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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard drive
and install Linux. Can't use an operating system without a GUI? Don't be
afraid, Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load ugly-as-hell user-friendly
interface, which will solve every problem for you, by shamelessly
copying Windows. So then, we might just as well keep using Windows,
which at least we know, and has a more pleasing look. You know, Linux
zealots are especially angry by nature, and they object to this remark
that there's no reason whatsoever to use Windows. If they need a word
processor or a spreadsheet, there are free ones for Linux, without need
for Office: in conclusion, Linux has everything you need to manage
anything, so why insist on using something you must pay for when there
are other applications which are free? The answer is simple: because
it's not their own business. But they don't know this, or rather, so
they pretend. Choices are no longer personal: everyone can use what he
wants, as long as he uses what they want.

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

For them, the intellectual work does not exist as such, but as a
collective work. They wanted to make a free OS? Indeed, and they even
want us to thank them. We can. Provided that they leave us, at last, in
peace. Laughing.