Companies with inferior products are often tempted to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Paul Rubens wonder if Novell's FUD campaign a sign of a company that is afraid of the truth.

Recently, on another site, someone suggested that the development and marketing of Ubuntu was done by paid staff of Canonical. Having been actively involved in the Arizona Team for 8 months I would like to say that I really doubt that the suggestion can be taken seriously by anyone who knows a little about Ubuntu.

One of the things that annoys me the most about Microsoft is their love of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt.) I have no problem with companies marketing their products to customers, but I do object to false conclusions that cannot be backed by real, relevant facts. One argument that bothers me in particular goes like this: our product has fewer security vulnerabilities than yours so it is better. This argument works great for headlines, but when you really look at it, it falls apart.

It has long been the case that proprietary software companies regularly engage in FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tactics against their opponents. This particularly seems to apply to Microsoft’s statements about free software in general and GNU/Linux in particular. Recently I’ve noticed a surge in the amount of FUD going the other way—from the FOSS community towards Microsoft and other proprietary software companies. Why do we feel it is necessary to fight FUD with FUD

It seems like everyone is talking about Barracuda, Trend Micro, ClamAV, and what it has to do with open-source. The whole issue is made complicated mostly because of a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that the two companies have been throwing at each other. In fact, it is getting hard to tell who is right and who is wrong through all the FUD.

The widespread acceptance of open source continues to grow as a cost-effective alternative to traditional network deployments. Well-known projects such as Linux have proven themselves to be in the enterprise environment, helping to dispel the fear, uncertainty and doubt preceding open source implementations.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt require money to exist and to be spread. When Shane wrote about the economics of FUD he was not necessarily referring to one’s ability to buy FUD from Linux companies. As we looked closer, however, it became evident that Microsoft simply paid Linux distributors to insinuate that Linux requires legal protection.

An explanation of what distinguishes Microsoft from most companies

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is defined on wikipedia.org as a "tactic of rhetoric used in sales, marketing and public relations....a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative (and vague) information". In layman's terms, it's a bunch of bull to scare people into doing what they want you to do. Linux and the Open Source community are no strangers to FUD.