["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2004-01-13, asdf <asdf@example.net> wrote:

> 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.

[yada, yada, yada...]

What's the point of this rant?

--

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

John Thompson wrote:

|| [yada, yada, yada...]
||
|| What's the point of this rant?
||

You tell me, you illiterate cunt.

--
Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

John Thompson wrote:

> [yada, yada, yada...]
>
> What's the point of this rant?

You got me there. Give me a clue.



--
Your Free Insult: Thou gaggling, toppling, buzzing gull-catcher hypothecating shop assistant.

> 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.
So you met a couple of knobs on the newsgroups. Don't take offence.
Don't respond to their flames. Move on.

> But what's Linux?
A rather flexible operating system.

> 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.
It gets quite boring giving the same answers to the same questions day
after day. So instead of telling newbies to 'naff off, they direct them
to a good website, like http://linux-newbie.sunsite.dk/lnag_benefits.html

> Linux is nothing but an operating system.
Not really, its also a proof-of-concept for the General Public Licence.

> The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones.
Yep.

> But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS
Huh? And a car is a car(!) I know I would prefer a McLaren F1...

> its main function is to manage the resource of a machine [snip]. 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.
Actually, there is more. Amongst other things, Linux has documented
libraries and APIs so that random people and companies can make better
software, in less time. Its so easy to write for linux that it is now
the home of many powerful applications to make the computer do what you
want it to do.

But you haven't said the most important bit about linux yet...

> What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system
Bingo!

>, 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.
Its not true, and the linux zealot does not believe it. If a linux user
has not read the licence (the legal agreement for use) then they can in
no way be called a zealot. More on the licence (GPL) later...

> 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.
Absolutely correct. According to the GPL, you can sell a copy of linux
to someone for $1000 (or whatever amount that takes your fancy).

There are however, other strings attached, and this is the important
concept:
If you distribute/sell someone a copy of GPL'ed software, you *must*
also supply that someone with all of the source code to make that copy
if they request it.

In other words, the privileges you had, you *must* pass onto others. The
enthusiasm for this privilege is is what turns Linux users into zealots.

> 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.
The main part of what you get is support.

Normally, if you have a problem, you will scour the internet for related
information, then post to newsgroups hoping to find someone with the
experience, patience, intelligence, or all of the above with a solution.
If the answer you find is too complicated for your time, you're out of luck.

Now with support you get a simple phone number to ring, and a paid
employee who's job it is to be nice to you, and solve your problem
speedily. Pretty sweet imo.

This is where the majority of the purchase price goes, and is indicated
by the cost of extended support.

> And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange
They are damn good at supporting customers. Businesses are the ones with
the money, and they will only deal with the companies that provide support.

> Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living.
He works at Transmeta and gets paid exactly what someone else of his
skill and experience would do. The only difference is that Transmeta
"encourage" him to skive off work and further develop Linux.

> These benefactors of mankind
Don't claim to be. The people who hack away at linux do it for purely
selfish reasons. In exchange for their time, they get an OS that does
what they want and gives them new programming code and ideas to peruse.

> naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses
No. Linux "zealots" don't care what you do with linux as long as you
don't stop them from using it.

> "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet".
Or if you don't want to download it, you can get a friend to burn it to
cd. Or if you have no "zealot" friends, you can pay small companies like
www.cheapbytes.com $5 to send you the burned cds.

> 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
C'mon, the price of a cd? You're complaining about $1? Get real.

> Why don't Linux zealots explain what Linux is and how it works?
Many do, on numerous websites on the internet. To quote, "The truth is
out there."

> 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.
Isn't that true of anybody? To be self-sufficient and content with your
work?

> 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.
Back here again? Look somebody put a lot of time into writing those
websites/posts, and it would be an offence to their time if nobody read
it. It comes back to time. If you don't have the time, you can use the
time that someone else used in explaining the answer by reference.

> 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.
You met the wrong people. Documentation is generally accepted as good,
never mind where it came from. I personally like (and recommend) the
computer books by http://www.oreilly.com/.

> Do you have a SuSE distribution and don't know how to install it? [snip] Should you try printing it [free documentation], what with the paper and the ink cartridge [snip] you will spend a lot more that the dead tree book and CD you had set yourself to buy.
Its a choice. Do you buy a distribution (like SuSE) with support and
printed documentation, or do you get it by alternative means, and print
the free documentation. Do whatever you like.

If you don't know how to install it, I (and most others) would recommend
the commercial package for a gradual learning curve.

> 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.
Eek! Never thought I would hear that sentence in a computer discussion!

> Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating system, at least in the install phase. [snip] But the Linux zealot doesn't explain this, he doesn't want to. "There are loads of explanations and publications; if one doesn't know what to do, he should refer to these and he'll find the solution to his question. If he doesn't, it's an indicator that he hasn't understood some basic concepts, and he must go a step backwards before carrying on".
Linux has typically been hard to install because its greatest strength
is also its greatest weakness:
Linux is easily customisable. So many people have the opportunity of
creating many distributions, each with different procedures. No one
person can be acquainted with them all, so they try to refer you to the
distribution's documentation.

Its not that they won't, but often can't. Being the helpful type, they
try to find the relevant documentation, instead of saying, "Dunno, 'naff
off". If the person still has a problem, the best thing to say is, "make
sure you follow the documentation to the letter". Much better than,
"Problem still? Dunno, now 'naff off". You must keep in mind that there
are many hardware configurations, linux distros, and people with
problems, but only finite hours in a day.

> 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.
Oh they understand, they understand all too well. Some understand so
much that they obviously have snapped and treated you badly.

> This is why the Linux philosophy is losing
What is the Linux philosophy? Its the licence it comes by, the General
Public Licence.

Programmer (A) writes some software. (A) releases the software and the
source code so that others can learn from and improve the software. Many
people improve their programming skills and the software gains features.

However, (A) releases it under the GPL. This means that if Programmer
(B) modifies the software and sells it on, it must be released under the
GPL. Hence, anyone who buys it can read the derived software, use, and
pass it on. Hence, many more people improve their programming skills and
the software gains more features.

Its a concept by programmers, for programmers, purely selfish. Since it
is proving ever popular with the programmers (moving power away from the
companies they work for to themselves), and since programmers make the
software, the "philosophy" can only gain momentum. At least until
programmers stop wanting to learn and teach programming concepts (when
hell freezes over).

The benefit to users (software gaining features) is almost a side-effect
but its a benefit all the same. They get good quality software. 'nuff said.

> because it's not respectful, [snip] it demands others to adapt without being content with adapting to others' requirements.
Again, the GPL is selfish. It is there so that the person who made the
software can forever use and learn from the improvements that people all
over the world make to it.

On the other hand, it is their software, and its theirs to do with what
they will. If you're not happy with the GPL and there is an alternative
thats licenced differently, use it. If there is no alternative, thank
the creator for making it, or make your own.

> 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.
There is a subtle thing you're missing. Microsoft *do not*, in any way,
let you redistribute the software. The "Linux philosophy" *does* let you
redistribute the software, with the condition that you allow others what
you were allowed.

> 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.
The only thing you can find an argument about (in the above statement)
is whether Windows works okay or not. But thats just opinion, and freely
expressible (since software licences expressly disclaim themselves from
any guarantees of use).

> Among the Linux zealots, there are, [snip] those who buy a computer, demand a bare machine, and ask for the operating system money back, pointing out that they're free to install what they want on their computer. With the result that the storekeeper...
If someone wants Linux as the sole OS for their computer, why should
they pay for WindowsXP OEM?

If it became common practice to sell cars with a full tank of petrol,
but I could make it myself, why shouldn't I be able to buy the car
without the petrol and the cost of it?

As for the storekeepers, they can do what they want, the buyers aren't
responsible for the storekeeper's actions, neither legally nor morally.

> 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.
Huh? I thought the zealots demanded the money from the OS back. No
profit there...

> 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.
Absolutely right. The zealot says, "I do what I want to do with the
software I made, and if you get in my way, you'll damn sure hear about it."

> 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.
As said before, Linux is proof-of-concept of the GPL. It visibly
demonstrates the Licence and the sharing of source code in action. The
more people know about it, the more people will improve your software.

The main stumbling block in spreading the "philosophy" is the word free.
It has many meanings, including the commonly interpreted "of no cost".
However, the philosophy uses it with all the other meanings in mind,
only exempting the "no cost" interpretation.

> Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard drive and install Linux.
Actually, if you get frequent Windows crashes, I usually recommend you
reformat, and re-install Windows. Or, if you've done that for the 6th
time this year, give Linux a try instead.

> Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load ugly-as-hell user-friendly interface, [snip] shamelessly copying Windows.
Not so. My desktop is looking very pretty and fast at the moment. I
might change it to something better next month tho .

Oh and as for copying, anyone heard of the Macintosh? (No, Mac didn't
copy Windows. Other way.)

> in sum, [the zealots say,] 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.
The "zealots" don't really care what you do, and usually, it really is
none of their business. However, if there is the possibility that you
could eventually end up improving one of their pieces of software,
they'll try to convince you to kingdom come.

> One of the objection which most frequently is made to the Linux zealots is that Linux is a hard to learn OS, that one must be a programmer, or anyway, know a lot about programming, to modify the source codes of freely distributed programs. Linux zealots use to answer, with the snooty self-importance which sets them apart, that Linux is a software made exactly for these in the know. So why on earth do they want Linux to be accessible to the humblest of users?
Unfortunately, that was all too true. The experienced "zealots" to whom
it all came so easy didn't want to know about making their software more
accessible to new users.

However, they've quickly learned to change. There are many advantages to
making software accessible. The two most important being:
1. support and development by commercial companies (like IBM, Sun, and
HP) and
2. perpetuation of programming base, as new users gain experience and
start dabbling in programming.

> 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".
Who's being presumptuously arrogant now?

And its, "A book cannot be intellectual property of the
editor/distributor, but only of the author."

> 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.
Generally, "Linux zealots" are introverted. If you give them some peace,
you can expect peace in return.

Sometimes tho, zealots will try and get you more into Linux with the
underhanded intention that maybe one day you too will practice the
philosophy of the GPL. Just act dumb and hostile, and they'll eventually
snap and tell you to "'naff off", even leaving the room, never to talk
to you again.

---------------------

Seriously tho, I must confess to being a recent convert. I realised that
I was selfish and never had enough hours in a day. The only reasons for
writing this post are purely selfish ones:
1.) I wanted to clarify my own thoughts on the subject
2.) I wanted many other people to read it so that:
a.) I might become famous (wheeee!)
b.) They become converts and make software better too.

Here in comp.os.linux.misc, asdf <asdf@example.net> spake unto us, saying:

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

Every OS has had (or still has) its share of zealots, including the
Amiga, the Mac, OS/2, BeOS, FreeBSD, Windows, etc.

The problem is zealotry, not Linux. There *IS* no "single" solution
for all computing problems.

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

I disagree with you. Microsoft fights for its own interests, that's
normal, but it happens that their interests is contradictory with our
interests. A big monopoly like that IS DANGEROUS for customers but also
for freedom. I would be extremely surprised if the NSA does not have a
backdoor on your PC.

Ben Measures wrote:

> 2.) I wanted many other people to read it so that:
> a.) I might become famous (wheeee!)


I understand it was a joke, and I appreciated it, but I've come to the
conclusion that these posts are only read by a tiny minority of people.
That's one reason why I seldom respond to these trolls. Not enough people
read the original and not enough read the response.

I doubt the average Linux user actually visits these newsgroups very often,
let alone people on other operating systems, because the people here are
those that have a problem or those that want to help. If you don't have a
problem, as most Linux users don't, you probably won't be subscribing.
Saying that I noted that this is cross-posted to some Windows groups. That
means in one sense that trolling is self-defeating for the troll.

Trolls who put a lot of effort into what they're writing, as this one, are
wasting their time if they think they'll have a measurable effect on
people--beyond getting into arguments, which is all some of them want. The
"bad child" syndrome. Very immature.

I'm of the opinion that if you mention the word "newsgroups" or "Usenet" to
the average person, they won't know what you're talking about.

I suspect some of these trolls are being paid to write this stuff. There was
one recently that was well-written, subtle and even a bit humorous, leading
me to believe it was professionally crafted. In the Linux advocacy
newsgroup, which I no longer visit, there were trolls in there who posted
hundreds of times a month, sometimes using more than one name, at all hours
of the day and night. I can't imagine who would put in that much work if
they weren't being paid--unless they were just plain borderline insane.

Anyway Ben, I liked what you wrote and I appreciated it. But I've concluded
that fighting trolls isn't worth the effort. I rarely even look at anything
that smells of trolls.


--Rod

__________

Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answered for Practical Consumers"
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html

To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of the name.

asdf wrote a bunch of crap.

I got Debian for free. If I wanted, I could have avoided the cost of burning
CDs. Linux is free.
--
Q: How many IBM 370's does it take to execute a job?
A: Four, three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:730hd1-cll.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

*snip 41Kb of pure hilarity*

You do realise that you're the only person on the internet that actually
read everything you wrote, don't you?

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, igloo
<igloo@intravenous.ath.cx>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:14:24 GMT
<QtFPb.6364$7u3.72772670@news-text.cableinet.net>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:730hd1-cll.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>
> *snip 41Kb of pure hilarity*
>
> You do realise that you're the only person on the internet that actually
> read everything you wrote, don't you?
>

You responded, didn't you? :-P

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.