很公平

记得比尔盖茨接受“新闻周刊”史蒂文·列维的采访earlier this month? The one where Gates said, “Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day每一天,他们都会全力以赴,您的机器可以完全接管我曾经敢于让任何人这样做在Windows机器上。“

大多数我对这次采访的批评是理所当然地指向盖茨但我也写过关于利维的文章:

Gates’s claim about Mac OS X security is simply false. Flabbergastingly falseIt’s irritating that Levy didn’t press him on this point, to ask for a few examples...

Most of you reading 万博manbetx贴吧 know these are silly statements that are obviously falseBut what is the typical Newsweek reader to think of them — especially given that they stand unchallenged by Levy?

Levy几天后在他的博客上写到了这个,写作

I have found that when one has limited time in an interview with someone like Bill Gates (not that there’s many like him), one’s time is better spent drawing out the genuinely interesting things that person has to say as opposed to engaging in lengthy debates on technical issues that almost certainly won’t be resolved on the spot(That doesn’t mean I won’t repeat a question or push a point when I want to hear more on a certain issue, or I feel that persisting will be beneficial to the interview.) The interview was to focus on Vista, and I had some specific areas involving Gates’s thoughts and involvement in that OS (and the next!) that I hoped to cover...

Gruber professes to worry about “the typical Newsweek reader” being misled by Gates’s claims饶我I think that Newsweek’s online readers are smart enough to understand that Bill Gates is a passionate partisan of Microsoft, and to assess his comments on the competition in that spirit.

我联系了在他的博客帖子中引用了上述内容,并添加了“足够公平”。

在那之后,一群DF读者给我发了电子邮件,或多或少都说了同样的话:我太过轻易地让Levy摆脱困境,他写的东西肯定不够“公平”。

从那时起我一直在考虑它,我同意。1

人们阅读像“新闻周刊”这样的杂志的原因是他们相信像利维这样的作家是知识渊博的专家,他们正在努力表达真相征收从90年代早期担任Macworld专栏作家以来,他一直是我最喜欢的作家之一但在这种情况下,我认为他错了。

我同意利维认为,参加像盖茨这样的繁忙采访主题“在技术问题上进行冗长的辩论时几乎肯定不能当场解决”是不值得的。但在这种情况下,不需要进行冗长的辩论一个简单的,“我还没有听说过任何这样的漏洞 - 你的来源是什么?”就足够了。

关键在于:盖茨声称不是主观的如果他只是简单地说,“Vista比Mac OS X更安全”,这将是主观的合理的人可能会合理地反对这一点,但我认为Levy在采访中让它无可争议是完全公平的。

或者采取史蒂夫乔布斯的一再声称,iPhone在智能手机市场的任何其他人“领先”五年这显然是有争议的,但同样明显是主观的My guess is that Jobs is wrong — that a Windows Mobile or BlackBerry phone from 2012 is probably going to be better than an iPhone from 2007 — but there’s no way to prove that now, and it’s hard to see how quoting Jobs’s claim without disputing it would create any confusion regarding Apple’s competitors.

但盖茨所说的Mac OS X安全性客观上是错误的这不是他的观点,并不夸张某些或多或少的事情这是完全错误的。

当然,新闻周刊的一些在线读者2看到了这一点,但我的猜测是,那些只做过那些已经至少模糊地了解Mac OS X安全状态的人,我认为这只是Levy的一小部分读者I think most readers assume that if it were false, then Levy would have called him on it — and so conversely, Levy’s silence means it must be true, or at least arguably true.

盖茨是一个“充满激情的党派”并没有授予他许可,无论他想要什么,说实话,关于他的竞争对手显然有一些在盖茨无法穿越的沙滩上,某种不真实的陈述会要求“你的来源是什么?”的回应我坚持我最初的评估,就是盖茨的“每一天,他们都是彻头彻尾的利用,你的[Mac]可以被完全接管”。


  1. And I thank all of you who emailed me about this; I get far more complimentary emails than critical ones, but the critical ones are always welcome and appreciated. ↩︎

  2. 利维对盖茨的采访只在网上发布,而不是在新闻周刊的印刷版中。更新:The interview did appear in at least some print editions of Newsweek in Europe, however. ↩︎