Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full StoryI've begun to see parallels between Microsoft's image problem and my own view of the Linux community. Much as the Linux community sees just one aspect of Microsoft, the bad one, I tend to see just one aspect of the Linux community. Generally speaking, our view of a person, initiative or company often comes from select perceptions. So I thought it might be useful to share how my perception of Linux has been created over the last several months by a minority of those who back Linux. I've come to learn there are three general types of folks that write to me about open-source software: Pros, Priests and Zealots.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Kagehi 2004-09-27 13:39:32 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Having finally decided to sign in to the site so I can post comments (a fact that I find annoying, but is definitely better than the junk you got on /. you talk about), I came across this thread. Man are there a lot of posts...
Well, I am one of those, as you may have noticed, that doesn't use my name. However, a search on Kagehi will turn up someone in Japan (not me) and a scattering of posts made by me, a lot of them at www.gammon.com.au, where I have been heavilly involved with the forums for a piece of telnet client software I use. I have used Windows 3.1, which I always got entertainment from, due to the odd feature that it tended to get more and more stable as new dll version where installed, expect when it didn't, because some other older program ate the new version and replaced it with an old one. I later used 95, which was an improvement, at least once I disabled the active desktop and some of the other integrations, thus freeing up more than 50% of the resources. It was totally unusable on the machine I had at the time with them enables. I later got 98SE and am now typing on a machine that I fully expect not to reboot properly the next time I shutdown, something I have to do because creeping instability has caused it to swallow memory like a leaking bucket. Reinstalling, especially with all the needed patches over dialup, will take me 2-3 days. How do I know this? Because I installed a version recently on our other machine and that is how long it took to get the bloody thing to where it now still refuses to run one MS 98 game, which did run properly on the previous installation of the same OS. Go figure...
I will eventually install XP on mine. Why? Because the 'improved' installers don't work right under WINE in Linux, even though nearly everything once actually installed does, and I have thousands in software I can't afford to replace and are tied to MS like people in the stearage section of the Titanic. Ah, but I meantioned Linux, so maybe I am one of those Zealots..
Not quite. I only got involved with it in the last year or so and since then I installed Fedora on our other machine, since I didn't have disk space for it on mine. I don't use it. I have booted up Knoppix once or twice, but again hardly every do anything with it. I am simply tired of MS telling me I have to buy OS version blah blah, which will fix all my problems, except for the need to upgrade every bloody piece of hardware short of the mouse to run it. Why? Because along with the vaporware I don't get, the bug fixes I do get and the new flaws there comes even less control over the OS, even more things doing stuff behind my back for 'my own good' and 5000 new bugs that didn't exist in the last one. I read recently that MS itself admited that one version of its OS had 63,000 outstanding bugs. What they had time to count, but not actually fix them?
Seriously, from what I understand XP isn't even as stable as 2000 and there are still bugs in it from the days of IE 1.0 and Windows 3.1. This includes the code from some stuff from 3.1. Yeah, maybe the OS doesn't technically use it, but it is still there anyway. The only major improvements seem to be in memory management, which prevents most of the unfixed bugs from causing quite as much havoc as they used to. But the bugs themselves are still there. But I am going to buy it anyway, because unless I want to lose the investment I already may into buying stuff for it, I don't have any other real choice.
Frankly, I would have loved to be an MS advocate, but then I found out about a lot of their practices, which still continue today with being sued over now media player integration, instead of IE and in the near future integration of search functions such as found in Dashboard from Ximian and Novell already, among others, but which 'they' don't feel it necessary to integrate so much into the OS that people won't have any choice but use it. I love how a 10% difference in code between XP Home and XP Pro means a 3x increase (or something like that) in price or how that 10% is merely the deletion of tools that came with all versions prior to XP from the Home edition. It scares me to see them making the new Windows Media Edition and trying to swallow that industry as well and if they ever do start making stuff to go in cars, I am going to start riding a bicycle everyplace from now on. Though how I am going to get on it with the padding and body armor I will be wearing to defend me against the cars whose brakes fail randomly and need to be rebooted every four weeks I have no idea. lol
Yesterday I found this site, which pretty much sums up my own aggrivation and distrust of MS, their anti-"anything that isn't our standard" and general lack of interest in real innovation or quality. In fact, it has made me seriously reconsider if just reinstalling 98 isn't better than letting MS crawl even farther into my life:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
All in all, it is disturbing the number of people who both have used MS products for years, *and* in some cases even used to work for them, I have found recently when hunting for some bit of information who now refuse to have anything to do with them. If I could, I would be one of them. You don't get zealots without one of two things:
1. A substantial reason to hate the target
2. Misinformation and intentional propaganda.
I would be inclines to place most of the Linux zealots in the former, while a lot of MS supporters are in the later. Why? Because as the guy who made the site above says in his site, "Who can possible justify saying their systems that need to be rebooted an average of once every four weeks with 30 minutes of downtime are more stable that the products of systems that are up for literally months and rarely offline for even close to that long?" His answer is simple, people that have spent years convincing them that four weeks of stability and random crashes are 'expected' and know that as long as their three ring circus convinces anyone to buy something, that company is stuck with MS forever. As one of the stuck, I couldn't agree with this assessment more.
Oh.. BTW, why the heck does this comment system eat white space between paragraphs?
Well, I am one of those, as you may have noticed, that doesn't use my name. However, a search on Kagehi will turn up someone in Japan (not me) and a scattering of posts made by me, a lot of them at www.gammon.com.au, where I have been heavilly involved with the forums for a piece of telnet client software I use. I have used Windows 3.1, which I always got entertainment from, due to the odd feature that it tended to get more and more stable as new dll version where installed, expect when it didn't, because some other older program ate the new version and replaced it with an old one. I later used 95, which was an improvement, at least once I disabled the active desktop and some of the other integrations, thus freeing up more than 50% of the resources. It was totally unusable on the machine I had at the time with them enables. I later got 98SE and am now typing on a machine that I fully expect not to reboot properly the next time I shutdown, something I have to do because creeping instability has caused it to swallow memory like a leaking bucket. Reinstalling, especially with all the needed patches over dialup, will take me 2-3 days. How do I know this? Because I installed a version recently on our other machine and that is how long it took to get the bloody thing to where it now still refuses to run one MS 98 game, which did run properly on the previous installation of the same OS. Go figure...
I will eventually install XP on mine. Why? Because the 'improved' installers don't work right under WINE in Linux, even though nearly everything once actually installed does, and I have thousands in software I can't afford to replace and are tied to MS like people in the stearage section of the Titanic. Ah, but I meantioned Linux, so maybe I am one of those Zealots..
Not quite. I only got involved with it in the last year or so and since then I installed Fedora on our other machine, since I didn't have disk space for it on mine. I don't use it. I have booted up Knoppix once or twice, but again hardly every do anything with it. I am simply tired of MS telling me I have to buy OS version blah blah, which will fix all my problems, except for the need to upgrade every bloody piece of hardware short of the mouse to run it. Why? Because along with the vaporware I don't get, the bug fixes I do get and the new flaws there comes even less control over the OS, even more things doing stuff behind my back for 'my own good' and 5000 new bugs that didn't exist in the last one. I read recently that MS itself admited that one version of its OS had 63,000 outstanding bugs. What they had time to count, but not actually fix them?
Seriously, from what I understand XP isn't even as stable as 2000 and there are still bugs in it from the days of IE 1.0 and Windows 3.1. This includes the code from some stuff from 3.1. Yeah, maybe the OS doesn't technically use it, but it is still there anyway. The only major improvements seem to be in memory management, which prevents most of the unfixed bugs from causing quite as much havoc as they used to. But the bugs themselves are still there. But I am going to buy it anyway, because unless I want to lose the investment I already may into buying stuff for it, I don't have any other real choice.
Frankly, I would have loved to be an MS advocate, but then I found out about a lot of their practices, which still continue today with being sued over now media player integration, instead of IE and in the near future integration of search functions such as found in Dashboard from Ximian and Novell already, among others, but which 'they' don't feel it necessary to integrate so much into the OS that people won't have any choice but use it. I love how a 10% difference in code between XP Home and XP Pro means a 3x increase (or something like that) in price or how that 10% is merely the deletion of tools that came with all versions prior to XP from the Home edition. It scares me to see them making the new Windows Media Edition and trying to swallow that industry as well and if they ever do start making stuff to go in cars, I am going to start riding a bicycle everyplace from now on. Though how I am going to get on it with the padding and body armor I will be wearing to defend me against the cars whose brakes fail randomly and need to be rebooted every four weeks I have no idea. lol
Yesterday I found this site, which pretty much sums up my own aggrivation and distrust of MS, their anti-"anything that isn't our standard" and general lack of interest in real innovation or quality. In fact, it has made me seriously reconsider if just reinstalling 98 isn't better than letting MS crawl even farther into my life:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
All in all, it is disturbing the number of people who both have used MS products for years, *and* in some cases even used to work for them, I have found recently when hunting for some bit of information who now refuse to have anything to do with them. If I could, I would be one of them. You don't get zealots without one of two things:
1. A substantial reason to hate the target
2. Misinformation and intentional propaganda.
I would be inclines to place most of the Linux zealots in the former, while a lot of MS supporters are in the later. Why? Because as the guy who made the site above says in his site, "Who can possible justify saying their systems that need to be rebooted an average of once every four weeks with 30 minutes of downtime are more stable that the products of systems that are up for literally months and rarely offline for even close to that long?" His answer is simple, people that have spent years convincing them that four weeks of stability and random crashes are 'expected' and know that as long as their three ring circus convinces anyone to buy something, that company is stuck with MS forever. As one of the stuck, I couldn't agree with this assessment more.
Oh.. BTW, why the heck does this comment system eat white space between paragraphs?
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: winuxD 2004-09-17 11:26:25 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Thank you so much for that balanced editorial. Sometimes in the Linux/Open Source community it is hard to find the voice of reason among the idle banter about Microsoft and Gate's affiliations with Satan. The truth be told, Open Source/Linux still has a long way to go ... starting with the zealots. One can draw the paralell between Linux and software development as pros = good clean code or design, priests = somewhat difficult to maintain code or design , and zealots = serious low level code bugs or design flaws. Indeed, the zealots will be the ultimate undoing of open source and Linux. I hope for all our sakes they find a new cause to be angry about.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: colo_larry 2004-04-12 10:56:14 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Having been a priest who is now converted to a pragmatic businessman and engineer, I really appreciate the viewpoint of this article. Well done.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: phreakshow 2004-03-11 21:29:03 In reply to: Rob Enderle
I am appalled at your accusations to attack the Linux operating system community. On each OS you have those that bring it down, and with other Operating Systems you also have those that complain about other OS's they have used.
I place myself under no category that you directly and stereotypically placed the whole Linux community. Me, I rely upon functionality, open-source is a big winner for me, and some tools that yes Microsoft provides are very good, but not worth anyway near the money they ask. Microsoft's main problem and so was Apple's at one point was to attack the market and get on the scene, they did so but with that came unclean unthought put-together code, granted it brought around another age bringing computers out of the console environment but with new technology comes bugs, less functionality than was intended. I am not a linux fan, a BSD/SCO fan, or any of the above, I do classify myself as a person that uses what tools he needs when he needs it though... but to my own preference I do happen to use linux for its continued advanced development, mostly-stable environment, support by its users. I did use microsoft and didnt want to migrate away from it because it was what I first used but at the same time windows takes up as much memory as it can and swallows up hard drive space with virtual file memory like no other. My computer is a simple one running a AMD 900Mhz with 256MB ram, took ages to move around in windows and with linux I have had no problems what so ever.
I firmly believe that you are a fascist when it comes to having a competitor to unix, granted there are alot of Linux distrobutions out there that shouldnt be even available in the marketplace because of lack of thought, coding, support and even representation.
If this article is relating to the recent SCO's incidents and claims, then this is rather redundant because it has already been released that they did not purchase the code from AT&T that they are claiming to have rights to. If anything its a last desperate grasp for an organization that was nearly bankrupt and trying to stay alive. In the last year the CEO has brought the SCO group out of the graveyard yes,but its not near enough to sustain a profitable future. That might explain the recent law proceedings that are and will take place.
On a further note may I please ask why the FSF and open-source community even got brought into this? It had nothing to do with the malicious accusations you made against the community and had no merit even being placed into this article with no facts or evidence to back these claims up?
On a last note who gives you the right besides the first amendment to slander and attempt to disgrace such a fine community. As I said every community including one's existing outside the Technology world have bad apples, if not we wouldnt need the existance of prison's and other such mediums.
Once and for all if your a linux fan, microsoft fan, apple fan, BSD/SCO fan, congratulations. Doesnt make you a bad person because of what you like/prefer. This man is trying to create a diversion away from what was not here to start with which means he is afraid of a 'new' world that will be coming of age very soon.
I place myself under no category that you directly and stereotypically placed the whole Linux community. Me, I rely upon functionality, open-source is a big winner for me, and some tools that yes Microsoft provides are very good, but not worth anyway near the money they ask. Microsoft's main problem and so was Apple's at one point was to attack the market and get on the scene, they did so but with that came unclean unthought put-together code, granted it brought around another age bringing computers out of the console environment but with new technology comes bugs, less functionality than was intended. I am not a linux fan, a BSD/SCO fan, or any of the above, I do classify myself as a person that uses what tools he needs when he needs it though... but to my own preference I do happen to use linux for its continued advanced development, mostly-stable environment, support by its users. I did use microsoft and didnt want to migrate away from it because it was what I first used but at the same time windows takes up as much memory as it can and swallows up hard drive space with virtual file memory like no other. My computer is a simple one running a AMD 900Mhz with 256MB ram, took ages to move around in windows and with linux I have had no problems what so ever.
I firmly believe that you are a fascist when it comes to having a competitor to unix, granted there are alot of Linux distrobutions out there that shouldnt be even available in the marketplace because of lack of thought, coding, support and even representation.
If this article is relating to the recent SCO's incidents and claims, then this is rather redundant because it has already been released that they did not purchase the code from AT&T that they are claiming to have rights to. If anything its a last desperate grasp for an organization that was nearly bankrupt and trying to stay alive. In the last year the CEO has brought the SCO group out of the graveyard yes,but its not near enough to sustain a profitable future. That might explain the recent law proceedings that are and will take place.
On a further note may I please ask why the FSF and open-source community even got brought into this? It had nothing to do with the malicious accusations you made against the community and had no merit even being placed into this article with no facts or evidence to back these claims up?
On a last note who gives you the right besides the first amendment to slander and attempt to disgrace such a fine community. As I said every community including one's existing outside the Technology world have bad apples, if not we wouldnt need the existance of prison's and other such mediums.
Once and for all if your a linux fan, microsoft fan, apple fan, BSD/SCO fan, congratulations. Doesnt make you a bad person because of what you like/prefer. This man is trying to create a diversion away from what was not here to start with which means he is afraid of a 'new' world that will be coming of age very soon.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: linux_zealot 2004-03-11 07:37:26 In reply to: Rob Enderle
y'know, i'd consider myself still relatively new to linux (having only used it for two years out of frustration with MS products) and i used to think that all that propaganda about microsoft (and now SCO) being the devil was just that--propaganda.
but man! you can imagine my suprise when i found out that groups like Microsoft and SCO really WERE the devil! if anyone needs evidence, i can provide you with a wealth of examples.
anyhoo, i think it's obvious that people (as in Linux people) wouldn't react with such fervor if they weren't under attack by groups like SCO, which we now discover has been taking money from microsoft to support their crusade. or should i say that microsoft has been paying a mercenary--in this case a near-dead company such as SCO--to do their dirty work?
regards,
a "linux zealot"
but man! you can imagine my suprise when i found out that groups like Microsoft and SCO really WERE the devil! if anyone needs evidence, i can provide you with a wealth of examples.
anyhoo, i think it's obvious that people (as in Linux people) wouldn't react with such fervor if they weren't under attack by groups like SCO, which we now discover has been taking money from microsoft to support their crusade. or should i say that microsoft has been paying a mercenary--in this case a near-dead company such as SCO--to do their dirty work?
regards,
a "linux zealot"
Historical precedent for this conflict
Posted by: gawiman 2004-02-03 08:31:35 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Good article. Reminds me of the zealotry and legal battles that followed the introduction of electricity (Edison DC vs. Westinghouse AC), the telephone (Bell vs. Edison) and radio (Marconi vs. a whole bunch of guys). All this turmoil has a lot of historical precedent - typewriters, delay-wipers, you name it. I just hope when it's done, we still have an open-source movement to enjoy.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Hucasys 2004-02-02 09:55:30 In reply to: Rob Enderle
I have never used Linux. I have always used Windows, since Windows 3.11.
Windows has always dissapointed me, I barely recall Win3.11, but I think it worked fine, although my demands were not at all professional, nor in the end, really too demanding. My knowledge and experience were also limited. But since then, every new version of Windows has been less than I expected. I am right now using XP, I am not still sure if it is as stable as 2k, which has been the best so far. But, apart from the OS's performance, it is Microsoft's politics that make many people feel not very friendly towards them. Always with invasive issues that show a growing interest in dominating, aggresively, our desktops and navigating faculties. If Windows finally had to reorganize and acknowledge their monopolist attitude (lost lawsuit), it is already a very lousy image for a company, no? I want a friendly company to work for me, not a dilusively agrresive one.
Windows has always dissapointed me, I barely recall Win3.11, but I think it worked fine, although my demands were not at all professional, nor in the end, really too demanding. My knowledge and experience were also limited. But since then, every new version of Windows has been less than I expected. I am right now using XP, I am not still sure if it is as stable as 2k, which has been the best so far. But, apart from the OS's performance, it is Microsoft's politics that make many people feel not very friendly towards them. Always with invasive issues that show a growing interest in dominating, aggresively, our desktops and navigating faculties. If Windows finally had to reorganize and acknowledge their monopolist attitude (lost lawsuit), it is already a very lousy image for a company, no? I want a friendly company to work for me, not a dilusively agrresive one.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: uwntedmutiny 2004-01-30 04:46:24 In reply to: Rob Enderle
First thing I want to know, what is it about open-source software that you are so adamant about getting rid of it? I cannot for the life of me figure it out.
Second, Zealots??
man, come on... you are preaching about propaganda. Yet you are posting stereotypical comments on the web. Is one better then the other? I believe a person should think of a screen name that is original.
I love the comment "If someone disagrees with you, that person must be a crook."
I believe in letting people have there own opinion. I do not believe a person should talk bad about another's opinion.
I am sure a lot of the "Zealots" would have not said a word to you if instead of attacking them, you would have chosen your words more carefully.
You are making a big deal about hackers/crackers, yet you gave them a reason to target you.
I think the best thing for you to do is let go of the shovel, and quit giving people a reason to fight with you...
Second, Zealots??
man, come on... you are preaching about propaganda. Yet you are posting stereotypical comments on the web. Is one better then the other? I believe a person should think of a screen name that is original.
I love the comment "If someone disagrees with you, that person must be a crook."
I believe in letting people have there own opinion. I do not believe a person should talk bad about another's opinion.
I am sure a lot of the "Zealots" would have not said a word to you if instead of attacking them, you would have chosen your words more carefully.
You are making a big deal about hackers/crackers, yet you gave them a reason to target you.
I think the best thing for you to do is let go of the shovel, and quit giving people a reason to fight with you...
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: john_j 2004-01-17 07:41:54 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Dear Rob Enderle,
I regret to inform you that after reading you overly simplified dichotomoy of the type of people who support LINUX, I've lost all confidence in your ability as a reporter.
It's acceptable to hold a different view than other people, but it is insulting to read that LINUX supporters only vary between those who are indifferent (Pros), those who blindly support it (Priests) and those who are terrorists (Zealots).
This sort of journalism reminds me very much of McCarthyism (1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.) in support of SCO's own witch hunt. It is the sort of article that encourages people to identify others, who appear to have strong beliefs, that they are terrorists and a threat to our society. In this case, you would have people believe that anyone too strongly in support of LINUX (the type of person who walks around in a penguin t-shirt with a LINUX admin book in their hand) are zealots, terrorists and are planning to overthrow the world and drown your babies.
At no point, in your article, did I come across anything that resembled evidence to back up your arguements. In fact, all of it is just your personal opinion, which is not journalistic practice. Perhaps you should revise this and present us with more than just your (irrelevant) opinion, because people read your columns expecting an intelligent view.
As for SCO, it is disgraceful they have gotten as far as they have. No one has yet seen concrete proof (that did not border into being ridiculous, vague and untrue). SCO claims that they cannot make it public, as it would reveal their intellectual property, however, this is a very curious statement to make, considering anyone can look into the LINUX code and find it themselves.
SCO is now making a move for Europe, but I believe the europeans aren't stupid enough to be bullied out of money like in the US and the EU will immediately question their case and eventually rebuff it. However, I look forward to the LINUX lawsuits versus SCO, as we will hopefully know the truth by then. If they are being honest about their IP, demanding payment for using their intellectual property is only fair. However, they have to prove it first before demanding money from people. I believe the same should apply to making slanderous articles, such as this one.
Yours truly,
- John J.
I regret to inform you that after reading you overly simplified dichotomoy of the type of people who support LINUX, I've lost all confidence in your ability as a reporter.
It's acceptable to hold a different view than other people, but it is insulting to read that LINUX supporters only vary between those who are indifferent (Pros), those who blindly support it (Priests) and those who are terrorists (Zealots).
This sort of journalism reminds me very much of McCarthyism (1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.) in support of SCO's own witch hunt. It is the sort of article that encourages people to identify others, who appear to have strong beliefs, that they are terrorists and a threat to our society. In this case, you would have people believe that anyone too strongly in support of LINUX (the type of person who walks around in a penguin t-shirt with a LINUX admin book in their hand) are zealots, terrorists and are planning to overthrow the world and drown your babies.
At no point, in your article, did I come across anything that resembled evidence to back up your arguements. In fact, all of it is just your personal opinion, which is not journalistic practice. Perhaps you should revise this and present us with more than just your (irrelevant) opinion, because people read your columns expecting an intelligent view.
As for SCO, it is disgraceful they have gotten as far as they have. No one has yet seen concrete proof (that did not border into being ridiculous, vague and untrue). SCO claims that they cannot make it public, as it would reveal their intellectual property, however, this is a very curious statement to make, considering anyone can look into the LINUX code and find it themselves.
SCO is now making a move for Europe, but I believe the europeans aren't stupid enough to be bullied out of money like in the US and the EU will immediately question their case and eventually rebuff it. However, I look forward to the LINUX lawsuits versus SCO, as we will hopefully know the truth by then. If they are being honest about their IP, demanding payment for using their intellectual property is only fair. However, they have to prove it first before demanding money from people. I believe the same should apply to making slanderous articles, such as this one.
Yours truly,
- John J.
For a more reasoned idea about what this case it truly about and the realities with SCO winning or losing you may want to look at http://www.groklaw.net.
This case is NOT about Open Source developers although they have been mentioned. This case is a contract dispute between two companies.
The analysis of the different character types is spot on the money. I can say this without fear applies equally to my vintage car club. The only thing is that we are not aware of any statistics behind the reasoning and why having what I would term whacko's involved actually makes a difference. How many of each type exist? Is the cross section shown representative? The more radical elements tend to respond to articles but is this truly representative of the Open Source community and their ability to respond to a legal challenge such as this.
For a while I thought that SCO may have a case, not because they were right or wrong but because of legal details. After some intense digging by some diligent people my opinion now sides firmly with SCO losing. This is not a zealot saying that but someone that took time to be informed about the issues.
The only reason that I have taken the time to post this response is because this is the first article that is linked to by SCO. I want to ensure that there is a balanced opinion available.
If you truly want to analyse the SCO case it is probably worth your while looking over the details in http://www.groklaw.net. With a bit of digging there is a huge range of issues with SCO's case. The reason why SCO will lose the case is the same reason that Linux is effective. If you can motivate a sufficiently large number of different people to work on a common cause then anything is possible, even world peace. SCO offended enough people and motivated them to oppose this case.
This case is NOT about Open Source developers although they have been mentioned. This case is a contract dispute between two companies.
The analysis of the different character types is spot on the money. I can say this without fear applies equally to my vintage car club. The only thing is that we are not aware of any statistics behind the reasoning and why having what I would term whacko's involved actually makes a difference. How many of each type exist? Is the cross section shown representative? The more radical elements tend to respond to articles but is this truly representative of the Open Source community and their ability to respond to a legal challenge such as this.
For a while I thought that SCO may have a case, not because they were right or wrong but because of legal details. After some intense digging by some diligent people my opinion now sides firmly with SCO losing. This is not a zealot saying that but someone that took time to be informed about the issues.
The only reason that I have taken the time to post this response is because this is the first article that is linked to by SCO. I want to ensure that there is a balanced opinion available.
If you truly want to analyse the SCO case it is probably worth your while looking over the details in http://www.groklaw.net. With a bit of digging there is a huge range of issues with SCO's case. The reason why SCO will lose the case is the same reason that Linux is effective. If you can motivate a sufficiently large number of different people to work on a common cause then anything is possible, even world peace. SCO offended enough people and motivated them to oppose this case.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Robincc 2003-12-17 11:15:55 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Dear Rob, I think I´ll call you "Mr Microsoft guy"! :)
Christmas hasn´t started here yet, but I´m fine thanks!
Anyway, what sort of an argument is it to say "look at Apple! They were bad too!"? That hardly defends Microsoft´s actions!
And as for Microsoft now having "changed", yeah, sure thing, wow that was quick! Who did they sack, the entire management team?
You seem to know an awful lot about Microsoft´s internal operations, and I would say that´s you´re strong point, however, this suggest strongly that if anyone´s not impartial, its you.
You know why we have Monopolies Commissions? Its because human nature tends to mean, given an opportunity, humans take it... and that includes taking and making unfair advantages, and that holds back competition... etc.
As far as your DEC comment goes, I think we´re all aware that Microsoft had to coerce some DEC engineers to work for them on NT when they realised they had a mess, and for sure, Windows 2K is a step forward, but it´s still very far from being an efficient OS.
This again totally undermines your comment that "Microsoft´s capabilities exceed any other companies", because they had to turn to little old DEC for help.
I can tell you aren´t for changing your "views" on this subject, so lets end it here, but as Don said, your comments say more about you than anything else, and for sure, if Microsoft employs people with thinking as clear as yours, no wonder they are in such a mess!
I bet you that in 5 to 10 years you´ll be supporting a Linux company!
Have a great Christmas, Mr Microsoft!
Cheers, Rob
Christmas hasn´t started here yet, but I´m fine thanks!
Anyway, what sort of an argument is it to say "look at Apple! They were bad too!"? That hardly defends Microsoft´s actions!
And as for Microsoft now having "changed", yeah, sure thing, wow that was quick! Who did they sack, the entire management team?
You seem to know an awful lot about Microsoft´s internal operations, and I would say that´s you´re strong point, however, this suggest strongly that if anyone´s not impartial, its you.
You know why we have Monopolies Commissions? Its because human nature tends to mean, given an opportunity, humans take it... and that includes taking and making unfair advantages, and that holds back competition... etc.
As far as your DEC comment goes, I think we´re all aware that Microsoft had to coerce some DEC engineers to work for them on NT when they realised they had a mess, and for sure, Windows 2K is a step forward, but it´s still very far from being an efficient OS.
This again totally undermines your comment that "Microsoft´s capabilities exceed any other companies", because they had to turn to little old DEC for help.
I can tell you aren´t for changing your "views" on this subject, so lets end it here, but as Don said, your comments say more about you than anything else, and for sure, if Microsoft employs people with thinking as clear as yours, no wonder they are in such a mess!
I bet you that in 5 to 10 years you´ll be supporting a Linux company!
Have a great Christmas, Mr Microsoft!
Cheers, Rob
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Robincc 2003-12-17 04:00:26 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Rob, Come on, if you take such a public forum over such an important issue you are going to get a strong reaction, and it really isn´t an issue of "don´t read what I like if you don´t like it" as you say because I believe, as do many, that the Microsoft OS monopoly has damaged the industry, but equally damaged the community, so if you promote propaganda for MS, you are basically acting anti-community.
Any selfish businessman who puts profits before the act of causing damage to a community is the same. "Damage"! Yes, that´so right, MS caused billions of human hours to wasted planet-wide due to stupid bugs, documentation errors, system crashes, hangs, etc. Think of the cost of that over 10-15 years! And you are supporting their corporate approach to business!?
That may sound strong, but basically, having been developing uP systems since 1980, BIOS´, etc., and also fixing a number of bugs in MS´software before they could (even with them asking me to help them after taking some $285 off me to even talk about the bug!), I know far too well how badly MS has behaved, how poor their products are, and how critically important competition such as Linux is to make a commercial organisation get in line and start supporting developers and customers with proper consideration.
Where have you been all these years not to know how bad MS´OS´ have been, or how many upgrade scams they ran? In one of the many MS books and articles, a top MS employee wrote that it was "quite amazing Windows 98 ever worked considering the bugs in the interfaces, never mind the errors in documentation making development a nightmare".
Strange that a comment like that leaked thro´ without MS stopping it, but like the story MS had on their own web site last year, it´s a big company, and the chief´s can´t control every word written even in their own firm.
This particular story from last year was one about the head of Windows QA being called for jury service, the judge interviewed those called, and when this man told the judge he was responsible for the Windows Quality programme, he said, "well, you had better get straight back to work, dismissed!" - Now MS must have thought this reflected how important Windows is to the WORLD, and it is, but it more reflected the publicly known poor quality of the OS, and that was the key point.
As to MS donating to charity, that´s seen as a publicity stunt, maybe it makes Bill sleep better at night. As to giving free software to schools, that´s just a good marketing strategy.
From all of this I´m presuming you are not an OS software engineer, and do not have experience of MS from the start, in which case, you wouldn´t really be qualified to make the statements you make.
Finally, I am not biased or a boy scout, even the commercial Linux organisations will take advantage of customers if they can, and its a monopoly that allows abuses, like the one MS is already loosing fast.
Mark my words, MS will be a poor shadow of itself within 5 to 10 years time.
Also, an OS is just that, an operating system, that supports the software that performs the tasks needed. It shouldn´t be such a big deal at the end of 2003; what a sad level of technology we have! We´re still trying to develop a good OS?! What happened to really smart apps, AI, etc? Not exactly "Space Odyssey 2001" is it!
Take my suggestion, research more, ask developers such as myself how MS coerced money out of us against support for their bugs and poor documentation, how they held back vital OS information... and if you continue to blatantly support a "criminal organistaion" such as MS, they were actually prosecuted for running a monopoly no?, then I wouldn´t want your future.
Your life, play it as you will, but accept the consequences and don´t moan about the reaction.
Merry Christmas!
Rob
PS Hitch Hikers´Guide to the Universe - EARTH>>Interesting and diverse cultures, still a primitive planet with inhabitants struggling to understand themselves.... don´t buy a computer there! :)
Any selfish businessman who puts profits before the act of causing damage to a community is the same. "Damage"! Yes, that´so right, MS caused billions of human hours to wasted planet-wide due to stupid bugs, documentation errors, system crashes, hangs, etc. Think of the cost of that over 10-15 years! And you are supporting their corporate approach to business!?
That may sound strong, but basically, having been developing uP systems since 1980, BIOS´, etc., and also fixing a number of bugs in MS´software before they could (even with them asking me to help them after taking some $285 off me to even talk about the bug!), I know far too well how badly MS has behaved, how poor their products are, and how critically important competition such as Linux is to make a commercial organisation get in line and start supporting developers and customers with proper consideration.
Where have you been all these years not to know how bad MS´OS´ have been, or how many upgrade scams they ran? In one of the many MS books and articles, a top MS employee wrote that it was "quite amazing Windows 98 ever worked considering the bugs in the interfaces, never mind the errors in documentation making development a nightmare".
Strange that a comment like that leaked thro´ without MS stopping it, but like the story MS had on their own web site last year, it´s a big company, and the chief´s can´t control every word written even in their own firm.
This particular story from last year was one about the head of Windows QA being called for jury service, the judge interviewed those called, and when this man told the judge he was responsible for the Windows Quality programme, he said, "well, you had better get straight back to work, dismissed!" - Now MS must have thought this reflected how important Windows is to the WORLD, and it is, but it more reflected the publicly known poor quality of the OS, and that was the key point.
As to MS donating to charity, that´s seen as a publicity stunt, maybe it makes Bill sleep better at night. As to giving free software to schools, that´s just a good marketing strategy.
From all of this I´m presuming you are not an OS software engineer, and do not have experience of MS from the start, in which case, you wouldn´t really be qualified to make the statements you make.
Finally, I am not biased or a boy scout, even the commercial Linux organisations will take advantage of customers if they can, and its a monopoly that allows abuses, like the one MS is already loosing fast.
Mark my words, MS will be a poor shadow of itself within 5 to 10 years time.
Also, an OS is just that, an operating system, that supports the software that performs the tasks needed. It shouldn´t be such a big deal at the end of 2003; what a sad level of technology we have! We´re still trying to develop a good OS?! What happened to really smart apps, AI, etc? Not exactly "Space Odyssey 2001" is it!
Take my suggestion, research more, ask developers such as myself how MS coerced money out of us against support for their bugs and poor documentation, how they held back vital OS information... and if you continue to blatantly support a "criminal organistaion" such as MS, they were actually prosecuted for running a monopoly no?, then I wouldn´t want your future.
Your life, play it as you will, but accept the consequences and don´t moan about the reaction.
Merry Christmas!
Rob
PS Hitch Hikers´Guide to the Universe - EARTH>>Interesting and diverse cultures, still a primitive planet with inhabitants struggling to understand themselves.... don´t buy a computer there! :)
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Curious 2003-10-29 08:46:52 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Rob,
Your article comes across mostly like a defensive whine over negative email you receive. I imagine that you get lots and I imagine it must be annoying. However, this article, like many of yours, gets hung up on side tracks and misses the mark.
You start by drawing an analogy between impressions we get of Microsoft to impressions you get of "the linux community." That's apples and hamburgers. Microsoft is a company with, hopefully, a management hierarchy determining its public actions and its customer relations. Do we judge Microsoft by hot-headed user/advocates who bash all other OS platforms because their favorite violent game doesn't play on them? Nah. We judge Microsoft by their products, their EULAs, their business practices, their interactions with customers and competitors and so on. That's appropriate.
You compare those kind of judgements with judgements about a community of users and advocates. Since you're also making that judgement primarily on the user/advocates that respond to your columns you're not only looking at the wrong groups but your selecting a subset of those groups based on what you write and how people react to it. You surely know that a political poll would be biased if it was based solely on people who respond to a political column. Likewise, your selection of linux users/advocates is a highly biased sample.
To be fair, you seem to recognize the bias in the sample. However, you fail to demonstrate an understanding that the comparison between opinions about Microsoft based on corporate actions are not at all comparable to opinions of a community based on letter writers.
In the end, you state the obvious: the zealots may harm a movement. That's been true forever and it will continue to be true. It's true for zealots in the anti-choice movement, zealots in the feminist movement, zealot Republican right-wingers, zealot anti-war liberals, etc. Ranting zealots create negative impressions. Ho-hum....
What you wrote has little to do with making useful evaluations of products and services. As you said, it's about impressions. For me, it did more to shape my impression of you and how you think than it did about linux or the linux community.
Don Campbell
Your article comes across mostly like a defensive whine over negative email you receive. I imagine that you get lots and I imagine it must be annoying. However, this article, like many of yours, gets hung up on side tracks and misses the mark.
You start by drawing an analogy between impressions we get of Microsoft to impressions you get of "the linux community." That's apples and hamburgers. Microsoft is a company with, hopefully, a management hierarchy determining its public actions and its customer relations. Do we judge Microsoft by hot-headed user/advocates who bash all other OS platforms because their favorite violent game doesn't play on them? Nah. We judge Microsoft by their products, their EULAs, their business practices, their interactions with customers and competitors and so on. That's appropriate.
You compare those kind of judgements with judgements about a community of users and advocates. Since you're also making that judgement primarily on the user/advocates that respond to your columns you're not only looking at the wrong groups but your selecting a subset of those groups based on what you write and how people react to it. You surely know that a political poll would be biased if it was based solely on people who respond to a political column. Likewise, your selection of linux users/advocates is a highly biased sample.
To be fair, you seem to recognize the bias in the sample. However, you fail to demonstrate an understanding that the comparison between opinions about Microsoft based on corporate actions are not at all comparable to opinions of a community based on letter writers.
In the end, you state the obvious: the zealots may harm a movement. That's been true forever and it will continue to be true. It's true for zealots in the anti-choice movement, zealots in the feminist movement, zealot Republican right-wingers, zealot anti-war liberals, etc. Ranting zealots create negative impressions. Ho-hum....
What you wrote has little to do with making useful evaluations of products and services. As you said, it's about impressions. For me, it did more to shape my impression of you and how you think than it did about linux or the linux community.
Don Campbell
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Robincc 2003-12-16 10:29:59 In reply to: Curious
Don,
Nice response, but do you think he´ll even care to read it?
Let´s be frank, he´s a businessman, not an engineer, he wants to make money, not a better wheel! :)
Basically, I think these SCO guys are just like those MS guys!
I´ve had so many run-ins with MS over the last 7 years on their bugs that I´m really sick of these types, they really mess up peoples´ lives, developers and users, and they don´t give a damn. For me, they are really like "muggers" with lawyers, etc., as for layers, well, they´re mkuch the same hey! :)
One thing, you certainly think more Zen than he does!
Best regards,
Rob
Nice response, but do you think he´ll even care to read it?
Let´s be frank, he´s a businessman, not an engineer, he wants to make money, not a better wheel! :)
Basically, I think these SCO guys are just like those MS guys!
I´ve had so many run-ins with MS over the last 7 years on their bugs that I´m really sick of these types, they really mess up peoples´ lives, developers and users, and they don´t give a damn. For me, they are really like "muggers" with lawyers, etc., as for layers, well, they´re mkuch the same hey! :)
One thing, you certainly think more Zen than he does!
Best regards,
Rob
To discover the real threat to open-source try a search engine and type "threat to open source"
Greetings from Belgium
Greetings from Belgium
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: patrickbealey 2003-10-23 03:12:35 In reply to: Rob Enderle
What a well-balanced article, Rob. Thank you.
I will need to examine my own view of the current OS scene (with my love of Linux under control!) in the light of what you wrote.
God bless.
In peace and love
Patrick
I will need to examine my own view of the current OS scene (with my love of Linux under control!) in the light of what you wrote.
God bless.
In peace and love
Patrick
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: zjimward 2003-10-22 09:55:45 In reply to: Rob Enderle
I agree with your depicition of people, with a minor correction on the Linux Pros. Like all professionals in the business industry, they are pretty much bound by the opinion of management and the fact that they have to play politics. Some may even seem open to ideas, but generally stick with what they know will work and pass managements approval. This to me makes most Pros close minded, not open minded, because they only see a narrow picture in order to keep their jobs.
Now that you've singled out the three faces of Linux, I'm hoping you'll do the same with the business/corporations, like Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. For Pros, Priests and Zealots exists in all of these environments. In fact, I' hoping you'll spend as much time on their negative sides as you did the negative faces of the Linux people. For isn't it the truth that human nature remembers the negative far longer than the positive? Like watching the news, does any one ever remember the human interest story? No, they remember the war news, the murders and all the bad. The fact is no one will remember that you spent 267 words to present a positive side. They'll remember only the 430 word used to get acrossed the negative point.
It appears that if we want to foster the good in all environments that we must point out more of the positive and less of the negative.
Now that you've singled out the three faces of Linux, I'm hoping you'll do the same with the business/corporations, like Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. For Pros, Priests and Zealots exists in all of these environments. In fact, I' hoping you'll spend as much time on their negative sides as you did the negative faces of the Linux people. For isn't it the truth that human nature remembers the negative far longer than the positive? Like watching the news, does any one ever remember the human interest story? No, they remember the war news, the murders and all the bad. The fact is no one will remember that you spent 267 words to present a positive side. They'll remember only the 430 word used to get acrossed the negative point.
It appears that if we want to foster the good in all environments that we must point out more of the positive and less of the negative.
it is clear where you are comming from.
Posted by: jk_schnider 2003-10-21 22:07:08 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Interesting read. Your post clearly demonstrates that you fails to understand something.
At the end of the day, when u ae talking to *nix or windows guys, we are not refering to the laymen. we are referring to techies.. (I hope that we are talking about the same group).
Majority of techies happen to be engineers. And Engineers have one fundamental belief:
"If somethng works, it simply does not have enough features"
This is in complete contrast to the "managerial" a.k.a adminsitration guys who tend to take things like -- "If not broken, dont fix" -- as you already pointed.
This fundamental difference will always lead to issues like you posts. I think it is time for you to go to Dilbert.com and get some bright ideas :-)
Rgds,
jk_schnider
At the end of the day, when u ae talking to *nix or windows guys, we are not refering to the laymen. we are referring to techies.. (I hope that we are talking about the same group).
Majority of techies happen to be engineers. And Engineers have one fundamental belief:
"If somethng works, it simply does not have enough features"
This is in complete contrast to the "managerial" a.k.a adminsitration guys who tend to take things like -- "If not broken, dont fix" -- as you already pointed.
This fundamental difference will always lead to issues like you posts. I think it is time for you to go to Dilbert.com and get some bright ideas :-)
Rgds,
jk_schnider
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Daemon 2003-10-21 21:09:14 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Well Rob,
There are several things I would like to say. Your article is very biased. That will instantly get you flamed in emails. I am sorry that it is that way though. Every group has it's misfits, just look at our societies jail systems. I am also sorry that you have had such a bad expierence with "Linux Zelots". I would consider myself a "Priest" as you termed it. I do so because I find that there is little that most users do that require Microsoft software. For the most part, oss is capable of doing what most users need ie. net browsing, word processing, email, appointment keeping. I use linux because I don't see a point in paying 300 dollars plus for something that I can get for free.
I disagree with your sentiments on the SCO case. That is a case where neither side has presented its true case (all of it has been press releases, mostly pertaining to copyrights and not the contract that has been breached). There are many factors that will be needed to be decided in court that we will not see. That case can go any direction. Basing your opinions on how that case will turn out due to oss' equivilent of a social misfit is strongly discouraged.
I use Linux but manage a WIN2K network. I have yet to find anything that I do on that network that I couldn't do on a OSS network. That is up to my employers though.
I do believe that some of the anti MS sentiment of the open source community is due to lack of control. I can fine tune my system more in Linux than I can in Windows. The security issue is fairly moot. There have been numerous patches released for GNU/Linux this year as well. I am of the firm belief that Windows is the target of most of the hackers out there because it is the biggest target. If Linux was more widely used, then it would be hacked more. Just look at the reported number of detected intrusions on web servers last year and my point is made.
Please don't judge the who community by a few idiots with keyboards. That is like judging (insert any ethnic background here) Americans by what we have in prison.
If you have had a bad expierence with Linux before and are willing to try it again, just give me an email. I will gladly help you in every way that I can. I only ask that you judge the OS on it's own merrits and not of the merits of it's users.
Scythefwd@yahoo.com
(real name not given for security reasons)
There are several things I would like to say. Your article is very biased. That will instantly get you flamed in emails. I am sorry that it is that way though. Every group has it's misfits, just look at our societies jail systems. I am also sorry that you have had such a bad expierence with "Linux Zelots". I would consider myself a "Priest" as you termed it. I do so because I find that there is little that most users do that require Microsoft software. For the most part, oss is capable of doing what most users need ie. net browsing, word processing, email, appointment keeping. I use linux because I don't see a point in paying 300 dollars plus for something that I can get for free.
I disagree with your sentiments on the SCO case. That is a case where neither side has presented its true case (all of it has been press releases, mostly pertaining to copyrights and not the contract that has been breached). There are many factors that will be needed to be decided in court that we will not see. That case can go any direction. Basing your opinions on how that case will turn out due to oss' equivilent of a social misfit is strongly discouraged.
I use Linux but manage a WIN2K network. I have yet to find anything that I do on that network that I couldn't do on a OSS network. That is up to my employers though.
I do believe that some of the anti MS sentiment of the open source community is due to lack of control. I can fine tune my system more in Linux than I can in Windows. The security issue is fairly moot. There have been numerous patches released for GNU/Linux this year as well. I am of the firm belief that Windows is the target of most of the hackers out there because it is the biggest target. If Linux was more widely used, then it would be hacked more. Just look at the reported number of detected intrusions on web servers last year and my point is made.
Please don't judge the who community by a few idiots with keyboards. That is like judging (insert any ethnic background here) Americans by what we have in prison.
If you have had a bad expierence with Linux before and are willing to try it again, just give me an email. I will gladly help you in every way that I can. I only ask that you judge the OS on it's own merrits and not of the merits of it's users.
Scythefwd@yahoo.com
(real name not given for security reasons)
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Timex 2003-10-21 19:48:50 In reply to: Rob Enderle
I thought this was an interesting article, but I also had a few problems with it.
1. Basing one's opinion on a group because of a (confessed) vocal minority is foolish.
2. My severe opinion(s) about Microsoft took years to come to fruition. Way back when Windows 3.1 was the "new thing", I gave it an honest shot. When I couldn't get it to do what I wanted, I found people that knew it better than I did, and THEY couldn't help me. I gave each Windows OS a shot as they came out (until Win2k, which I have only just now started to use, and XP I have only seen on other people's systems), and they failed when it came to doing tasks I considered critical at the time. Consistent dropping-of-the-ball on Microsoft's part are only part of why I don't care for them. Their politics and business practices are the rest.
3. As much as I like Linux (it is my OS of choice), I accept the fact that it is not always the best OS for a particular task. If one just needs a quick-and-dirty system for an end-user, a low-end Windows OS will fit the bill. If money is a factor (and you do not want to or cannot deal with license issues), perhaps a free unix variant will suffice, if there is a Techie that can get it configured to do what needs to be done. It depends largely on what you want to do with the system.
As far as the three classifications go, I found facets of myself in each. There really should have been more than those three.
1. Basing one's opinion on a group because of a (confessed) vocal minority is foolish.
2. My severe opinion(s) about Microsoft took years to come to fruition. Way back when Windows 3.1 was the "new thing", I gave it an honest shot. When I couldn't get it to do what I wanted, I found people that knew it better than I did, and THEY couldn't help me. I gave each Windows OS a shot as they came out (until Win2k, which I have only just now started to use, and XP I have only seen on other people's systems), and they failed when it came to doing tasks I considered critical at the time. Consistent dropping-of-the-ball on Microsoft's part are only part of why I don't care for them. Their politics and business practices are the rest.
3. As much as I like Linux (it is my OS of choice), I accept the fact that it is not always the best OS for a particular task. If one just needs a quick-and-dirty system for an end-user, a low-end Windows OS will fit the bill. If money is a factor (and you do not want to or cannot deal with license issues), perhaps a free unix variant will suffice, if there is a Techie that can get it configured to do what needs to be done. It depends largely on what you want to do with the system.
As far as the three classifications go, I found facets of myself in each. There really should have been more than those three.
what about the people who have tried/own all 3 major OS's (Linux, MS, and OS X) and are above average to expert users on all 3 that choose linux and attempt to get others to choose linux for desktop use.
A. desktop use: meaning I understand MS might be good for other things like web development platform (my primary use as of late).
B. Do you have a problem with someone trying to get someone to convert to using linux if they have evaluated all 3 for the specific use of a desktop (browsing, office, etc.) but realize that MS is more useful for other things (say for web-development, especially if flash is involved, macromedia products are basically unrivaled as far as I've seen in OpenSource)
C. Your shaping your view from the zealots is as bad as calling all Muslims evil. Shape your view from the Pros, they are always the greatest common denominator, maybe the Zealots are more vocal, but that is no way to shape an opinion of a group of people.
Otherwise I basically agree with your assesment of the types of people, however this doesn't apply only to OpenSource but to all issues. Your article is nothing new, there are always Zealots, Priests and Pros in all things, thats how the society works. The question is Mr. Enderle, what are you in your beliefs? Are you a zealot for MS maybe, or a priest (not realizing it of course), or are you really an objective Pro?
A. desktop use: meaning I understand MS might be good for other things like web development platform (my primary use as of late).
B. Do you have a problem with someone trying to get someone to convert to using linux if they have evaluated all 3 for the specific use of a desktop (browsing, office, etc.) but realize that MS is more useful for other things (say for web-development, especially if flash is involved, macromedia products are basically unrivaled as far as I've seen in OpenSource)
C. Your shaping your view from the zealots is as bad as calling all Muslims evil. Shape your view from the Pros, they are always the greatest common denominator, maybe the Zealots are more vocal, but that is no way to shape an opinion of a group of people.
Otherwise I basically agree with your assesment of the types of people, however this doesn't apply only to OpenSource but to all issues. Your article is nothing new, there are always Zealots, Priests and Pros in all things, thats how the society works. The question is Mr. Enderle, what are you in your beliefs? Are you a zealot for MS maybe, or a priest (not realizing it of course), or are you really an objective Pro?
Well said. I am not a programmer but I have used all of the windows and three of the major Linux distros (SUSE, Redhat/Fedora, and Mandrake) and I have come to the conclusion that although I would like Linux for everything, it just can not be. In my case, I need a CAD program that is capable of working with Autocad files. To date, I can only get this using a windows box. A dual boot system is my current arrangement. Also, for file servers, Linux is used in our office. We had a mail server running Windows 2000 but it got broken into and we realized it is much easier to use a web/mail service (using Redhat) than keeping up security.
Please keep in mind that we use open source programs on our windows boxes too. OpenOffice, mysql, etc.
What I find disingenuous with Windows zealots (Steve Balmer being their ayatollah) is that they use as much smoke and mirrors as the so-called Linux zealots.
Please keep in mind that we use open source programs on our windows boxes too. OpenOffice, mysql, etc.
What I find disingenuous with Windows zealots (Steve Balmer being their ayatollah) is that they use as much smoke and mirrors as the so-called Linux zealots.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: sinp 2003-10-21 16:19:58 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Hi!
<b>
The Linux Zealots generally hide behind phony names on the Internet -- often, in fact, names of male body parts. The Zealots are rude and crude, and the sentence "two beers short of a six-pack" defines them well. </b>
Let me point out that these stereotypes are not perfectly correct. I, for one, "hide" behind a phony name inspired by a male body part. I am not a terrorist. Although I would encourage everybody to use free open source software, I realize everybody should make his/her own choice based on his/her views (or whatever).
Denes Balatoni
pnis at coder dot hu
<b>
The Linux Zealots generally hide behind phony names on the Internet -- often, in fact, names of male body parts. The Zealots are rude and crude, and the sentence "two beers short of a six-pack" defines them well. </b>
Let me point out that these stereotypes are not perfectly correct. I, for one, "hide" behind a phony name inspired by a male body part. I am not a terrorist. Although I would encourage everybody to use free open source software, I realize everybody should make his/her own choice based on his/her views (or whatever).
Denes Balatoni
pnis at coder dot hu
help, my neighbors are communists!
Posted by: yossarian 2003-10-21 13:10:03 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Or are they terrorists...I can't remember...maybe they're geeks...whatever they are, they're scary and I don't like 'em!
September 11th sure has taught us a lot hasn't it. It taught us that anybody who is passionate about anything is probably going to kill a few thousand people at any given moment...at least that seems to be what you got out of it.
Well lock your doors and hide your children, because I just saw a guy all painted up at a football game. There's no telling how many people he'll senselessly murder when his team loses.
What an amazing exploitation of the lives of everyone who died at the hands of people who thought they would be greeted warmly in heaven if they could just kill themselves with a few thousand others. We're talking about an operating system. You toss the word "terrorist" around like it's a punchline.
Well, last I checked, whenever we have a serious threat on our hand, history shows our policy to be to round up everybody that has any association whatsoever...like rounding up all the Japanese Americans in World War Two...I think you said you've used Linux before...uh oh...
I'd be careful equating terrorism with with anything involving passionate opinions at all. Replace this topic with any thing else, it's the same issue. Nobody ever told a Chicago Cubs fan that they would go to heaven if they managed to murder a few thousand people in Atlanta.
September 11th sure has taught us a lot hasn't it. It taught us that anybody who is passionate about anything is probably going to kill a few thousand people at any given moment...at least that seems to be what you got out of it.
Well lock your doors and hide your children, because I just saw a guy all painted up at a football game. There's no telling how many people he'll senselessly murder when his team loses.
What an amazing exploitation of the lives of everyone who died at the hands of people who thought they would be greeted warmly in heaven if they could just kill themselves with a few thousand others. We're talking about an operating system. You toss the word "terrorist" around like it's a punchline.
Well, last I checked, whenever we have a serious threat on our hand, history shows our policy to be to round up everybody that has any association whatsoever...like rounding up all the Japanese Americans in World War Two...I think you said you've used Linux before...uh oh...
I'd be careful equating terrorism with with anything involving passionate opinions at all. Replace this topic with any thing else, it's the same issue. Nobody ever told a Chicago Cubs fan that they would go to heaven if they managed to murder a few thousand people in Atlanta.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: gatorarts 2003-10-21 12:21:44 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Dear Mr. Enderle,
I found most of your opinions to be well spoken and insightful. It is unfortunate that you chose to focus on just one sector of the IT community, as is mentioned oft in the comments that have already been posted, there are zealots, priests and pros in any endeavor worth supporting. If you had chosen to write about those who like Ford Mustangs as you have about Linux and OSS users, I think you would get the same range of responses.
There is just one leap of logic I just can’t take with you:
"These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
This is a lawsuit brought by SCO against IBM not against a bunch of "IANAL" zealots. This suit will be tried in a court of law not on the internet or in some dark back room. ( or anyplace else zealots like to hang out.) This case will be judged on the bases of law, not lies or propaganda spread in the press or online. I have to assume from your statement that you believe IBM to be a bunch of Linux zealots, since they are the ones that will need to address the accusations of SCO, not a faceless online community. By making such a pronouncement, you have, before all, based your faith in SCO in credulity (The absence of facts.) You have chosen to side with SCO because you can’t stand Linux and the brand of Zealots it produces, not necessarily because you have seen facts to the contrary.
It is this one statement that casts a shadow of bias, not open-mindedness on your other stated opinions, and invites the the kind of zeal you seem to dislike.
For you to complain about the response you get for the opinions you express is silly. You have chosen to get paid to say your mind. You will be exposed to the minds of others. The Good, The Bad, and the down-right Ugly. If you can't take the heat, get out of the press room.
Steve S.
I found most of your opinions to be well spoken and insightful. It is unfortunate that you chose to focus on just one sector of the IT community, as is mentioned oft in the comments that have already been posted, there are zealots, priests and pros in any endeavor worth supporting. If you had chosen to write about those who like Ford Mustangs as you have about Linux and OSS users, I think you would get the same range of responses.
There is just one leap of logic I just can’t take with you:
"These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
This is a lawsuit brought by SCO against IBM not against a bunch of "IANAL" zealots. This suit will be tried in a court of law not on the internet or in some dark back room. ( or anyplace else zealots like to hang out.) This case will be judged on the bases of law, not lies or propaganda spread in the press or online. I have to assume from your statement that you believe IBM to be a bunch of Linux zealots, since they are the ones that will need to address the accusations of SCO, not a faceless online community. By making such a pronouncement, you have, before all, based your faith in SCO in credulity (The absence of facts.) You have chosen to side with SCO because you can’t stand Linux and the brand of Zealots it produces, not necessarily because you have seen facts to the contrary.
It is this one statement that casts a shadow of bias, not open-mindedness on your other stated opinions, and invites the the kind of zeal you seem to dislike.
For you to complain about the response you get for the opinions you express is silly. You have chosen to get paid to say your mind. You will be exposed to the minds of others. The Good, The Bad, and the down-right Ugly. If you can't take the heat, get out of the press room.
Steve S.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: cypherpunks 2003-10-21 11:46:52 In reply to: Rob Enderle
"These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
.
THIS is what your metric is for determining if one company has a case against another? Is this what an analyst does for a living? Make judgements based on email rather than ANALYZING?
.
I seem to recall that in another article of your's "http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31479.html"
.
You claimed:
.
* One of the strongest indications I have that SCO might win is that several of the financial analyst groups who work with me, after reviewing the SCO submissions, have concluded that SCO might actually have the advantage.
- you never named any of your financial analysts group though.
.
* When I tried to point out that SCO might actually be in the right, suddenly the attacks shifted to me in a very personal way in an apparent attempt to shut me up.
- you never explained why you think SCO might be in the right, and your explanation in this arcticle is the first *I* have ever seen. You should also publish the emails, I'd like to see them.
.
* At the time, I wasn't siding with SCO, I was just pointing out that the company's position might have merit, and that I knew some of the folks and they weren't as evil as people seemed to think. I'm an analyst; this was analysis.
- you again never have shown any analysis why SCO might be in the right, you even missed IBM's ammended contract, even though it was repeatedly pointed out to you: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
.
* You stated in that article "What seemed to be different was that the open-source community seemed collectively to say, "Theft is okay as long as we benefit.""
- which is, frankly, an outright lie. The Linux community from day one has offered to mitigate, it's SCO preventing mitigation. The offer to mitigate is still open incidentally.
.
What is fascinating is that in this current article, you state "Attack first. If you kill the messenger, you can always apologize later." - this seems to be YOUR behavior, not our's. When SCO loses their court case against both IBM and Red Hat, where will you be?
.
Incidentally, why don't you point out all the lies in all these threads below? I'd like to see them.
.
THIS is what your metric is for determining if one company has a case against another? Is this what an analyst does for a living? Make judgements based on email rather than ANALYZING?
.
I seem to recall that in another article of your's "http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31479.html"
.
You claimed:
.
* One of the strongest indications I have that SCO might win is that several of the financial analyst groups who work with me, after reviewing the SCO submissions, have concluded that SCO might actually have the advantage.
- you never named any of your financial analysts group though.
.
* When I tried to point out that SCO might actually be in the right, suddenly the attacks shifted to me in a very personal way in an apparent attempt to shut me up.
- you never explained why you think SCO might be in the right, and your explanation in this arcticle is the first *I* have ever seen. You should also publish the emails, I'd like to see them.
.
* At the time, I wasn't siding with SCO, I was just pointing out that the company's position might have merit, and that I knew some of the folks and they weren't as evil as people seemed to think. I'm an analyst; this was analysis.
- you again never have shown any analysis why SCO might be in the right, you even missed IBM's ammended contract, even though it was repeatedly pointed out to you: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
.
* You stated in that article "What seemed to be different was that the open-source community seemed collectively to say, "Theft is okay as long as we benefit.""
- which is, frankly, an outright lie. The Linux community from day one has offered to mitigate, it's SCO preventing mitigation. The offer to mitigate is still open incidentally.
.
What is fascinating is that in this current article, you state "Attack first. If you kill the messenger, you can always apologize later." - this seems to be YOUR behavior, not our's. When SCO loses their court case against both IBM and Red Hat, where will you be?
.
Incidentally, why don't you point out all the lies in all these threads below? I'd like to see them.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: saigumi 2003-10-21 11:40:00 In reply to: Rob Enderle
So, let me get this straight. IBM will lose to SCO because of some 3rd party zealots. I hardly believe that the zealots will be the ones in suits and ties reading dockets and displaying evidence. Those people are known as lawyers and they are hired by people who have a clue, otherwise known as "Professionals".
Then, you go on to stereotype a set of people into three categories and claim that one third of that set is criminial, terroristic destructors. The second is self-righteous mouthpieces. The last is people who are ambigous and are only intellegent because they believe the same way as you. If you had instead changed the word "Linux" to "African American" you'd have quite a few organizations delivering supeona's to your door instead of rather comparitively benign and possibly self-imagined "DoS" threats. The "Zealots" would be people like Jesse Jackson. The "Priests" would be people like Al Sharpton. The "Professionals" would be people like Collin Powell. (I chose Collin for this because he is a professional and according to your definition, he fits.)
While I don't use Linux, I am an Open Source user and developer and I take great offense at this form of pidgeon-holing. You can claim that this is a piece asking the Open Source community to "Clean Up" and not be as enthusiastic in their ways like 99.9% of Windows/AOL users. Oh.. did I just make a stereo-type? Shame on me... At least it was a personal opinion and doesn't reflect on the credibility of my employer. I better get my anti-DoS defenses up and running when all the Windows/AOL Zealots start bashing my server and threating my life.
Then, you go on to stereotype a set of people into three categories and claim that one third of that set is criminial, terroristic destructors. The second is self-righteous mouthpieces. The last is people who are ambigous and are only intellegent because they believe the same way as you. If you had instead changed the word "Linux" to "African American" you'd have quite a few organizations delivering supeona's to your door instead of rather comparitively benign and possibly self-imagined "DoS" threats. The "Zealots" would be people like Jesse Jackson. The "Priests" would be people like Al Sharpton. The "Professionals" would be people like Collin Powell. (I chose Collin for this because he is a professional and according to your definition, he fits.)
While I don't use Linux, I am an Open Source user and developer and I take great offense at this form of pidgeon-holing. You can claim that this is a piece asking the Open Source community to "Clean Up" and not be as enthusiastic in their ways like 99.9% of Windows/AOL users. Oh.. did I just make a stereo-type? Shame on me... At least it was a personal opinion and doesn't reflect on the credibility of my employer. I better get my anti-DoS defenses up and running when all the Windows/AOL Zealots start bashing my server and threating my life.
I use Linux and I have a love/hate relationship with that "wretched hive of scum and villainy" known as Slashdot, so it is with great hesitation that I am posting the following:
.
The Rules of Slashdot
.
1) You can't talk about the rules of Slashdot.
2) Never read the article before commenting on it.
3) Anything proprietary is bad. Anything open-source/free-software is good.
4) Information wants to be free. So IP theft is OK and encouraged.
5) All patents are BAD and should be abolished.
6) Practicality is irrelevant. Running Linux on any piece of hardware that was not meant to run Linux such as a toaster, toilet, or toothbrush is considered uber cool and totally 133t.
7) If you have stolen source code from a previous employer (see Death Star) use the GPL to liberate and protect it, then post it anonymously on the Internet. Using a free hosting site like SourceForge(tm) works best.
8) Open-source/free-software really is communism but you can't admit this publicly. Flame into submission anyone that even hints at the communist connection.
9) Software licenses don't destroy jobs, CEO's do. It is OK for open-source/free-software to destroy domestic software jobs. It is BAD when domestic software jobs are sent overseas "off-shored" to countries with cheap labour rates such as India or China. Yes, hypocrisy is sweet.
10) Those who actually do the work don't waste their time posting on Slashdot.
11) Trolls that push the Slashdot agenda are GOOD. Trolls that offer a differing viewpoint are BAD. Yes, the hypocrisy is again sweet.
12) CmdrTaco can't speell correctly or form coherent sentences and neither should you or me.
13) Slashdot is the new world order and all your base are belong to us!
.
You might think the above 13 rules are a joke. They are not. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I know I am.
.
BTW, I really enjoyed Enderle's article. I thought his 3 rules were right on the money. I believe Linux's worst enemy isn't Microsoft or SCO but is in fact the Linux community, or at least the ones that post on Slashdot. To categorize myself I'd say that I am a Linux Zealot but I see the truth. Gates and Stallman are the extremes, the true path is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am a BSD user and I just don't know it?
.
The Rules of Slashdot
.
1) You can't talk about the rules of Slashdot.
2) Never read the article before commenting on it.
3) Anything proprietary is bad. Anything open-source/free-software is good.
4) Information wants to be free. So IP theft is OK and encouraged.
5) All patents are BAD and should be abolished.
6) Practicality is irrelevant. Running Linux on any piece of hardware that was not meant to run Linux such as a toaster, toilet, or toothbrush is considered uber cool and totally 133t.
7) If you have stolen source code from a previous employer (see Death Star) use the GPL to liberate and protect it, then post it anonymously on the Internet. Using a free hosting site like SourceForge(tm) works best.
8) Open-source/free-software really is communism but you can't admit this publicly. Flame into submission anyone that even hints at the communist connection.
9) Software licenses don't destroy jobs, CEO's do. It is OK for open-source/free-software to destroy domestic software jobs. It is BAD when domestic software jobs are sent overseas "off-shored" to countries with cheap labour rates such as India or China. Yes, hypocrisy is sweet.
10) Those who actually do the work don't waste their time posting on Slashdot.
11) Trolls that push the Slashdot agenda are GOOD. Trolls that offer a differing viewpoint are BAD. Yes, the hypocrisy is again sweet.
12) CmdrTaco can't speell correctly or form coherent sentences and neither should you or me.
13) Slashdot is the new world order and all your base are belong to us!
.
You might think the above 13 rules are a joke. They are not. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I know I am.
.
BTW, I really enjoyed Enderle's article. I thought his 3 rules were right on the money. I believe Linux's worst enemy isn't Microsoft or SCO but is in fact the Linux community, or at least the ones that post on Slashdot. To categorize myself I'd say that I am a Linux Zealot but I see the truth. Gates and Stallman are the extremes, the true path is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am a BSD user and I just don't know it?
Someone should submit your comment to Webster. It could replace their feeble definition of irony.
Can someone rectify the following for me:
"As you read this, put yourself in the position of an analyst or journalist faced with meeting similar people and ask yourself which group would have the greatest impact on your beliefs."
Then in the Pro's section you go on to say:
"In other words, these are people I would either like to work for or have work for me."
Kind of answered your own question.
Further I have to question the value of a journalist or analyst who readily admits that he can't see the forest (Open Source) because of all the trees (Zealots). Just like any other movement, Open Source has some undesirable members, but as a journalist or an analyst your job is to cut through the tripe of the minorities involved and find the facts.
Thank you for admitting that you don;t have the facts on Open Source, and that you likely won't get the facts because you let fringe members of a group, who you know for what they really are, to color your impressions of the movement. So because some Open Source people are flaky or irresponsible you find that sufficient grounds not to establish the truth?
If you can't remain as objective as the Pro's are about OSes in forming your own opinion of Open Source, since you readily admit that your position on Open Source is defiuned by the zealots, despite your frank admiration of the Pros, then how is anyone supposed to take your criticism and suppositions about the zealots seriously.
I'm all for humility, but destroying your own credibility on the score ceratinly sets a new benchmark on that score...
Really, I'm a Pro, at least by your definition, and by your own definition, you are not.
"As you read this, put yourself in the position of an analyst or journalist faced with meeting similar people and ask yourself which group would have the greatest impact on your beliefs."
Then in the Pro's section you go on to say:
"In other words, these are people I would either like to work for or have work for me."
Kind of answered your own question.
Further I have to question the value of a journalist or analyst who readily admits that he can't see the forest (Open Source) because of all the trees (Zealots). Just like any other movement, Open Source has some undesirable members, but as a journalist or an analyst your job is to cut through the tripe of the minorities involved and find the facts.
Thank you for admitting that you don;t have the facts on Open Source, and that you likely won't get the facts because you let fringe members of a group, who you know for what they really are, to color your impressions of the movement. So because some Open Source people are flaky or irresponsible you find that sufficient grounds not to establish the truth?
If you can't remain as objective as the Pro's are about OSes in forming your own opinion of Open Source, since you readily admit that your position on Open Source is defiuned by the zealots, despite your frank admiration of the Pros, then how is anyone supposed to take your criticism and suppositions about the zealots seriously.
I'm all for humility, but destroying your own credibility on the score ceratinly sets a new benchmark on that score...
Really, I'm a Pro, at least by your definition, and by your own definition, you are not.
What a terrific job of proving the writer's point! Read (or re-read) the article. It was as close to 1,000% correct as anything I've ever read on Linux.
"can't see the forest for the trees". HUH?
You know, the word ignorance comes from the Latin
for "ignore" ance. That is what so many of you jokers do really - ignore. I often wonder if it comes from some sort of underlying void, or longing to be part of something "bigger than oneself". Join the peace Corp or something would ya!
Here is the point:
The PROS have it figured out. Linux can be be superb as the right tool. So can other O/S's. We are not MARRIED to any of this stuff. We do a JOB in the IT industry. Move out of your parents basement and get some fresh air and sunshine once in awhile.
-Z-
"can't see the forest for the trees". HUH?
You know, the word ignorance comes from the Latin
for "ignore" ance. That is what so many of you jokers do really - ignore. I often wonder if it comes from some sort of underlying void, or longing to be part of something "bigger than oneself". Join the peace Corp or something would ya!
Here is the point:
The PROS have it figured out. Linux can be be superb as the right tool. So can other O/S's. We are not MARRIED to any of this stuff. We do a JOB in the IT industry. Move out of your parents basement and get some fresh air and sunshine once in awhile.
-Z-
May be you should read some more on linux. It sounds like you've just been reading the "zealots" material. At least when I try and make a point I get more than one perspective to back myself up.
Oh, and if you arn't "married to any of this stuff" why are you being so ratty in your response?
\/
"Move out of your parents basement and get some fresh air and sunshine once in awhile."
bex
Oh, and if you arn't "married to any of this stuff" why are you being so ratty in your response?
\/
"Move out of your parents basement and get some fresh air and sunshine once in awhile."
bex
It appears that you just proved the point that Zealots exists all over, not just in the Linux community.
<<"can't see the forest for the trees". HUH?
You know, the word ignorance comes from the Latin
for "ignore" ance. That is what so many of you jokers do really - ignore. >>
.
Surely you have to be joking. Enderle is claiming that the reason he thinks that SCO is going to win in court is because of a bunch of crap a bunch of morons are saying. Enderle is claiming to be an ANALYST. How idiotic do you have to be to base your expectation on a court outcome based on what a bunch of people on the INTERNET say. None of it is admissible.
.
Never mind the fact that SCO has already been beaten to a pulp in Germany by LinuxTag. Forget the IBM has more lawyers than SCO has employees. Never mind the fact that SCO lied in their initial filing about their marketshare and ownership rights. Forget the McBride, Sontag, and Stowell have been caught in NUMEROUS lies since this began. It all boils down to a bunch of un-named zealots on the net - that will determine the court case, not the facts.
.
This is from an analyst, supposedly. An objective well informed impartial observer. Sure.
You know, the word ignorance comes from the Latin
for "ignore" ance. That is what so many of you jokers do really - ignore. >>
.
Surely you have to be joking. Enderle is claiming that the reason he thinks that SCO is going to win in court is because of a bunch of crap a bunch of morons are saying. Enderle is claiming to be an ANALYST. How idiotic do you have to be to base your expectation on a court outcome based on what a bunch of people on the INTERNET say. None of it is admissible.
.
Never mind the fact that SCO has already been beaten to a pulp in Germany by LinuxTag. Forget the IBM has more lawyers than SCO has employees. Never mind the fact that SCO lied in their initial filing about their marketshare and ownership rights. Forget the McBride, Sontag, and Stowell have been caught in NUMEROUS lies since this began. It all boils down to a bunch of un-named zealots on the net - that will determine the court case, not the facts.
.
This is from an analyst, supposedly. An objective well informed impartial observer. Sure.
'1,000%'?
Nope no Zealot in here, just us 'Pro's'.
Nope no Zealot in here, just us 'Pro's'.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: laytonbaker 2003-10-21 10:48:13 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Your article is poorly construed. I'm sure you have covered elsewhere why you believe SCO will win...from everything I have read on the topic, including the what court docments are public and relevant from the old BSD/AT&T fiasco, it seems eminent that SCO will not prevail and may in fact lose all future possibility of liscense revenue for SysV.
At any rate, don't you feel a little bit obtuse to categorize open source supporters into threeboxes which you yourself label and describe with high subjectivity. And I believe that you significantly misconstrue those three boxes in the first place.
In my experience, true PRO's are few and far between...you don't know that many and you certainly can't whether they truly know the ins and outs of Win and Unix platforms by conversing via email.
"Priests" are simply philosophers but you must remember...whatever you may believe...the open source movement is primarily a philosophy in nature...so you have to expect a run in with the occasional philosopher. And often times, philiosophers (priests) or set on the opensource dogma because they were and are true PRO's who know the dirty little secrets of proprietary platforms.
Zealots are an unfortunate nusance (sp?) but honestly...most of these people are highschool and college kids who got a Linux install to boot once and zealous due to the perceived geek factor...they are loud and noisy because they don't have jobs or least jobs that require them to stay busy. But they are a far cry from hijacking planes and running them into the world trade towers...so please, cut the ridiculous comparisons to 9/11... it cheapens the memmory of that infamous event and is really un-imaginative on your part. If some band of wild linux zealots hacks into and destroys the computer systems of major banks and credit companies in the name of free software, you can call me on my criticism of your 9/11 allusion.
Also, in any good piece if ciritical journalism, it is general practice to acknowledge arguments made by the "opposition" and address them. whatever your stance, it is hard to ignore glaring flaws inherent in the Win platform/business system.
Layton
At any rate, don't you feel a little bit obtuse to categorize open source supporters into threeboxes which you yourself label and describe with high subjectivity. And I believe that you significantly misconstrue those three boxes in the first place.
In my experience, true PRO's are few and far between...you don't know that many and you certainly can't whether they truly know the ins and outs of Win and Unix platforms by conversing via email.
"Priests" are simply philosophers but you must remember...whatever you may believe...the open source movement is primarily a philosophy in nature...so you have to expect a run in with the occasional philosopher. And often times, philiosophers (priests) or set on the opensource dogma because they were and are true PRO's who know the dirty little secrets of proprietary platforms.
Zealots are an unfortunate nusance (sp?) but honestly...most of these people are highschool and college kids who got a Linux install to boot once and zealous due to the perceived geek factor...they are loud and noisy because they don't have jobs or least jobs that require them to stay busy. But they are a far cry from hijacking planes and running them into the world trade towers...so please, cut the ridiculous comparisons to 9/11... it cheapens the memmory of that infamous event and is really un-imaginative on your part. If some band of wild linux zealots hacks into and destroys the computer systems of major banks and credit companies in the name of free software, you can call me on my criticism of your 9/11 allusion.
Also, in any good piece if ciritical journalism, it is general practice to acknowledge arguments made by the "opposition" and address them. whatever your stance, it is hard to ignore glaring flaws inherent in the Win platform/business system.
Layton
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: KrisJ 2003-10-21 10:18:41 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Rob, one thing I wonder about is why would you let zealots to form your opinion about an entire open source community?
I think that the Pro/Priest/Zealot categorization can be applied to any community. Reach and anonymity offered by Internet gives zealots an opportunity to voice their "opinion" without facing any responsibility for it.
I also observed that zealots are often people that don't know much about the subject, don't have skills to get stuff done, but still have egos and like attention. Usually they wouldn't have a gut to stand up and say the same thing looking their opponent in the eye. But they will surely vent their zeal while hiding behind a bogus nickname on an Internet forum. They will say anything to stick out. Does it make sense that it affects one's broad picture?
Kris
I think that the Pro/Priest/Zealot categorization can be applied to any community. Reach and anonymity offered by Internet gives zealots an opportunity to voice their "opinion" without facing any responsibility for it.
I also observed that zealots are often people that don't know much about the subject, don't have skills to get stuff done, but still have egos and like attention. Usually they wouldn't have a gut to stand up and say the same thing looking their opponent in the eye. But they will surely vent their zeal while hiding behind a bogus nickname on an Internet forum. They will say anything to stick out. Does it make sense that it affects one's broad picture?
Kris
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: thaleus 2003-10-21 09:36:14 In reply to: Rob Enderle
I have been using computers since 1977. I've seen countless platforms come and go. Almost every one of them had advantages and disadvantages. I am a capitalist through and through. I tend to support computer platforms that don't lock you in to one vendor or another. I like Linux a little, I prefer BSD, I like Windows a little. I'm a Unix Systems Admin by trade, I used to be an NT admin. The one thing I have constantly noticed is the fact that I have yet to meet an NT admin who is trained at any other operating system than Windows. I find it sort of like eating quiche every day, how will you know there is something better or worse till you've tried something different. I want competition, I want many OS's. I want the OS to be largely irrelevant when it comes to which apps you'd prefer to run. In the Unix community, I see that. On MacOSX, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, etc...etc...etc... for the most part you can run the exact same applications, thus it all comes down to which hardware platform will give you the most bang for the buck. I also, from a business standpoint, would hesitate to put myself at liability by any measure if it means that I can be penalized $150,000 for each and every copy of software that's not licensed. Especially when most companies, Unix, and Windows alike tend to make it so very difficult to keep track of your licensing. For me, most often open source allows me to mitigate that liability.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: Viking 2003-10-21 08:27:47 In reply to: Rob Enderle
*****quote*****
Why are all of these developers spending their time hacking the kernel, the drivers, and the applications that make up a typical GNU/Linux distribution?
***quote***
Bragging rights. Not because they have an undying love for each other and care if l33tgvy sleeps well at night. 15 minutes of digital fame is nice.
There's so many things I could quote, but I'll wrap it up as such: those that are flying off the handle, issuing challenges, bets, sending letters of hatemail, foaming at the bit and indeed responding like you're 2 cans short of a six pack, you're exactly the irrational ones he's referring to.
The ones that create the bad metallic taste in the mouth. The ones, that while trying most vehemently to defend the open source community, give it a black eye. Relax and reread the article. I didn't get the impression that he was saying you're going to strap a bomb to your butt and blow up a nursery.
Some of you do sound like (as logical as) The Iraqi Information Minister.
Why are all of these developers spending their time hacking the kernel, the drivers, and the applications that make up a typical GNU/Linux distribution?
***quote***
Bragging rights. Not because they have an undying love for each other and care if l33tgvy sleeps well at night. 15 minutes of digital fame is nice.
There's so many things I could quote, but I'll wrap it up as such: those that are flying off the handle, issuing challenges, bets, sending letters of hatemail, foaming at the bit and indeed responding like you're 2 cans short of a six pack, you're exactly the irrational ones he's referring to.
The ones that create the bad metallic taste in the mouth. The ones, that while trying most vehemently to defend the open source community, give it a black eye. Relax and reread the article. I didn't get the impression that he was saying you're going to strap a bomb to your butt and blow up a nursery.
Some of you do sound like (as logical as) The Iraqi Information Minister.
Sir, I just want to know one thing. Have you ever used Linux? I don't mean "I saw it once". I mean have you ever actually tried to use it? If you have, your one of the few people who've actually gone back to Microsoft products.
I would guess 99.9% of Linux Fans started using Mac or Windows. We, the users, can honestly say, "Yes, Linux is better than anything out there for every application I use." The applications _I_ use.
The only thing I can't do with linux is play the high powered video games. But, never fear, I have a wintendo partition on my personal system.
I would guess 99.9% of Linux Fans started using Mac or Windows. We, the users, can honestly say, "Yes, Linux is better than anything out there for every application I use." The applications _I_ use.
The only thing I can't do with linux is play the high powered video games. But, never fear, I have a wintendo partition on my personal system.
Coming from a Linux user's standpoint, I can see the phenomenon you are talking about, (as difficult as it is to admit). To go out and get proof of Linux zealotry, one has only to log onto any IRC server and join a #linux channel. You will never find a greater conglomeration of self righteous, elitist snobs anywhere on the net. The saddest part is that these people have the least effect on the actual progress of the community. While they sit there all day badmouthing everybody else and each other, developers are busy making the system better.
Now that I have finished putting a face on the dregs of the open source community, I would like to say that I'm a Linux supporter through and through. I tend to support open source solutions, & When I start projects of my own, I like opening them up because I believe in the ideals of the community. Allot of people use Linux for technical reasons, and it is arguably a very excellent solution based solely on technical merit, however, if technical merit were the only draw to using Linux, then Linux itself would never have been created. Your article in summing up the personalities in the community seems to have overlooked the most important aspect of our community and relegated it to priesthood. Perhaps the priestly class should be a little more honest about their reasons for championing open source,and perhaps they try to explain it to people and are woefully misunderstood. The latter has been my own experience as I find it very difficult to explain to people why it is that I enjoy using Linux over other systems. It's arguably more work, (although not so much anymore). "Where is the payback?" they ask, "is it faster?", "is it more stable?", "is there no blue screen of death?". My answer has to be "no", these are not the reasons. I use the system because I exercise a certain ownership over the system that I can't have with other platforms. I flatly don't feel comfortable using other platforms anymore. I feel like someone has strings attached trying to bend me to their will when I use other systems. This is my reason for being here, and I feel it's a good reason. I champion the adoption of Linux for technical reasons, and when I hear people give complaints of what they're running that sound like some of the concerns I mentioned above, sometimes I give them a nudge over to my world, and sometimes they take the bait, and sometimes not.
I hope that possibly I have clarified my position as one among many in the open source world.
Now that I have finished putting a face on the dregs of the open source community, I would like to say that I'm a Linux supporter through and through. I tend to support open source solutions, & When I start projects of my own, I like opening them up because I believe in the ideals of the community. Allot of people use Linux for technical reasons, and it is arguably a very excellent solution based solely on technical merit, however, if technical merit were the only draw to using Linux, then Linux itself would never have been created. Your article in summing up the personalities in the community seems to have overlooked the most important aspect of our community and relegated it to priesthood. Perhaps the priestly class should be a little more honest about their reasons for championing open source,and perhaps they try to explain it to people and are woefully misunderstood. The latter has been my own experience as I find it very difficult to explain to people why it is that I enjoy using Linux over other systems. It's arguably more work, (although not so much anymore). "Where is the payback?" they ask, "is it faster?", "is it more stable?", "is there no blue screen of death?". My answer has to be "no", these are not the reasons. I use the system because I exercise a certain ownership over the system that I can't have with other platforms. I flatly don't feel comfortable using other platforms anymore. I feel like someone has strings attached trying to bend me to their will when I use other systems. This is my reason for being here, and I feel it's a good reason. I champion the adoption of Linux for technical reasons, and when I hear people give complaints of what they're running that sound like some of the concerns I mentioned above, sometimes I give them a nudge over to my world, and sometimes they take the bait, and sometimes not.
I hope that possibly I have clarified my position as one among many in the open source world.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: clasmc 2003-10-21 07:22:28 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Actually, Linux is no different than any other technology with respect to your Pros/Priest/Zealot analogy. I did vb6 contract programming for 3 years and I can assure you that their are Microsoft Pros, Priests, and Zealots. In fact, most of the people I met were Priests/Zealots with very few pros. That has remained unchanged in the years that have followed. I have also met Cisco and HP Pros/Priests/Zealots. This is hardly an insightful observation.
In your article, in the zealot section, you said "These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
The trouble with that statement is that not only are the zealots saying sco is lying, so are the pros and the priests. I hope you don't base any real life decisions on the kind of logic.
I would say the purpose of this article was more about getting a reaction from the linux crowd than trying to right an information piece.
As a software developer, I don't appreciate this kind of article.
In your article, in the zealot section, you said "These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
The trouble with that statement is that not only are the zealots saying sco is lying, so are the pros and the priests. I hope you don't base any real life decisions on the kind of logic.
I would say the purpose of this article was more about getting a reaction from the linux crowd than trying to right an information piece.
As a software developer, I don't appreciate this kind of article.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: MHCBigs 2003-10-21 07:19:46 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Mr. Enderle,
I could not agree more with your analysis of the Linux community, exspecialy those that post on Slashdot. I work in a hospital systems running under a wide variety of OS. Yes, we do have Linux servers, but we do not and never will have a Linux desktop environment. It is a matter of application availability and support. We have over 260 applications. of these, the majority are specialized systems for Healthcare. None of these systems run under Linux.
As for the slashdot people, I see a distinct hatred for anything none Unix/Linux. Weather they like it or not, Microsoft is and will continue to be the worlds leading desktop environment. They know little of IT and offer nothing of value.
These Zealots berate, slander, and insult anyone that dare support MS. All All you have to do is look at the image they use to depict Mr Gates. Actually the Linux Zealots are the ones screaming "Resistance is futile....."
Well it is not. They do not understand that in the world of IT that the bottom line is more than cost, it is availability, flexability, support, and functionality. For every one of their "look who is leaving MS" articles, there are many more organizations adding or upgrading MS products.
They are one sided and to be totally honest, infantile in attutide.
I could not agree more with your analysis of the Linux community, exspecialy those that post on Slashdot. I work in a hospital systems running under a wide variety of OS. Yes, we do have Linux servers, but we do not and never will have a Linux desktop environment. It is a matter of application availability and support. We have over 260 applications. of these, the majority are specialized systems for Healthcare. None of these systems run under Linux.
As for the slashdot people, I see a distinct hatred for anything none Unix/Linux. Weather they like it or not, Microsoft is and will continue to be the worlds leading desktop environment. They know little of IT and offer nothing of value.
These Zealots berate, slander, and insult anyone that dare support MS. All All you have to do is look at the image they use to depict Mr Gates. Actually the Linux Zealots are the ones screaming "Resistance is futile....."
Well it is not. They do not understand that in the world of IT that the bottom line is more than cost, it is availability, flexability, support, and functionality. For every one of their "look who is leaving MS" articles, there are many more organizations adding or upgrading MS products.
They are one sided and to be totally honest, infantile in attutide.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: activist 2003-10-23 03:01:50 In reply to: MHCBigs
Just a side note - when I think of zealot and the IT industry, the first name that pops into my head is Steve Ballmer. Now, Mr(or Miss?) MHCBigs, I hope you do not consider yourself a Pro. I too have worked in a hospital, and the two main systems (admin and pathology) both ran on UNIX. So your statement "the majority are specialized systems for Healthcare. None of these systems run under Linux" is a croc (of s#!t). It is more a matter of the applications *your* hospital chose to use and nothing to do with what is available. Maybe you are not as knowlegabe in the health care area as you might think. MS have invested a lot of time money and effort to ensure product lock in. The reason your hospital will never run Linux desktops is that for the last 10? 20? years they have been buying/developing/investing in apps for windows. To convert to Linux, most of these will have to be re-developed at a very significant cost . Your argument is centered arount app availability and support. That means you are not judging them by them on how good they are, but what their market share is.(betamax and amiga are two prime examples). Windows has had a 15 year head start on Linux, and that is its only advantage. If Windows and Linux started today, with a zero market share and their current products, it would be a very different story.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: quadelirus 2003-10-21 19:11:09 In reply to: MHCBigs
Apparently you aren't a regular to slashdot. Most of the readers know a good deal about IT, and many of them are in IT. Are you? I personally use a variety of OS's including Windows, OS X, and Linux. I am a professional programmer and maintain networks including MS networks as a hobby. You apparently don't understand that companies rise and fall. No one platform is immortal. Many analysts are projecting that over the next few years we may see a new OS battle between OS X and Windows. Personally, I don't know, but I wouldn't discount it, and I certainly wouldn't say "Microsoft is and will continue to be the worlds leading desktop environment." That shows an extremely narrow and uninformed view of life in general. Microsoft does still have a stronghold on desktop computing, however a lot of the programs that I use WinXP for have announced Linux and OS X versions that have been released or will be within the next couple of months.
I would say that your post was one sided.
I would say that your post was one sided.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: MHCBigs 2003-10-22 07:02:41 In reply to: quadelirus
I have been watching slashdot for 3 years now. It is obsolutely anti MS, anit govt, and worshipers at the feet of Linux. It also seems to have a large population of extremely undesirable types. Most have no problem with violation of Copyright laws, computer tresspass laws, or anything else that gets in there way.
It is also a place of free speech only if you hate MS, IBM, Large companies, the Govt, Property and intellectual property rights, and the concepts of capitalism and profit motive. Desent is met with flames, name calling, and threats of attacks on the computer and or person making the desent.
As for any system /OS/application lasting forever, it is true that most come and go, look at OS/2.
I do not see any OS replacing Windows in the near future, say 10 years. When you have a 80+ percent market share company ups and downs are less relevent than many might think.
I have been in IT for 27 years, I remember the efforts by the Govt and the competitors of IBM to kill that company. Guess what, they are still an industry leader. I speak from a voice of experence. I work with or have worked with 15 different OS on systems ranging from Palm devices to mainframes.
I have watched and been part of the move from mainframes to PC's and all the rest. IMHO the entire PC industry owes Mr. Gates and Microsoft a great deal of praise and respect. It is an absolute fact that without MS the PC world would still be populated by a handful of Apple computers and a few small computer companies.
MS and the bundling of thier products on PC's formed the market place for just about every mass used application in the market today.
When you have 27 years in the IT world and have seen the changes in the world of Computers you understand how it works.
Oh, btw, i have a Linux, redhat 5, file server as the file server in my home. I consider Linux to be a poor desktop environment
It is also a place of free speech only if you hate MS, IBM, Large companies, the Govt, Property and intellectual property rights, and the concepts of capitalism and profit motive. Desent is met with flames, name calling, and threats of attacks on the computer and or person making the desent.
As for any system /OS/application lasting forever, it is true that most come and go, look at OS/2.
I do not see any OS replacing Windows in the near future, say 10 years. When you have a 80+ percent market share company ups and downs are less relevent than many might think.
I have been in IT for 27 years, I remember the efforts by the Govt and the competitors of IBM to kill that company. Guess what, they are still an industry leader. I speak from a voice of experence. I work with or have worked with 15 different OS on systems ranging from Palm devices to mainframes.
I have watched and been part of the move from mainframes to PC's and all the rest. IMHO the entire PC industry owes Mr. Gates and Microsoft a great deal of praise and respect. It is an absolute fact that without MS the PC world would still be populated by a handful of Apple computers and a few small computer companies.
MS and the bundling of thier products on PC's formed the market place for just about every mass used application in the market today.
When you have 27 years in the IT world and have seen the changes in the world of Computers you understand how it works.
Oh, btw, i have a Linux, redhat 5, file server as the file server in my home. I consider Linux to be a poor desktop environment
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: quadelirus 2003-10-22 12:58:05 In reply to: MHCBigs
I installed a copy of RedHat 6 and later 7 when I was still using Windows 98. I understand where you are coming from. I chose Windows 98 over RedHat because I, as you have with RH5 realized that it was not mature enough as a desktop environment for my needs. I later upgraded to Windows XP. I like XP quite a bit. It is a nice OS. I applaud MS for its efforts in Windows XP (not including the holdover security flaws that have been surfacing). I recently heard that RH9 had been released and decided to test it out (being a Windows user, not a linux zealot... I have rejected Linux up to this point remember...) I found RH9 more usable than XP for my desktop needs, a nicer more customizable interface, and most of the applications I use have recently come out in Linux versions, or have very good Linux alternatives.
If you were using RH5 I can imagine it is worse than RH6 and RH7 which were not fit for desktop use. However this does not mean all linux flavors are the same, nor much more up to date versions. (I think I was running RH6 in 1997, I could be wrong though.) I would say to you: check out the new developments. Comparing XP or 2000 to RH5 is about the same as comparing DOS to Mac OS X. Of course it looks worse. Please don't form your opinions on outdated technology. Try the new stuff, you may even find it to be par, or maybe better than what you currently use. To me XP, RH9, and OS X all perform about the same for desktop use, but I like the customizability (without 3rd party programs like TGTSoft's StyleXP) of linux and the power of the command line much more than the laf of Windows.
And finally, I am not anti big business, government, capitalism, or IBM. I'm not real fond of monopolies though. I don't particularly like Apple or Microsoft, but I don't mind their existance. I am a Conservative Republican. I am a linux user. I could care less what other people use as long as they make an informed decision on what they are using. I use consumer reports when considering a car I don't fall in love with the first one I test drive and defend it no matter how good or bad it performs, and I try to apply that philosophy to my use of all consumer products including operating systems.
Sometimes 27 years of experience can turn into farsightedness, just make sure you can see the big and the small picture.
If you were using RH5 I can imagine it is worse than RH6 and RH7 which were not fit for desktop use. However this does not mean all linux flavors are the same, nor much more up to date versions. (I think I was running RH6 in 1997, I could be wrong though.) I would say to you: check out the new developments. Comparing XP or 2000 to RH5 is about the same as comparing DOS to Mac OS X. Of course it looks worse. Please don't form your opinions on outdated technology. Try the new stuff, you may even find it to be par, or maybe better than what you currently use. To me XP, RH9, and OS X all perform about the same for desktop use, but I like the customizability (without 3rd party programs like TGTSoft's StyleXP) of linux and the power of the command line much more than the laf of Windows.
And finally, I am not anti big business, government, capitalism, or IBM. I'm not real fond of monopolies though. I don't particularly like Apple or Microsoft, but I don't mind their existance. I am a Conservative Republican. I am a linux user. I could care less what other people use as long as they make an informed decision on what they are using. I use consumer reports when considering a car I don't fall in love with the first one I test drive and defend it no matter how good or bad it performs, and I try to apply that philosophy to my use of all consumer products including operating systems.
Sometimes 27 years of experience can turn into farsightedness, just make sure you can see the big and the small picture.
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: joeldg 2003-10-21 07:02:42 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Well, as a linux programmer (who came in from working as an MS programmer) I can say thank you for the article.
If you read through posts on slashdot very often you will note that there is an entire slough of posts that are modded down because they are racist or trolls or {insert insult to someone}.. With mod points you end up spending all of them just to get rid of the junk and so it becomes hard to actually see decent posts because everyone is just doing damage control.
If you look at the stats on slashdot something like 93% come there using windows.. another 5% on Mac and 2% on linux (roughly, don't quote me on that).. So the majority of the guys who are so "pro" linux are usually guys who have an idea about it and are still not using it, know just a little about it or have just started using it.
Seldom ddo true linux guys post there because it is usually a waste of time (similar to usenet and why not many linux guys post there anymore either) additionally you end up setting people straight more often than not and this usually starts some sort of random flame war..
I am thinking is mostly script-kids and nouveau-tech children.
So, don't let them get you down..
good article..
If you read through posts on slashdot very often you will note that there is an entire slough of posts that are modded down because they are racist or trolls or {insert insult to someone}.. With mod points you end up spending all of them just to get rid of the junk and so it becomes hard to actually see decent posts because everyone is just doing damage control.
If you look at the stats on slashdot something like 93% come there using windows.. another 5% on Mac and 2% on linux (roughly, don't quote me on that).. So the majority of the guys who are so "pro" linux are usually guys who have an idea about it and are still not using it, know just a little about it or have just started using it.
Seldom ddo true linux guys post there because it is usually a waste of time (similar to usenet and why not many linux guys post there anymore either) additionally you end up setting people straight more often than not and this usually starts some sort of random flame war..
I am thinking is mostly script-kids and nouveau-tech children.
So, don't let them get you down..
good article..
Born on the back of terrorists...
Posted by: jasonlotito 2003-10-21 06:56:54 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Rob, first, as a Linux user, my first reaction was one of shock and horror. However, after reading the article, I will say that you present a few good points. Unfortunately, the general point of your article (That zealots of any type do more harm than good) will probably get missed by 90% of the people that read this article. Such is the case with all opinion based articles.
Myself, I feel I fall somewhere between a Linux Pro and a Linux Priest. I frankly don't care what someone uses. Personally, I prefer open source. I work on open source, and will work with open source. However, just like a Linux Pro, I will work with Microsoft if that's what's best for the job.
However, as much as Linux, and open source in general has zealots, so does Microsoft. These are the people that rattle off every FUD article out there with regards to Linux and open source. I understand you are aware of this, but still, Microsoft zealots can be just as dangerous.
However, while your article is though provoking...I must contest one part.
"These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
That's just it though, it's not the Zealots who are doing the fact finding. The Zealots are simply regurgitating what they read on /. and other places. The real work is being done by what you call "Linux Pro's."
Can you really base your opinion of legal and factual standings on the opinions of zealots? To firmly set in the ground your belief that SCO will win because a 32 year old living in his mother's attic without a job running linux because he is '1337' told you so?
What of all the "Linux Pro's" who present clear and insightful commentary and fact regarding the SCO case?
To put it another way: If you can make a judgement on a case based on one facet of a community, can portions of that community make judgements based on one facet of another community? You make judgements about a legal case because of a bad portion of the Linux community. Is that really a good thing? Do you really feal comfortable in basing your opinion on the 'facts' Linux Zealots have presented? Isn't that the same thing as taking financial advice from a second-grader?
"Little Johnny said do this, so obviously, we need to do the opposite..."
On a side note, I am always fond of the negativity "terrorism" gets. Oh sure, terrorism in general is not nice, but how little Americans (myself being one...) forget that the USA was born on the backs of terrorists. I am not condoning acts of violence mind you, just something to think about.
Myself, I feel I fall somewhere between a Linux Pro and a Linux Priest. I frankly don't care what someone uses. Personally, I prefer open source. I work on open source, and will work with open source. However, just like a Linux Pro, I will work with Microsoft if that's what's best for the job.
However, as much as Linux, and open source in general has zealots, so does Microsoft. These are the people that rattle off every FUD article out there with regards to Linux and open source. I understand you are aware of this, but still, Microsoft zealots can be just as dangerous.
However, while your article is though provoking...I must contest one part.
"These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
That's just it though, it's not the Zealots who are doing the fact finding. The Zealots are simply regurgitating what they read on /. and other places. The real work is being done by what you call "Linux Pro's."
Can you really base your opinion of legal and factual standings on the opinions of zealots? To firmly set in the ground your belief that SCO will win because a 32 year old living in his mother's attic without a job running linux because he is '1337' told you so?
What of all the "Linux Pro's" who present clear and insightful commentary and fact regarding the SCO case?
To put it another way: If you can make a judgement on a case based on one facet of a community, can portions of that community make judgements based on one facet of another community? You make judgements about a legal case because of a bad portion of the Linux community. Is that really a good thing? Do you really feal comfortable in basing your opinion on the 'facts' Linux Zealots have presented? Isn't that the same thing as taking financial advice from a second-grader?
"Little Johnny said do this, so obviously, we need to do the opposite..."
On a side note, I am always fond of the negativity "terrorism" gets. Oh sure, terrorism in general is not nice, but how little Americans (myself being one...) forget that the USA was born on the backs of terrorists. I am not condoning acts of violence mind you, just something to think about.
It doesn't matter what side you are on. When there are opposing views, the people on both sides will resort to true zealotry while at the same time accusing others of zealotry when they are simply advocating. In reality, one side's "advocate" is another side's "zealot". It could be argued that Enderle, himself, is a zealot for the Windows camp.
The real issues:
1. Microsoft exists solely for profit. Their technology is mostly bits and pieces bought from other companies and integrated into their prodcuts. We all know how DOS came about and that's pretty much been Microsoft's approach from day one. Microsoft is a business.
2. Linux exists as a labor of love for some people. Think about it. Why are all of these developers spending their time hacking the kernel, the drivers, and the applications that make up a typical GNU/Linux distribution? Some of them do it because they get paid, so there is some profit motive. But by and large, it's soley because these folks love computers and love to code. Linux is not a business (even though there are businesses based on it).
In our capitalist society, the only reason for being for many people is to make money. Since a lot of people (people who would support Microsoft or SCO for example) have accepted that as the way to "make it" in our society they feel threatened when there is something that they can't easily capitalize. It makes them feel threatened and they begin to find ways to try and attack it in the hopes that it will either fail or that it will change and fall into line with their view of the world.
As the subject line states, everyone has an agenda. My agenda is a personal one. I may be rare, but I don't think I'm that rare. I see coding and working with Linux at home as no different than the man who has a wood shop and makes his own furniture with no intention of making a profit from it. It's done for the love of a craft. And it's also done for convenience and possibly frugality. With all the things my computers at home do for me (Nearly 100% Linux based), I would have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on commercial software. The only thing I've had to spend on my systems currently is my time. And considering that I love working with computers, it was more of a pleasure than a burden.
Enderle has an agenda too. It's fairly clear from his articles that he despises Linux. I can't speak for the man's personal interests, but I would also guess he's one of the folks who believes in capitalism lock, stock and barrel. He makes some very strong statements about Linux based on his interactions with a small, vocal segment of the Linux community. He said this himself in the article. His agenda is clearly in support of Microsoft. And what he does say about Linux tends to be very negative. From the perspective of a happy Linux user, Enderle is also a zealot. Which, by his own reckoning, would also make him a terrorist. (How do you like that Enderle?) My point? Anyone who strongly and vocally supports an opposing view is going to be seen as a "zealot".
In the end it comes down to this:
One man's advocate is another man's zealot. Congrats Enderly, you just undid yourself.
The real issues:
1. Microsoft exists solely for profit. Their technology is mostly bits and pieces bought from other companies and integrated into their prodcuts. We all know how DOS came about and that's pretty much been Microsoft's approach from day one. Microsoft is a business.
2. Linux exists as a labor of love for some people. Think about it. Why are all of these developers spending their time hacking the kernel, the drivers, and the applications that make up a typical GNU/Linux distribution? Some of them do it because they get paid, so there is some profit motive. But by and large, it's soley because these folks love computers and love to code. Linux is not a business (even though there are businesses based on it).
In our capitalist society, the only reason for being for many people is to make money. Since a lot of people (people who would support Microsoft or SCO for example) have accepted that as the way to "make it" in our society they feel threatened when there is something that they can't easily capitalize. It makes them feel threatened and they begin to find ways to try and attack it in the hopes that it will either fail or that it will change and fall into line with their view of the world.
As the subject line states, everyone has an agenda. My agenda is a personal one. I may be rare, but I don't think I'm that rare. I see coding and working with Linux at home as no different than the man who has a wood shop and makes his own furniture with no intention of making a profit from it. It's done for the love of a craft. And it's also done for convenience and possibly frugality. With all the things my computers at home do for me (Nearly 100% Linux based), I would have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on commercial software. The only thing I've had to spend on my systems currently is my time. And considering that I love working with computers, it was more of a pleasure than a burden.
Enderle has an agenda too. It's fairly clear from his articles that he despises Linux. I can't speak for the man's personal interests, but I would also guess he's one of the folks who believes in capitalism lock, stock and barrel. He makes some very strong statements about Linux based on his interactions with a small, vocal segment of the Linux community. He said this himself in the article. His agenda is clearly in support of Microsoft. And what he does say about Linux tends to be very negative. From the perspective of a happy Linux user, Enderle is also a zealot. Which, by his own reckoning, would also make him a terrorist. (How do you like that Enderle?) My point? Anyone who strongly and vocally supports an opposing view is going to be seen as a "zealot".
In the end it comes down to this:
One man's advocate is another man's zealot. Congrats Enderly, you just undid yourself.
Enderle diplays zealot-like irrationality
Posted by: oicu 2003-10-21 06:37:29 In reply to: Rob Enderle
"Many of the Zealots seem to be unemployed. It is hard to believe that they can stay with any one company for more than a few days by behaving as badly as they do. Were I an IT executive, the apparent fact that these Zealots are walking human-resource disasters would probably keep me up at night."
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe these are college students? Or that maybe they are well aware of what is necessary to keep their jobs and that on the net the let their hair down somewhat? Tarring a large group as mostly unemployed on no evidence at all other than your dislike of them is quite irrational.
"I've watched these people fabricate stories about my own job history and events that I've written about -- as they were happening. These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
Another irrationality. Without looking at the merits or otherwise of the SCO cases you have decided that SCO will win because some crazy people are opposed to SCO's position. Do you likewise judge Christianity by the actions of Jim Jones or Jimmy Swaggart?
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe these are college students? Or that maybe they are well aware of what is necessary to keep their jobs and that on the net the let their hair down somewhat? Tarring a large group as mostly unemployed on no evidence at all other than your dislike of them is quite irrational.
"I've watched these people fabricate stories about my own job history and events that I've written about -- as they were happening. These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about."
Another irrationality. Without looking at the merits or otherwise of the SCO cases you have decided that SCO will win because some crazy people are opposed to SCO's position. Do you likewise judge Christianity by the actions of Jim Jones or Jimmy Swaggart?
Re: Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Posted by: leng 2003-10-21 06:26:10 In reply to: Rob Enderle
All I can say is, "wow." Enderle equates people who feel passionately about a technology to the terrorists from 9/11? Amazing. Truly amazing.
Sorry, but to me it just seems like a terribly, horribly bad analogy. No matter how rude or obnoxious "Linux Zealots" are, I have a hard time understanding how someone can put forth an argument like this and expect people to think they are reasonable. What's next? Bill Gates as Attilla the Hun? Benjamin Franklin as a pinko communist (he did come up with that socialist "public library" idea, after all!)?
Too bad, really. Some of the other points about misbehaving zealotry were actually quite good. But credibility flew straight out the window when the author thinks that someone who is capable of saying, "Bill Gates Sux, Linux rules, dude!" is equally capable of flying an airliner into a skyscraper.
Sorry, but to me it just seems like a terribly, horribly bad analogy. No matter how rude or obnoxious "Linux Zealots" are, I have a hard time understanding how someone can put forth an argument like this and expect people to think they are reasonable. What's next? Bill Gates as Attilla the Hun? Benjamin Franklin as a pinko communist (he did come up with that socialist "public library" idea, after all!)?
Too bad, really. Some of the other points about misbehaving zealotry were actually quite good. But credibility flew straight out the window when the author thinks that someone who is capable of saying, "Bill Gates Sux, Linux rules, dude!" is equally capable of flying an airliner into a skyscraper.