about and the other the regulars will....well, bicker about. We bicker about everything.

There are already plenty of other tech sites that appeal to the general public. What I like about Phoronix is that it's more technical and often covers stuff that most other sites wouldn't cover, like news about BSD, Haiku, small Linux DE's, etc. Sure, Michael could proofread a bit better, but even professional journalists make mistakes. I'd like for Phoronix to stay as it is, a site for techies, mostly focused on Linux, with a small but vocal community full of enthusiasts (with the exception of a few users) that knows how Michael's mind works. If I wanted something for a wider range of people, there are a gazillion other sites I could turn to.

Even professional writers with editing teams make mistakes. Like I said above, the majority of his mistakes would be caught if he'd just use the free and open source tool I linked to or the free or paid option I mentioned. Either one would help. I didn't think suggesting the common practice of "edit the day after writing with a fresh mind" or "use standard writing tools" was asking to change how Phoronix operates; and "a day" can be an hour or two depending on how your mind works.

If I wanted to do change Phoronix I'd ask Michael to implement a way for us to submit pull requests to articles; anything more useful than, "Hey, my dude, there's there's a typo." Oh, and to cite sources by add links at the bottom of the articles and less self-citing. That's about all I can think of. Heck, I don't think I'd mind all the self-citing if there was a bibliography of sorts. Just, occasionally, there are articles that only link to previous articles and not to Red Hat or AMD or whatever.

Because things on the internet can come off the wrong way, nothing that I'm saying should be taken in a negative manner. Everything I suggested is from the toolbox of things that I have to do in order to write more gooder. Granted, I don't use a grammar checker for random posts like this...but I would professionally.

[Vistaus]

Oh, and to cite sources by add links at the bottom of the articles and less self-citing. That's about all I can think of. Heck, I don't think I'd mind all the self-citing if there was a bibliography of sorts. Just, occasionally, there are articles that only link to previous articles and not to Red Hat or AMD or whatever.

That I do agree with. I don't really have anything to complain about, but this is the one thing that actually would be an improvement, IMHO.