Mombu the Programming Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Programming Forum > Programming > The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 12th June 02:15
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux Zealot.

What the Linux Zealot is will appear evident to whoever has
experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage
the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc.
The Linux Zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in
virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way)
claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an
out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard
of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright"
is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of
expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental
point for world evolution.

But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being
as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion
(when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of
them) those people who simply think differently from him.

But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer
to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to
(even if this is the case), but because this question has been
answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing
but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a
different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the
case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the
resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort
of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant
by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are
fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server
management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS,
OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and
other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less.
So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot
self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is
a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to
the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux Zealot
believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This
means that the kernel and everything included in the operating
system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they
must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great
misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged
by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and
some additional software, are freely distributable, they should
explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly
notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE
foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies
like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux
Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors
of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer
non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist
in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies'
profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the
bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to
the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and
other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone
wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet".
Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay
connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the
download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an
operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free,
same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have
access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a
connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material you are
interested in, he will do so with great disappointment, and at least
he will ask the money for the CD back, or will invite you to make a
donation to the GNU project, another sublime decoy produced by the
zealots' ingenuity.

Why don't Linux zealots explain what Linux is and how it works?
Simply because it is characteristic of the Linux zealot to be
self-sufficient, to be content with what he himself (as a single
person or as a representative of the collective entity of this
operating system's users) makes. In this, the Linux zealot is wholly
equivalent to the modern religious cults, like the Jehovah's
Witnesses, or the ones of the last century, like the Mormons. The
Linux zealot never asks anything outside of what the Linux world makes
inside itself, in fact, he gets all the angrier everytime he has to
deal with news, questions and inquisitiveness from the outside world.
In this case, one cannot say that the Linux zealot be on par with his
co-religionists of the Kingdom Hall. In fact, when Jehovah's Witnesses
are asked questions by an external person, they are glad, they try to
explain, they're inclined to a dialogue, and they bring themselves
into question. If they don't have a sure answer on the question of
the Trinity, they say: "Sorry, I can't answer you now, but I'll of
course think about it, perhaps we'll meet in a few days and I'll give
you an answer based on something firmer than my personal hypotheses".
It's a fair attitude. Saying "I don't know" when someone asks us
something is a good start. You stop, you collect informations, you
work out, and then you go on. Insted the Linux zealot doesn't do so,
he refers you to his literature, and that's it.

Hence, to the question "What's Linux?", which can be replaced by an
appropriate number of other questions on the subject, according to the
interlocutor's interest, the Linux zealot will always answer referring


himself, seeing his stubbornness to persist putting forward solutions
which are found inside do***entation or manuals written by someone
else. If moreover you approach the Linux world through the gateway of
the so-called "external" (e.g. manuals bought in a bookstore, books or
publications which aim to explain the Linux operating system and
phenomenon to "people"), you will be looked upon with scorn, because
for a Linux zealot, anything dealing with Linux which was not produced
inside the Linux official channels does not merit consideration. If,
for instance, you are looking for a manual and you find one of these
books (absolutely useless in most cases, one must admit) which cost at
least $ 50, containing step-by-step instructions for Linux
installation and usage, possibly with an obsolete CD attached, and
decide to pick it up, the true Linux zealot will give you his usual
scornful look, and will say you were ripped off, as there are some
wonderful tools on the Internet, which are called "Linux Do***entation
Project", which were written by a lunatic who had the wonderful idea
to get the writer's cramp and gather up a ponderous work where, of
course, you won't find any answer to your questions, and in addition,
it's free. Do you have a SuSE distribution and don't know how to
install it? Don't be frightened: you won't find a solution in the
Linux Do***entation Project. Never mind though; the work is
ponderous, someone got the brilliant idea of making it available free
of charge (and hitherto it's entirely their own business), but it's
not necessarily valid. Should you try printing it, what with the paper
and the ink cartridge -- not to talk of the printer itself, which may
well be a write-off in the end -- you will spend a lot more that the
dead tree book and CD you had set yourself to buy.

One cannot see why the Linux zealot has to look up and down anyone who
commits the crime of not applying to the usual informative circuit of
truth distribution. It's as if the mafia got angry at a drug addict
who took detoxification instead of applying to his usual dealer for
his daily supply of illegal drugs. In the Linux world, everything
which is approved is legal. In this sense, the Linux zealot has no
differences whatsoever with the Holy Inquisition or with the
Imprimatur Commission of the Holiest Romanest Apostolicest Churchest.

Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating
system, at least in the install phase. Especially if one wants to
make it cohabit, at the start, with another OS with better-known
features, waiting until one is more familiar with it, one must know
what a partition is, how to create one, how two operating systems can
safely coexist, and so on. But the Linux zealot doesn't explain this,
he doesn't want to. "There are loads of explanations and
publications; if one doesn't know what to do, he should refer to these
and he'll find the solution to his question. If he doesn't, it's an
indicator that he hasn't understood some basic concepts, and he must
go a step backwards before carrying on". It's a very peaceful and
logic wiewpoint on the surface. On the contrary, it's extremely
violent and disrespectful. It's violent because one quietly calls the
user an idiot without taking direct liability for what one says. It's
disrespectful, because every user is different, and everyone has
different requirements from time to time, from machine to machine.

What the Linux zealot never understood and will never understand, is
that it's the user who chooses the available resources he needs, out
of how he needs them, and out of how he can use them, there are no
ready-made solutions which fit everyone. This is why the Linux
philosophy is losing and will never gain ground, because it's not
respectful, it's angry, it's gloomly and worryingly contentious, it
demands others to adapt without being content with adapting to others'
requirements. The Linux zealot doesn't proselytize those who are
interested in using Linux, even if just to see how it works; the Linux
zealot crusades against all other operating system, especially
Microsoft's. If someone doesn't agree with the way Microsoft work,
distribute, and sell their software, or with their already
unchallenged domination over the market, it's fair that he should
create his own alternative channels, but it isn't at all fair that he
demand others to comply. If a Windows user asks a Linux user about a
malfunction he found in his operating system (Windows, not Linux), at
the very least he will be answered that Windows is an OS that doesn't
work, that it can't be OK, that Bill Gates sells his products and that
these products are paid even if they're included with a computer.
Among the Linux zealots, there are, inter alia, the mysterious figures
of the Microsoft conscientious objectors, i.e. those who buy a
computer, demand a bare machine, and ask for the operating system
money back, pointing out that they're free to install what they want
on their computer. With the result that the storekeeper understands
he has a PITA in front of him, and sells the computer to someone else
who doesn't make such a fuss, or sells the bare thing to him, making
however a profit on the sale of the operating system he retains to
himself, and will sell underhand to someone else. This is the great
illusion: the Linux zealots think they've put a "system" under check,
but the system keeps working even without them, or rather better,
because from the business point of view, the less headaches the
better. The saying of the Linux zealot is not "people have the right
to do what they want" (in which case one cannot see why he gets so
angry on those who use Microsoft products, as they also are doing what
they want!), it is "I do what I want and the world must see and must
know". Indeed. But one doesn't see why. One doesn't see why the
world ought to know that a Linuz zealot uses Linux, same as one
doesn't see why it should know that Linux exists and is free. If
someone chooses to buy an OS which costs money, but allows him to do
stuff more intuitively, one doesn't see why he could not. It's
exactly like people who can't ski, and instead of plunging on the
slope and snowploughing, they pay for the lessons of an instructor on
the beginners' slope. The idiocy of the Linux philosophy appears
particularly in the claim of free circulation of the OS and software
in question. It's not by chance that Linux is a very common operating
system in anarchoid environments. And when one speaks of anarchoid
environments, one means precisely "anarchoid", not "anarchist". These
who respect freedom do not force their truth on others' choices.
Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard
drive and install Linux. You can't use an operating system without a
GUI? Don't be afraid, Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load
ugly-as-hell user-friendly interface, which will solve every problem
for you, by shamelessly copying Windows. So then, we might just as
well keep using Windows, which at least we know, and has a more
pleasing look. You know, Linux zealots are especially angry by nature,
and they object to this remark that there's no reason whatsoever to
use Windows. If they need a word processor or a spreadsheet, there
are free ones for Linux, without need for Office: in sum, Linux has
everything you need to manage anything, so why insist on using
something you must pay for when there are other applications which are
free? The answer is simple: because it's not their own business. But
they don't know this, or rather, they pretend not to. Choices are no
longer personal: everyone can use what he wants, as long as he uses
what they want.

One of the objection which most frequently is made to the Linux
zealots is that Linux is a hard to learn OS, that one must be a
programmer, or anyway, know a lot about programming, to modify the
source codes of freely distributed programs. Linux zealots use to
answer, with the snooty self-importance which sets them apart, that
Linux is a software made exactly for these in the know. So why on
earth do they want Linux to be accessible to the humblest of users?
If one can't program, if one can't use Linux, why should he be forced
to use it? The answer is very simple again: because otherwise Linux
zealots get angry and take it as a personal offence. Same as the fact
that there are some people who develop software for whichever OS and
sell it making a profit from their work is a personal offence. Again,
the solution is only too simple, one doesn't need to bother Dr. Watson
to find it: as copying software without permission is a crime in most
countries, instead of attacking the law, they attack these who profit
from it. These people clearly have never bought a newspaper in their
life, when they go to the bookstore, they walk up to the pay desk with
provocative and know-all attitude, and start saying: "A book cannot be
intellectual property of the author, but of the people who read it".
For them, the intellectual work does not exist as such, but as a
collective work. They wanted to make a free OS? Indeed, and they
even want us to thank them. We can. Provided that they leave us, at
last, in peace. Laughing.
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 12th June 02:15
liam slider
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


That's not true! I kill lots of zombies all the time in games, I have
yet to kill one Windows user in real life!

PH34R MY L33T N3KKID SKILLZ! *cough*
<snip FUD>

--
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica,
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller
  Reply With Quote
3 12th June 02:15
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


Maybe it's me, maybe it's the second glass of wine I have just
consumed, but, am I the only person who fails to understand that post?

flatfish+++
  Reply With Quote
4 12th June 02:15
zach
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


<Snipped a whole lot of big words and meaningless sentences>

WOW! That was impressive! I've never fallen asleep before while reading a
post but this one made me cave. Too bad the author didn't have the testicle
fortitude to sign his work...then again, I too, would have been embarrassed
had I just completely BORED the civilized world to tears with that drivel.
You gotta admit though, it takes imagination to waste that kind of bandwidth!

Zach
  Reply With Quote
5 12th June 02:15
stephen
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


| A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux Zealot.
|
| What the Linux Zealot is will appear evident to whoever has
| experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage
| the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc.
| The Linux Zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in
| virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way)
| claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an
| out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard
| of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright"
| is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of
| expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental
| point for world evolution.
|
| But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being
| as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion
| (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of
| them) those people who simply think differently from him.
|
| But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer
| to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to
| (even if this is the case), but because this question has been
| answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing
| but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a
| different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the
| case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the
| resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort
| of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant
| by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are
| fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server
| management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS,
| OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and
| other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less.
| So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot
| self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is
| a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to
| the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux Zealot
| believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This
| means that the kernel and everything included in the operating
| system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they
| must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great
| misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged
| by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and
| some additional software, are freely distributable, they should
| explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly
| notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE
| foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies
| like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux
| Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors
| of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer
| non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist
| in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies'
| profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the
| bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to
| the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and
| other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone
| wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet".
| Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay
| connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the
| download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an
| operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free,
| same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have
| access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a
| connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material you are
| interested in, he will do so with great disappointment, and at least
| he will ask the money for the CD back, or will invite you to make a
| donation to the GNU project, another sublime decoy produced by the
| zealots' ingenuity.
|
| Why don't Linux zealots explain what Linux is and how it works?
| Simply because it is characteristic of the Linux zealot to be
| self-sufficient, to be content with what he himself (as a single
| person or as a representative of the collective entity of this
| operating system's users) makes. In this, the Linux zealot is wholly
| equivalent to the modern religious cults, like the Jehovah's
| Witnesses, or the ones of the last century, like the Mormons. The
| Linux zealot never asks anything outside of what the Linux world makes
| inside itself, in fact, he gets all the angrier everytime he has to
| deal with news, questions and inquisitiveness from the outside world.
| In this case, one cannot say that the Linux zealot be on par with his
| co-religionists of the Kingdom Hall. In fact, when Jehovah's Witnesses
| are asked questions by an external person, they are glad, they try to
| explain, they're inclined to a dialogue, and they bring themselves
| into question. If they don't have a sure answer on the question of
| the Trinity, they say: "Sorry, I can't answer you now, but I'll of
| course think about it, perhaps we'll meet in a few days and I'll give
| you an answer based on something firmer than my personal hypotheses".
| It's a fair attitude. Saying "I don't know" when someone asks us
| something is a good start. You stop, you collect informations, you
| work out, and then you go on. Insted the Linux zealot doesn't do so,
| he refers you to his literature, and that's it.
|
| Hence, to the question "What's Linux?", which can be replaced by an
| appropriate number of other questions on the subject, according to the
| interlocutor's interest, the Linux zealot will always answer referring
| you to something others wrote for him, showing not only unparalleled
| pride and haughtyness, but especially a clear inability to reason for
| himself, seeing his stubbornness to persist putting forward solutions
| which are found inside do***entation or manuals written by someone
| else. If moreover you approach the Linux world through the gateway of
| the so-called "external" (e.g. manuals bought in a bookstore, books or
| publications which aim to explain the Linux operating system and
| phenomenon to "people"), you will be looked upon with scorn, because
| for a Linux zealot, anything dealing with Linux which was not produced
| inside the Linux official channels does not merit consideration. If,
| for instance, you are looking for a manual and you find one of these
| books (absolutely useless in most cases, one must admit) which cost at
| least $ 50, containing step-by-step instructions for Linux
| installation and usage, possibly with an obsolete CD attached, and
| decide to pick it up, the true Linux zealot will give you his usual
| scornful look, and will say you were ripped off, as there are some
| wonderful tools on the Internet, which are called "Linux Do***entation
| Project", which were written by a lunatic who had the wonderful idea
| to get the writer's cramp and gather up a ponderous work where, of
| course, you won't find any answer to your questions, and in addition,
| it's free. Do you have a SuSE distribution and don't know how to
| install it? Don't be frightened: you won't find a solution in the
| Linux Do***entation Project. Never mind though; the work is
| ponderous, someone got the brilliant idea of making it available free
| of charge (and hitherto it's entirely their own business), but it's
| not necessarily valid. Should you try printing it, what with the paper
| and the ink cartridge -- not to talk of the printer itself, which may
| well be a write-off in the end -- you will spend a lot more that the
| dead tree book and CD you had set yourself to buy.
|
| One cannot see why the Linux zealot has to look up and down anyone who
| commits the crime of not applying to the usual informative circuit of
| truth distribution. It's as if the mafia got angry at a drug addict
| who took detoxification instead of applying to his usual dealer for
| his daily supply of illegal drugs. In the Linux world, everything
| which is approved is legal. In this sense, the Linux zealot has no
| differences whatsoever with the Holy Inquisition or with the
| Imprimatur Commission of the Holiest Romanest Apostolicest Churchest.
|
| Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating
| system, at least in the install phase. Especially if one wants to
| make it cohabit, at the start, with another OS with better-known
| features, waiting until one is more familiar with it, one must know
| what a partition is, how to create one, how two operating systems can
| safely coexist, and so on. But the Linux zealot doesn't explain this,
| he doesn't want to. "There are loads of explanations and
| publications; if one doesn't know what to do, he should refer to these
| and he'll find the solution to his question. If he doesn't, it's an
| indicator that he hasn't understood some basic concepts, and he must
| go a step backwards before carrying on". It's a very peaceful and
| logic wiewpoint on the surface. On the contrary, it's extremely
| violent and disrespectful. It's violent because one quietly calls the
| user an idiot without taking direct liability for what one says. It's
| disrespectful, because every user is different, and everyone has
| different requirements from time to time, from machine to machine.
|
| What the Linux zealot never understood and will never understand, is
| that it's the user who chooses the available resources he needs, out
| of how he needs them, and out of how he can use them, there are no
| ready-made solutions which fit everyone. This is why the Linux
| philosophy is losing and will never gain ground, because it's not
| respectful, it's angry, it's gloomly and worryingly contentious, it
| demands others to adapt without being content with adapting to others'
| requirements. The Linux zealot doesn't proselytize those who are
| interested in using Linux, even if just to see how it works; the Linux
| zealot crusades against all other operating system, especially
| Microsoft's. If someone doesn't agree with the way Microsoft work,
| distribute, and sell their software, or with their already
| unchallenged domination over the market, it's fair that he should
| create his own alternative channels, but it isn't at all fair that he
| demand others to comply. If a Windows user asks a Linux user about a
| malfunction he found in his operating system (Windows, not Linux), at
| the very least he will be answered that Windows is an OS that doesn't
| work, that it can't be OK, that Bill Gates sells his products and that
| these products are paid even if they're included with a computer.
| Among the Linux zealots, there are, inter alia, the mysterious figures
| of the Microsoft conscientious objectors, i.e. those who buy a
| computer, demand a bare machine, and ask for the operating system
| money back, pointing out that they're free to install what they want
| on their computer. With the result that the storekeeper understands
| he has a PITA in front of him, and sells the computer to someone else
| who doesn't make such a fuss, or sells the bare thing to him, making
| however a profit on the sale of the operating system he retains to
| himself, and will sell underhand to someone else. This is the great
| illusion: the Linux zealots think they've put a "system" under check,
| but the system keeps working even without them, or rather better,
| because from the business point of view, the less headaches the
| better. The saying of the Linux zealot is not "people have the right
| to do what they want" (in which case one cannot see why he gets so
| angry on those who use Microsoft products, as they also are doing what
| they want!), it is "I do what I want and the world must see and must
| know". Indeed. But one doesn't see why. One doesn't see why the
| world ought to know that a Linuz zealot uses Linux, same as one
| doesn't see why it should know that Linux exists and is free. If
| someone chooses to buy an OS which costs money, but allows him to do
| stuff more intuitively, one doesn't see why he could not. It's
| exactly like people who can't ski, and instead of plunging on the
| slope and snowploughing, they pay for the lessons of an instructor on
| the beginners' slope. The idiocy of the Linux philosophy appears
| particularly in the claim of free circulation of the OS and software
| in question. It's not by chance that Linux is a very common operating
| system in anarchoid environments. And when one speaks of anarchoid
| environments, one means precisely "anarchoid", not "anarchist". These
| who respect freedom do not force their truth on others' choices.
| Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard
| drive and install Linux. You can't use an operating system without a
| GUI? Don't be afraid, Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load
| ugly-as-hell user-friendly interface, which will solve every problem
| for you, by shamelessly copying Windows. So then, we might just as
| well keep using Windows, which at least we know, and has a more
| pleasing look. You know, Linux zealots are especially angry by nature,
| and they object to this remark that there's no reason whatsoever to
| use Windows. If they need a word processor or a spreadsheet, there
| are free ones for Linux, without need for Office: in sum, Linux has
| everything you need to manage anything, so why insist on using
| something you must pay for when there are other applications which are
| free? The answer is simple: because it's not their own business. But
| they don't know this, or rather, they pretend not to. Choices are no
| longer personal: everyone can use what he wants, as long as he uses
| what they want.
|
| One of the objection which most frequently is made to the Linux
| zealots is that Linux is a hard to learn OS, that one must be a
| programmer, or anyway, know a lot about programming, to modify the
| source codes of freely distributed programs. Linux zealots use to
| answer, with the snooty self-importance which sets them apart, that
| Linux is a software made exactly for these in the know. So why on
| earth do they want Linux to be accessible to the humblest of users?
| If one can't program, if one can't use Linux, why should he be forced
| to use it? The answer is very simple again: because otherwise Linux
| zealots get angry and take it as a personal offence. Same as the fact
| that there are some people who develop software for whichever OS and
| sell it making a profit from their work is a personal offence. Again,
| the solution is only too simple, one doesn't need to bother Dr. Watson
| to find it: as copying software without permission is a crime in most
| countries, instead of attacking the law, they attack these who profit
| from it. These people clearly have never bought a newspaper in their
| life, when they go to the bookstore, they walk up to the pay desk with
| provocative and know-all attitude, and start saying: "A book cannot be
| intellectual property of the author, but of the people who read it".
| For them, the intellectual work does not exist as such, but as a
| collective work. They wanted to make a free OS? Indeed, and they
| even want us to thank them. We can. Provided that they leave us, at
| last, in peace. Laughing.

When the nail is hit on the head it is hit on the head - Thanks.

Stephen
  Reply With Quote
6 12th June 02:15
alan connor
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


Nice to know that the opposition is utterly clueless.

--
Later, Alan C
You can find my email address at the website: contact.html
take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
  Reply With Quote
7 12th June 02:15
alan connor
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


Stephen,

I scrolled through about 50 quoted lines without seeing a single comment
from you.

End of attempt to read your post.

--
Later, Alan C
You can find my email address at the website: contact.html
take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
  Reply With Quote
8 12th June 02:15
zach
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


<Boring novel snipped>

The only head that's gonna get hit is yours if you don't learn to post
correctly. If all you're gonna add is, "When the nail is hit on the head it
is hit on the head - Thanks.", then don't repost the entire !*$#in' novel.
My God man; how long have you been using computers? Does the term
"bandwidth" mean anything to you? How about "Netiquette"? Does the concept
"common sense" ring a bell? I think you need to go back and learn the basics
before spouting anymore of your "Microsoft expertise". Get a clue or get off
the Internet! You are single-handedly making Windows users look really dumb.

Zach
  Reply With Quote
9 12th June 02:15
andy baxter
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


There are plenty of people who believe just as zealously in things like
the sanctity of the free market and intellectual property. These people
also frequently get to write major international treaties and influence
national governments to bring in laws supporting their ideology. Who are the more dangerous?

Obviously, in technical terms, Linux is an OS like any other


Did you ever read the stuff about free as in beer / free as in speech?
It's not just a minor quibble over words. It's pretty fundamental to free
software philosophy that programs are distributed in a way that if you
don't like something about the way it works, and you have the skills, you
can fix it or adapt it yourself, and the people writing it do what they
can to make this easy for you instead of hard.


Which is precisely one of the distinctions that Richard Stallman
(hero of the 'linux zealot') makes when he talks about what free software means.

On a 56k modem, several days, so you buy a CD or copy one off a friend, or
borrow someone's broadband connection. On an ADSL line (always paid
flat-rate AFAIK), a few hours at the most.


That's just bullshit - most people I know who are into linux are happy to
copy CDs. Nobody's ever suggested to me that I donate to GNU, and I've
never done the same to anyone else.

Some linux users may be like this. I try to keep an open mind about what's
going on with other platforms and OSes. Many Windows users don't
even know that there _is_ anything except Windows. If anyone's trying to
create a computing world that is entirely sufficient unto itself, I'd say
Bill Gates is a good candidate. I have a copy of win98 on my other
partition, which I sometimes use for things like if I want to build a
database for someone who uses Access and doesn't want to switch to linux.


Well 'linux zealots' don't physically torture you until you agree with
what they want you to say - I'd say this is quite a big difference.

I'm still a bit careful about recommending it to non-geeky friends because
of this, but I just put Mandrake 9.2 on a spare partition the other night
to try it out, and it's really not that hard. Like - nice GUI interface,
maybe a dozen simple questions if you go for the easy install option, and
you're up and running.


This is not rocket science - someone who can't understand the concept of -
"the hard drive is where all the programs and your stuff is stored, and
you can split it up into seperate bits if you want, and choose which bit
you want to use when you switch on" is going to find it hard running any sort of OS.

(Most) people don't do this just for the sake of it, you know - there are
genuine reasons to be pretty pissed off about the hold that MS has over the computer industry.

Linux users have very different points of view on this - as with the rest
of this post, you're taking a stereotype and blowing it out of proportion
in an ignorant way.

You can't copy a whole book or a newspaper for 50 pence - software you
can. New books aren't written by taking pages out of old books, sticking
them together and adding a few pages of your own (except in avant-garde
novels and the jewish religious tradition) - software can be. Novels
mainly express a point of view on life - software mainly performs a
function. Differences like these mean that computer programs don't quite
fit old ways of thinking about these things. Microsoft et al have chosen
one way to come to terms with this, by trying to lock everything down and
build systems which police the ways people can use their computers - free
software goes a different way.

If you think people should be left in peace to get on with what they want
to do, why are you posting to comp.os._linux_.advocacy? And more to the
point, also to comp.os.linux.misc (removed from header), which is mainly a
help and discussion group for linux users?

andy.

--
remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with [html] or [attachment] in the subject line.
  Reply With Quote
10 12th June 02:15
blabla
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default The Linux Cover -- Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots


Stephen, the man with enough egg on his face to make a western omelet for 8,

Just like the one you keep driving deeper into your empty skull. Careful,
implosion is eminent.

--

x = 5; // this increments x by 5

"Your honor, here we see a piece of code that was copied verbatim from
our copyrighted source, including the comment ..."
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666