[pierreminik]

Criticism does not mean being "anti". It does sometimes but if it's a complex issue and people take their time to understand it's various aspects, the critics are usually never "anti".

From Windows 95 I was hooked on GUI's. I didn't like Microsoft but I liked Windows. I'd almost never care enough about Microsoft to say anything but when it came to Windows I always had an opinion I'd want to air and it was always in the spirit of wanting an improved product. Mac OS 9 felt like a joke and the various Linux distributions felt unfinished.

But eventually I changed to OS X when one of it's later "kitties" came out. Among my friends who have a Mac I'm pretty much the first to ever criticize Apple products but if you look at how much money I spend on the platform and how much time I invest learning about it you wouldn't think I was a critic. I don't have opinions about Windows beside wishing IE wasn't such a pain to design for.

Being critical does not equal being against something. When your critics no longer want to share their opinion of your product or service, that's when you should be truly scared. That is when you're in a really, really bad place.

[kenjackson]

Fair enough. But Preston Gralla is certainly not like a walking MS PR firm. Compare and constrast Preston's stories with someone like John Gruber for Apple. Gruber has written maybe 100 blurbs about Apple in the past year and maybe one that was critical. Daniel Dilger is basically the same -- except maybe he hasn't yet written the critical Apple article yet.

Preston OTOH regularly writes critical MS articles, more often than he writes those that defend MS.

The author who refered to Preston as the equivalent of an MS PR firm doesn't know his history well.

[pierreminik]

I don't really follow any tech writers and my remarks are probably pretty off topic but I think it's important to recognize the differences. To some it might just be semantics but for others it's a whole world in difference because it affect their lives.

My comment is merely meant as an insignificant resistance towards the uprising of the misunderstood reflector and doubter. Far too often are people promoting division with it's constant "us"-and-"them"-rhetoric and "Either you're with us or against us"-policy. It's healthy to doubt and question.

It's exactly how hacktivists such as Anonymous are alienated and how projects such as WikiLeaks is attempted to be criminalized. Whistleblowers are not the enemy nor the ones threatening the safety of the people.