go ahead. send your cash to monopolysoft. they love you for it.


--redpill.


"asdf" <asdf@example.net> wrote in message
news:j8_Mb.109627$_P.4025544@news4.tin.it...
> 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.
>