Slashdot Mirror
Are Linux Zealots Terrorists?
pair-a-noyd submitted this one choice piece of flamebait, I'll just quote it ".. I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from
terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them
-- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do
significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation
with SCO or their employers.
I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that
zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because
zealots do not consider the repercussions of their actions" Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far, but he does make legitimate points that the Open Source community has wrestled with in the past.
woah, he really wants to get flamed eh?
One has to wonder about somebody who is critical of a zealot..
Welcome to the End
SCO sucks anyway ;)
Actually socialists? Of course there's extremist morons in just about every group.
It's "too" Taco, "too far."
I'm sure if I check back in 10 minutes there'll be a couple of hundred comments from people who can't help themselves, but really - JUST LEAVE IT BE.
YHBT, HAND
Yes, Linux enthusiasts are just as fanatic as terrorists. What this moron failed to realize is where terrorist are obsessed on hurting and promoting Fear (uncertainty, and doubt?), Linux zealots are obsessed with making better software, helping people and making the world a better place.
When was the last time a terrorist helped a little old lady cross the road?
FLR
What about McBride.. he is terrorizing all the people who put their time into os by threatenting to co-opt their work. Sounds to me like he is a more plausible terrorist.
Slashdot has been Trolled. We have lost. We should have a nice day.
PS - One point of Karma will be deducted from everyone to pay the massive "troll-point" deficit this has cause. Thank you.
Agreed. This is the Enderle-troll, right? He's pathetic, don't stroke his cock by answering -- even in critique. He loves that.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Fanaticism is never a good thing, but none the less a fanatic is sometimes requres to drive something forward when no one else will.
In my oppinion RMS is a bit of a fanatic, but I'd still say the community needs him.
But claiming that zealots are terrorists, well, that's a bit fanatic, isn't it?
.: Max Romantschuk
Our generation has a new bottom of the flamebait barrel. When somebody compares something to September 11 in an attempt to bolster their own argument, move on.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
It may not be flamebait : as the average /.er is against Gearge W. Bush (typo was not intended but sounds funny :) and as he calls his enemies "terrorists", maybe they'll consider this both comforting and flattering...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
www.oslf.org ( Open Source Liberation Front apperars to be availabe ) any takers ?
I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats...
A zealot will tell you you're going to Hell. A terrorist will try to send you there.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
there's a world of difference between threats and actions. Move along, nothing to see here.
The English magazine Private Eye has a section called Warballs which pokes fun at the medias desire to relate anything and everything to Sept 11. Just another instance of lazy journalism.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
No one is promising us 40 virgins in the afterlife if we die in the name of Torvalds, either.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
what they're talking about
they'll probably blame it on the music I listen to....
;)
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Who the hell is this guy?
I've worked in the IT industry for about five years now. I've met all kinds of people who worked with many different kinds of operating systems. Programmers, sysadmins, netadmins, whatever... All of the open source gurus that I've encountered (every single one of them) have been respectful of other OS's. Not one of them is a huge M$ fan, but I believe that it's more because of M$'s business practice than anything else. With the exception of one BIND admin, these are very friendly people who are willing to teach those who are willing to listen, not shove their OS preference down the throats of others.
Who the hell are these zealots, Mr. Enderle? What world are you living in?
If there really are Linux Terrorists, I doubt that there would be anything to really worry about because an open source bomb should be fairly easy to disable:)
P-SHAW to you, Mr. Enderle. Dink.
What could have been a valid critique of a technology movement devolved pretty fast when the comparison to terrorists was made.
How many people have Linux "Zealots" killed in the past year?
*crickets chirping*
One would think that after 9/11 we would have a real definition of what a terrorist is and what they do. Instead what we have is too many people willing to use the word "terrorist" as it suits them and their goals.
Pretty stupid.
This goes without saying. It's easy to equate the two because they're both typically used as slurs. This is like coming up with the theory that all assholes are motherfuckers. Hmm, it could be the case. Who's to say for sure. It certainly looks like something that could use some statistics to clear things up. .9937 degree of accuracy that many sonsofbitches are fucked up.
According to recent scientific research by scientist it has been proven scientifically that over 82 percent of assholes are also motherfuckers. In a similar study it was proven to
Further studies are ongoing.
I've met any number of zealots and "priests" for different operating systems (Linux,BSD,Solaris,Windows etc)
Remove "Linux" and replace with "OS" and the article might be slightly closer to the mark.
That's odd. I was in Far just last week, and I didn't see a single zealot anywhere.
Oh, by the way, you forgot to capitalize Far.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Anyone I disagree with is a terrorist or has the potential to become a terrorist.
Yep, you're right. This is a company and not a country.
As such, we have the right to limit what you can say about the company. Had you read your employee manual, you'd see that posting criticism in an open forum was grounds for termination.
Please bring the contents of your desk, your access badge, keys, and any other company property to the HR department at once.
Effective immediately, you're no longer employed here nor are you allowed on company property. If you appear on the property again, you'll be sent to our holding facility in Cuba for an undetermined amount of time.
Your final check, minus any monies due the company will be forwarded to your last known mailing address. Since that was actually within the company itself, count on not getting your last paycheck.
Also effective immediately, you no longer have any medical, dental, or life insurance benefits. Our providers have been notified. Attempts at gaining benefits will be seen as fraud and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Your citizenship and that of your immediate family has been revoked. You are required to move yourself, your family and all property (at your expense) from within the company immediately. Failure to do so will be seen as forfeiture of all property to the company.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Sorry, when people go WAY too far, they are just using whatever as an excuse or cover.
They likely aren't representative of the group, and their actions may be distasteful to the group they claim to be a part of.
I think it is truely offensive to say Sept 11 was a religious act, any more then child molesting priests is a religious act.
Sure, as of right now no one is thinking about blowing anything up, but we still live in a pretty palatable world, quite unlike some of the religious terrorists who live a life of persecution.
Imagine a world where everything you believe in is being destroyed and you have precious few options.
Having trouble? OK, try this: DRM is in full swing and you have to pay per use of every piece of media, software, etc. etc. CPUs and BIOS have been hardwired for DRM, and Windows is the only game in town. Bye Bye Linux. You need to pay Mr. Gates for the right to vote (because it'll all be online don't ya know), you'll have to pay MS to pay your bills, use your cellphone, plug in a toaster, etc. etc. Computer classes in schools become RIAA propoganda lessons. (Have you been to the movies lately, BTW?) Copyrights become eternal and you can't write a piece of software without paying patent royalty fees to everyone under the sun (not to mention the licensing fees you pay just to turn the fucker on).
Still don't feel like blowing anything up?
Who are these 'zealots'? I've never come across one. Their main existence seems to be as straw men for lame Slashdot posts to argue against.
RMS may be a zealot but he doesn't match the template given in the article (eg, Microsoft is not the Great Satan) or many of the beliefs attributed to him in Slashdot postings ('all software has to be GPL not BSD-licensed').
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Trolling using another account since 2005.
At least one group lacks between the "pro" group he defines, and the "priest".
His pro group basically don't care about the platform they are running.
What about us that don't really care about what platform other people are running - as long as we are free to make our own choice? I do prefer Linux to other platforms, because it fits me, and I agree with the license. But I am not a "priest" - what choice other people make only affects me indirectly (if 99.99% choose windows, my choice of Linux gets harder). I do not care what my friends and relatives run. As long as I do not have to support it - if they want support from me, they must run something I want to support.
What am I? An amateur?
That said, I think the article is silly anyway.
/. just melted the server this rant was on... So I guess Linux Zealots may be "terrorists" after all!
I can see the scene from here:
*sound of melted plastic bubbling from the crater that once was a web server*
User: Oh my gosh!! What happened to that server??
Admin: Your rant against the Linux Zealots was posted on Slashdot.
User: Oooops.
Admin: The server was slashdotted by 500,000 angry Slashdot readers. 45 seconds after the post.
User: Oooops.
Admin: (points silently to the spiky 5ft cluebat hanging on the wall behind his desk)
User: Oooops?
*loud thump*
User: I told you so! Linux zealots are terrorists!
Admin: Maybe, but I feel better now...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
...zealots do not consider the repercussions of their actions
So now anyone who puts principle above pragmatism is a zealot (and by extension a terrorist)? What an incredibly short-sighted view.
you can bet your infactdead .asp they are. you can also bet that the efforts to 'associate' the hobbyist dogooders et AL, with something/anything negative, come directly from the whoreabull softwar gangsters from the felonious kingdumb of phonIE ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead payper liesense stock markup FraUD execrable.
felonous last gasper desperados they are. lookout bullow.
tell 'em robbIE? tell 'em you're not won of them? you've just been MiSled buy all the phonIE bright lights & promises of endless 'fortunes'?
I think fanatics are the problem for the linux expansion. Example: In spain there are many zealots in sites like barrapunto.com. They are fanatics and idolatres stallman and linus meanwhile hates everyone who has used windows one time.
How did the September 11 attacks show us that "zealots of any movement represent a huge risk"? It showed us nothing other than the risks posed by zealots of one particular movement. That tragic incident cannot be extrapolated to zealots or movements at large.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
First we are supposed to not go to Forbes for writing a troll. Obviosuly, we were then "Zealots" for not wanting to read trolls.
Now we are supposed to read this troll? WTF? Apparently it is not ok, to believe in Open Source "an-sich" as the author then claims youll be either a linux priest or a terrorist.
Put the trolls in a cage, let them yell "Zealot" at each other. Spare _me_ these nonsense.
"/Dread"
is to continue the discussion hoping to change the mind of the other side. Most of the people I consider a "Linux Zealot" might hurt your feelings every now and again but the argument itself is there battle. The 9/11 Terrorist spent years of there lives "underground" not discussing or engaging the other side in dialog. That seems to be the main difference although honestly there is much more.
But an awful lot of them are idiots.
If there isn't some aspect of extremism, the real problems never get laid out. Though we are far from perfect, we are much closer to perfect than we were before a bunch of ball-busting, man-hating , feminist zealots pushed the issues onto us testosterone types.
Where would the women's movement be without it's radicals (zealots).
Our society flatly rejects violence, whatever its cause. Most violence is not caused by zealots.
Agreed. This SCO nonsense has gone on far too long. Why doesn't Linus just declare Jihad ("Holy War") on SCO?
Seriously, that is just absolutely hilarious! I think it's pretty obvious how much the anti-OSS folks are grasping at straws.
Cheers.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That I didn't make my Nazi reference about demonising the opposition being the first step to controlling your own people, so as to get them to do what you want.
Jeez, if I said that I'd be up that creek without a paddle, in a barbwired canoe.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I think it's pretty funny that he's comparing one userbase against a corporation's practices/products. He should write an article on trojans, spyware, security, and operating system resilience and bring out the true windows users. You know why I like Linux? More than often, you have to read the docs to set stuff up. That shows initiative on the user's behalf. When windows users rtfm as much as linux users and get a clue, then we can compare the userbase.
Within both camps there will be idiots. Those that can't figure out Linux will be back on Windows and the average IQ of both groups will rise.
-B
You mean my plan of driving that A-Bomb into Redmont is actually a bad idea?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
>I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
I strongly belive that if september 11th showed us anything, it was that the best way to FUD against any person or movement is calling him(them) "zealot" "terrorist" or "fanatist".
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
I'm really astounded that something like this has made it to the front page. I would think Taco would be able to resist posting something like this over all the years.
I mean, holy crap, this will go down in troll history. This guy will flip out when he sees he made the front page.
That's not what I was told! I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
whoops
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Just look at the SCO coverage. The most reasoned arguments on /. get modded up to 5, and the media occassionally (not often enough though) picks up on these responses.
That is a GOOD thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I don't think it is fair to group all zealots in the same group. A religeous zealot should be in a group of their own, as should a coffee zealot. I don't think that they can really compare. Grouping all zealots together and making such a generalization is like grouping all anti-abortionists (pro-life) zealots together and saying that they all want to kill every abortion doctor. That is clearly not the case and some of them are reasonable (with respect to the killing).
I wish I could come up with a better anology to which compare this silly grouping that the author did, but I can't. Anyways. Grouping all zealots together is stupid as the general intentions are different. Some require action (religeon) and some don't (coffee better than tea or whatever).
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Guess that's what you get when you drop out of school and join a dot-com.
Wow. This is actually a very rare piece of journalism, one which is entirely constructed of ad hominem and straw man arguments, while containing no actual content whatsoever.
I guess just creating arbitratry categories of people and then fancifully ascribing to each whatever comes to mind qualifies one as a "Principal Analyst".
Maybe time for a career change for me...
<job application>In my experience, there are three types of Republicans, which I'll call "Pro Republicans", "Priest Republicans", and "Zealot Republicans"; they are like this...</job application>
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
You notice that his definition of a linux PRO is someone that uses windows. I am a certified Linux professional and I never use windows. I don't care what operating system one chooses to run. Now I do jab the Windows admins frequently by kicking them when they are down, but hey thats the nature of the game get over it.
what a peter puffer
Say you don't agree with what they have to say. You define them as a terrorist and lock them up indefinitely.
Recent anti terrorist legislation has made this entirely plausible in the UK.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Thats why it is free dude!
Aston Games
When I was younger LInux was the only thing good and windows was satan. But in later times I use GNU/Linux because it has NVIDIA drivers, my network card works (not in FreeBSD (or I don't have the energy to get it to work) ) and I don't use windows because it does not fit on my harddrive, and an UNIX environment is superior for programming. Now I also use MacOS X for my iBook,works great!
Just one thing, all my hardware doesn't work in windows either!
However, in this case... Heh, maybe I should rethink that :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Linux: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalistic monopoly.
Terrorism: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalist society.
Linux: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.
Terrorism: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.
Linux: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" operating system.
Terrorism: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" group.
Linux: Attractive to those looking to destroy Microsoft and the software industry.
Terrorism: Attractive to those looking to destroy the USA and the rest of the infidels.
Linux: Recruits loners and outcasts into its loyal user-base.
Terrorism: Recruits loners and outcasts into its training camps.
Linux: Drew vast amounts of funding from supporters, with only ideological returns.
Terrorism: Drew vast amounts of funding from supporters, with only ideological returns.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
...terrorism to the Linux community and SCO.
Linux "zealots" would have studied the twin towers, found a way to improve them and a community to do it in their spare time, opened their work for everyone to see (a "nothing to hide" philosophy), and done it for little or no money, perhaps charging only for future consultation.
SCO would have claimed the towers were theirs for some strange reason, provided no proof (except for maybe the toilets looked the same), worked in secret (much like terrorists!) and threatened individual harm to every person who entered, until the world promised their property back.
FLR
I actually RTFA, and now I feel all dirty. Why are we giving web traffic to trolls? I'm well aware of the perils of having made up my mind and moving forward with a plan. The more you're committed to an action, the more flexibility and freedom you lose.
I'm not perfect. I make mistake, I go to far, I don't plan far enough ahead, and I make the wrong calls. But you can't (or, at least, I can't) live my life constantly reevaluating a constant stream of information looking for the 'next best thing' and second-guessing myself.
As described these "Linux Pros" sound like super heroes, who have boundless time and energy to explain every nuance to every dipshit reporter who writes a stupid article, always uses the right tool for the job, and constantly stays on top of every new tech that advances in the industry. And they apparently have no interest in having a say in what direction the industry is headed.
It would certainly be nice if we could have the time to evaluate every possible option, explore all their features, and make an elaborate pro/con list for each. I find, however, that reality is not so simplistic. While I'll sometimes just take the good with the bad, I'm not just going to sit down and try the make the best of a bad situation. If I feel the situation warrants it, I'm actually going to try and make an effort to fix it, rather than just get all Zen and be happy when things aren't going the way I'd like.
I'm suppose to fear that zealots turned terrorists might go to far and start holding witch hunts to weed out the infidels from among our ranks? I think instead I shall merely not misjudge an entire group based on my observations of the vocal few.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
The article certainly isn't news... it isn't even informative. What point is it trying to make? That the predominantly young, technically well-educated, and academic community that is the user base of the open source movement is 'dangerous'? Bullshit. Ignore Rob Enderle of TechNewsWorld so he can't afford his crack any more.
You know who I think are more like terrorists? Religious fundamentalists of all kinds (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, whoever); politicians that are secretly fascists, who want to take away Americans' rights (Cheney comes to mind); and companies that are so large that they can manipulate the government, to the detriment of citizens.
On what planet do you live ?
Yeah.. only the above average /.er is against him.
No it isn't; you obviously don't know the enderle-troll. The whole point of his existance is to get people to respond, which is why he should be treated only silence.
With the OP on the top I'd hoped that this could die as a 15-reply story, but I guess it wasn't meant to be.
Both the submitter and CmdrTaco need a good LART'ing for posting this.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
So many ppl accuse this of being zealotry. That is pushing Linux everywere and trying to get people to simply open their eyes. Yet, tt is nothing more than a grass root marketing. The only difference is that the Linux world can not afford to buy off magazines, editors, politicians, or judges.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
no, the ABOVE average slashdot reader is, though.
While I think zealotry is never a good thing (maybe except with regard to porn ...erh, nevermind), there is a fundamental difference between the "normal" terrorist and the "normal" linux zealot.
Terrorists are usually a (zealous) member of a religion which regards the rest of us as infidels, barely higher than pigs, if that. To them, the infidels, and ALL infidels, must die.
I don't think this compares to a linux zealot at all. I have yet to meet the linux geek that wants to kill windows users (for real that is).
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
This is excellent, the jokes about this are going rejuvenate the humor on /., so now we'll have more than just the old "in Soviet Russia" stuff.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This idiot is well-known for his position that "Microsoft is good, and all that is not Microsoft is bad." Read his stuff at http://www.enderle.com. Then forget about him, as all fools should be forgotten.
In the Open source community, the Zealots always seem to promote the inferior, less popular product.
Two prominant examples are Gnome and Debian. Compare and Contrasted to KDE and Mandrake, and the the former is zealotted more while the latter is techincally better, yet because they are for the masses (in linux terms at least), the Zealots try to make me switch to them.
Gnome is missing a hell of a lot of features, a pain to configure (gconf-editor? WTF), and is slow, not to mention the File dialog. I suggested in the gnome-desktop forums today to remove gconf-editor and maek applications properly configurable, but the leet zealots gave me a -1, troll!
Debian is hard to set up, has a limited range of uptodate packages. (Gnome 1.4? KDE 2.2, Xfee86 4.1 are is what is in the "stable" version I kid you not). Plus mandrake 9.2 has more up2date packages than the "unsbale" version of Debian!
I know I'm probably going to get a "flamebait" from a zealot with mod points, but it must be said. If Gnome fixed its problems then they zealots would turn to a new Desktop enviornment instead.
Remember. This is Rob Endlerle "of the Enderle Group", which as it turns out, is a one man consulting job, aparently payed to write nasty articles about Linux. Remember the last one? The one that claim Microsoft is indeed more secure and an overall better server platform than anything else. He addressed security concerns using such advanced techniques as "block port 80" (which was eventually changed...). It is a payed troll, ignore, continue.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
the article is just it...a troll...
I agree with the author: zealots are not a good thing in any situation. Zealots, almost by definition, are not thinking clearly about what they say or do. Sadly, the OS world seems to be riddled with zealots. However, there are as many Windows/*BSD/MacOS/etc zealots as there are for Linux ... it is not just a Linux problem.
We who support open source OS's should realise that we dont have a huge marketing division dedicated to making our products look good in the eyes of the public. We are judged almost entirely by our user base, and how we conduct ourselves. Are we professional? Competent? Knowledgable? Helpful? Or are we militant? Argumentative? Close-minded? Intolerant?
I think we could all do with a bit of moderation and respect for the choices of others.
-Karsten
...how long it will be until someone at the DOJ reads this and starts an investigation (via the Patriot Act) of everyone who has downloaded or purchased Linux. Maybe they can hold Linus as an illegal combatant? Nice to see that this author is so poor at journalism, that he can only put up tired references to the attacks on September 11. I hope that he one day understands that he is so little of a man.
----- "It's all fun and games 'til somebody puts an eye out, then it's just funny."
There is a superlative difference between a zealot and a fundamentalist. While zealot (the word) has its roots in religion, it had grown into the common use meaning "fanatical" (i.e. a "fan" or stong support/advocate of something). Fundamentalis{m,t} have a very different slant than their root word fundamental. The concept of fundamentalism is based soley on relgion/"right"/beliefs/etc.:
It is traditional religions and those that strictly adhere to them in a fundamental manner that are the danger here... Not zealots of free software or a business paradigm shift.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I think this guy just writes inflammetory, flame bait articles to get page hits.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
When a piece of flamebait like this appears we blindly click on it fullfilling the dreams of the person who posted it, only hoping to generate clicks and keep their job another week...
Rob shows how you can be a consistent waste of technology. I may have been attacked for posting my opinion, called a terrorist, but I have integrity which Rob seems to lack.
Rob Enderle cannot see value in having computer science being treated like other sciences, in an open scholarly manner. Open source is directly responsible for the state of computer technology today. It is such a shame that Rob is clearly indebted to the idea that corporations (Microsoft) built these technological marvels. Much of the innovation that advanced the science of computing has come from individuals who created and shared their findings freely. This open sharing of ideas has lead to the meteoric expansion of computing. Corporations in their drive for profit attempted to gain control of the science of computing. Open Source processes were in need of formal protections. GNU and the various open source licenses are the result of insuring that the open source innovations remain open for all.
Rob, here is my challenge: Do what you do without the benefit of a single open source product. Clue: Windows includes open source material, see zlib flaw. So does Unix. The Internet relies on open source innovations greatly. Report back if you can produce another article without using Open Source.
There is a fourth face to open source, the ignorant one, who denies that he needs open source, not knowing that he uses it every day.
Let's see: We're Linux zealots, say. There's two possibilities:
1. We're NOT terrorists: In which case, this article is Flamebait. Responding to this is a waste of our time. Time that can go to improving our ever evolving baby -- Linux. Conclusion: Don't respond.
2. We ARE Terrorists : (I know, I know,, just assume so, bite the bait for a sec.) Why should we waste our time giving up the game? We don't reveal our hand. Of course, we're a special band of Terrorists. Ones that try to kill IGNORANCE, ARROGANT CORPORATES, BIGOTRY, etc, etc. Anyway, Conclusion: Don't respond.
TO sum up: Don't respond to this Flamebait. Move on. Learn the lesson not to rely on Slashdot for Meaningful News That Matters To Nerds. Learn that these days, even articles can be Falmebait, let alone Replies.
Move on....
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Not only do I have a Samba/LDAP/Postfix server in my house, I also smoke weed. If the pot-smoking doesn't make me a terrorist, then the Linux server MUST seal my fate.
See you guys at Guantanamo! Maybe they'll give us all adjacent cages...
Who did what now?
...only one seems fit to talk to, and it is mendatory to accept that Linux cannot be fundamentaly better than proprietary software to be part of it. If you happen to think that even behind immediate technical usability, there is something that makes Free Software better, you are immediatly labeled "Priest" (read : wierdo lunatic) or "zealot" (read : gee that guy looks scary with this t-shirt I don't understand).
They are indeed lousy people promoting Linux, there is no question about it. But there is a point in saying that, for instance, even though Open Office import filters might not be optimal, it is fundamentaly a better choice than Microsoft Office because of the open file format, no matter what bugs there might be.
Free software : it's shit, but it's going to improve. Proprietary software : it's shit, and you'll be unable to use it in 18 months. Details about the colour of the shit are irrevelant, the Free one will be better in almost any case.
He actually makes some very valid points:
Anybody know who the girl on the cover of the September Wired is? (The one covered with diamonds.)
There's no such thing as an Open Source community. There are only bunch of peoples/companies with very different (even diverging) interests, working sometimes together on some particular projects.
I'm as platform-agnostic as they come. My last gig, which I left just a few weeks ago, I was architecting and implementing embedded Linux for medical devices. Currently I'm working on FreeBSD. Much of my career is on Windows and this is being typed in Opera. My SourceForge projects are in wxWindows C++ and in Java, my recent hobby programming on Atmel processors for automation and on the Palm-OS. I don't have an axe to grind. And I agree with what he wrote.
.com model, and get the payoff with a licensing deal... but it comes out on Windows and a disgruntled Linux zealot steals the source (perhaps an inside job) and warezes it and your competition comes to market a year faster with a competitive product than otherwise, again you won't see that as freedom for the code.
Where did he go too far? He didn't say Linux zealots would blow up buildings, but it's not a stretch to believe some would, for example, ferret out non-open-source and publish it on a warez site. Or write an attack to crash Exchange servers or IIS servers. Or tunnel into Verisign to extract revenge for their hijacking of the way DNS works on failure. At that point the word "terrorist" is only one of perspective.
If you're the victim, if your company does good deeds and you believe in it... say you coordinate finding low prices on medicine for income-restricted seniors... and your company is brought down by a Linux zealot's "crash IIS" worm, you won't think of the zealot as a "freedom fighter." You'll feel sandbagged and attacked. Same thing if you wrote the technology licensed by, say, OmniMegaCorp... you invested years of your life on this in a typical
I evangelize Linux. And Palm. But that's different from the harsh or militaristic "with us or against us" attitude some posters use. And it really is just a tiny number, but it will only take one high-profile zealot to do the movement enormous harm.
as any different from zealots because of the nature of their propoganda.
It's been 2 fucking years, I wish the press would stop parroting the Bush administration terror/war mongering.
Are Christians any better than [insert terrorist-like group here]?
Seriously, let's take a bunch of die-hard, religious Americans, and compare them to some of these militant religious folks over on the other side of the world. Hell, why not take some of those die-hard Cubs fans that are screaming for the death of the guy who caught the fowl ball in game 6--they seem to disregard life and society and think the damn world revolves around their sucky team. I'm certain there's some parallels in each of these cases, namely people who are complete fanatics about something they think is the most holy of holies.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Just because you don't agree with someones opinion doesn't necessarily make it flamebait.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I hope you're joking.
Considering how close it is to competing UNIX systems in usability, stability, and security, these points don't make any sense. The first depends on you, while the other two are known to be false.
[snip]
I smell FUD. You need to learn some more about open-source/free software and try this call again.
Lovely idea! Let's do that... you first!
It sounds like you may have some hardware issues to resolve. You also have some English issues to resolve, which is frightening considering that you apparently teach at a major college. It should never take you six weeks of constant tweaking to get RH 8.0 set up the way you like it. If this is the case, you need to be more productive in your tweaking -- consult a friendly geek.
Speed is relative and somewhat inconsistent -- some things may be faster while others are not. I personally find that Linux with XFree86 and Sawfish are considerably faster than Windows when performing the same tasks as I would on the other OS.
I'm not sure that your point about stability is even worth gracing with a response. Anyone who has worked in a technical support department and dealt with Windows's B.S. for a few years can tell you that it becomes anything but stable after a while. Most of the window managers I've used on Linux (i.e., WindowMaker, Afterstep, fvwm, Enlightenment, Metacity, Sawfish) have been remarkably stable.
Hardly. Around here we call them Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt -- so take your pile of mangled English, Mr. Teach, and go home.
-a
It is very important to watch that we don't foster any zealots that would do things that would leave a bad impression of our movement
I see this text as a warning to us and not to them. If we educate our followers to the notion that we are nailed by the big companies and we are not able to operate in a democracy, we will see people crossing the line.
"We are winning! The actions done by the big ones are reactive and defensive. We walk on down the sober path and we will not be stopped!" That is the fact, so we need no terrorism. Teach them that!
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
I like iX, I have a PC, I run linux. Am I a zealot now? Well, I know a lot of pros for linux and as many cons agains windows. That's very dangerous, really!!! :-D
http://rootprompt.org/article.php3?article=5586
Terrorists are zealots.
Linux users are zealots.
Terrorists murder and destroy property to advance their beliefs.
Thus, Linux users will eventually murder and destroy to advance their beliefs.
I sure hope that the pair-a-noyd is wrong, because my wife is REALLY into stamping, card making, and scrapbooking.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
... it's flamebait, but I get the feeling that this is an honest misconception (and a common one, as you'll noticeif you step into the Windows world for any length of time) and not an intentional attack. Just goes to show that the Microsoft FUD machine is in working order, I suppose. We have struggled with the "zealots" as you call them, they're the same people that troll on slashdot. However, he makes some claims that I'd like to refute.
First of all, he makes a distinction about the "Pros", as he calls them, that have technical knowledge but don't press any system, and the "Priests", with which he gives an image of a person who endlessly pushes something without any facts. That we push Linux without facts to back it is both inflammatory and fundamentally untrue. To write an article such as that without checking his facts shows that he does not follow the most basic principle of journalism: always check your facts. In fact, he comes off as one of these aforementioned "preists" as he pushes forward his perception of the Linux community without any facts to back up his claim. The truth and reality of it is that most of the people that push Linux, myself included have used other Operating Systems (OSes) in the past. We switch to Linux because we find technical facts such as the multitudes that are posted here daily compell us to change. Or, in my case, they are so disallusioned with one OS that they switch to another - and I found the Linux worked better than I could have ever hoped for. To make such a baseless distinction as to call those that push Linux basing the push on nothing and tghat the real "Pros" don't push Linux is both wrong and highly inflamatory.
Persoanlly, I take offence to this article. (And yes, I did, to my grave misfortune, RTFA)
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
oh wait..you said linux not linus...I gotta stop jumping on these bandwagons.
What about Mac zealots? Have they done any damage? They have been around longer than linux zealots. And windows zealots? They dance around with sweaty armpits on a stage "GIVE IT UP FOR ME! COME ON!" (cough, BALMER)
Stupid. Fanatical muslims who plan or carry out attacks are TERRORISTS, fanatical muslims who just hate the US are not.
Zealot != terrorist. If a group of linux users acted in a stupid manner, it would be outside any control of the general community. What, were you expecting to BAN linux or something?
Stupid article.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
If a Linux Zelot voted for Bush, they aren't. If they didn't, then they must be a 'terrist'. At least that's how GW seems to define it.
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
Here's a plea to people like the author: please, knock it off! You've just about wore out "Hitler" and "Holocaust" by invoking one or the other at every turn. If you can't put in the extra effort to come up with a reasonable metaphor, then shut the fuck up!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
It has become fashionable to label everyone who has an extreme point of view on nearly any subject a "terrorist."
Make no mistake about this -- Linux advocates are not terrorists. They are zealots. By definition, a zealot is a fanatically committed person. That could describe any number of people -- Cubs fans, religious folks, car enthusiasts, bikers, and yeah, Linux fans. Do any of the aforementioned folks necessarily blow up people, depriving them of life or liberty in order to propogate their aims? No. Therefore, they are not terrorists, they are zealots.
It bears saying that it is extremely provocative to label someone a 'terrorist' and the term is akin to calling someone a Jew in 1930's Germany, or a Communist in 1950's America. In the case of Linux "terrosits" the idea is specious and slanderous on it's face: the writer is imply because some people go over the top and do things that embarass a larger group that they are the equivilant of murderers.
Get real.
Yeah, but no women make it in, since they're not perfect enough as geeks.
This article is just more proof that Linux is now in the "then they fight you" stage.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
There is something that makes me wonder
Didn't the Nazi in Germany consider Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg and his fellows consider as terrorists, too, for their attempted assasination at 20. July 1944?
Of course they were terrorists, the bombed and killed people, but if they were right or wrong is a completly different question!
Regarding any terrorism, right or wrong is not something that the definition of terrorism includes.
Not every terrorist is a bad guy by default, Stauffenberg surly was not!
My 2$
Interesting paleologism. :)
However, you may have meant pleonastic
Perhaps your mis-spelling helped you escape superfluousness.
Is it just me, or does the "Pro" philosophy seem to be the best way to go (and not just because the author paints it that way). Why shouldn't we be completely unbiased, and merely provide the best tool for the job. Linux probably is the best tool in MOST cases, but in those few cases where it is not, should we really be sticking our head in the sand or covering our ears in denial? And more so, should we really claim that the advantage the other OS has doesn't exist? In my book, this doesn't really help anyone's case.
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
It seems to me, I could be wrong, but anyone that says anything critical about open source or Linux or the GPL is instantly attacked. I am speaking from an outside position and am only observing, but is Open source and Linux that perfect that it cannot stand critics that may (or may not) have valid points?
I'm not saying that the writer of the original email was right or wrong, but it's instantly dismissed...almost to the point of "don't even read it, it's flamebait". Well, I did read it and his point about zealots from ANY walk of life do have the potential of spinning out of control and going into illegal and dangerous areas. I said potential...I'm not saying that they WILL do this. Just that the potential is there.
Ask yourself how many people thought in their heads about attacking SCO when they dropped the bombshell of theirs months ago. Maybe the thought was only "boy, they're playing with fire in the Linux community, I sure hope someone teaches them a lesson not to mess with us". Or something similar.
Again, I'm speaking as an outsider only observing. I don't use Linux, though I've used it in the past and I'm a great admire of it. Nor am I a programmer or system admin. I also like Mac OSX, but these two operating systems don't cater to my love of video games as well as XP does. That's all. My job also doesn't involve using a computer at all, so again, I'm only observing the back and fourth of SCO and Linux as one would watch a football game. I'm rooting for Linux though.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Oh, come on!........
Honestly, i think you are a kind of "terrorist". You know, spreading LIES an fear about thing that does not fill YOUR pocketbook.
This classification perfectly shows the limits of his thinking.
Pros are those who use only technical arguments.
Priests are those who use ethical arguments, too.
The problem is, Enderle is unable to comprehend ethical arguments.
Zealots are those who get too annoyed by this fact.
You are all acting like little children. Someone has said Santa Clause does not exists, and instead of sitting down, considering the argument and the evidence, you have all collectively thrown your hands over your ears, shouting "La! La! La! LAAA! I can't hear you!"
If you ever want to advance your ideas, your ideas must be challenged and expanded and filled in by other, contrary ideas. Contrary ideas are, by their nature, the opposite of what you might like to think. If you go and label everything you don't want to think about flamebait, you will never think more than rudimentary thoughts about the world.
Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far.
How? All he said was:
That's going too far? He's basically quoting from the dictionary!! Webster's defines a "zealot" as a "fanatic". If you look "fanatic" up, it says:
So, zealots are excessive by definition. Hmm. Sounds to me like Webster is saying they go too far. And zealots are marked by uncritical devotion? I'm going to assume you know the definitions of "uncritical" and "devotion" and put two and two together. Zealots, by definition, are so blinded by their faith that they don't pay close attention to the repercussions of their actions. This is exactly, by the way, what the poster said.Maybe before quoting someone and claiming they've gone to far, you should not only read what was written, but consider what the words mean. If anyone behaved fanatically here, it was you and your knee-jerk reaction to an honest post.
--
This is how I see it as well. Perhaps the Linux zealots who write viri/worms/trojans/etc. are terrorists in their own right, but the average Linux zealot (or Apple zealot) -- they see their choice as better than the more popular alternative and want to make sure that other people know and make an informed choice. To me, this sounds more like a form of evangelism than terrorism.
Now if Linux users start making "computer bombs" that wipe all windows stuff and install linux on the machine, that'd be terrorism....
~~~~~
Pet Peeve: Perscription drug advertising to the general public.
Unsurprisingly, MS didn't comply, and the exploit was released. The group's actions could quite easily be interpreted as blackmail, and would have made great fodder for the article. I'm guessing the guy didn't dig too deep.
should be free. Even if that idea is not popular or agree with your own bias. The whole point of a democracy is that people can be reasonable and unreasonable without fear of being prosecuted. Just like all areas of life, there are extremists and sane people. That would be equivalent to saying "All baptists are skin heads" or "all bhuddists light themselves on fire in time square." But hey, america is free and the world is free to see what an idiot the author is.
Of course since the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft's Justice Department has been redefining terrorist as his trump card to get almost any law passed or any court precedent re-interpreted.
I wouldn't be at all suprised to hear that people who check out library books are "terrorists" so I'm not suprised to hear the word bandied about in platform war diatribes whether it was valid before the Bush ][: "Minax" administration or not.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the moderators on this one. Insightful?!? Please. Sure, and as useful as holding your hand over the burst pipe so it won't leak.
/. is capable of that ;), and I would have to agree. The ignorant comments ARE going to appear, regardless. You can either offset them with insight, or simply ignore the story.
Someone else suggested the response was reasoned discourse (like
A comment that says "don't post comments" is about as useful as snot on a doorknob.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Hey thanks for this, I was too lazy to just check (I am not a native glishpeaker) :)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
This guy's thoughts belong in this woman's book:
4 00 050308/102-1784192-7797751?v=glance
;-)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1
That is where this argument leads. The notion that anyone who doesn't mull along with the ideals of government and their supporters (corporations) is a terrorist/traitor baffles me. It seems it never occurs to some people before they open their mouth that at one time George Washington was a terrorist, guilty of treason. Now most Americans regard him as a hero, and most Brits couldn't care less about the guy. It seems history will be the only real judge of our actions because people living in the today are always short-sighted in their over-simplification of the world. Put another way, if you don't agree with me then you are wrong. Now that is a demonstration of tolerance!
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Conversely, I can hardly think of a definition of the term "terrorist" which does not include Ariel Sharon (and several other politicians).
Besides, there's reasons to like Linux other than its technical merits, there's also the fact that it's free, and it's free. People who choose Linux partly based on those merits are often erroneously called zealots, but those merits allow you to do more with Linux than you would be able to otherwise. Many people fail to understand that, or simply refuse to.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Linux zealots.. as opposed to.. SCO or RIAA zealots??
Linux zealots.. usually underfunded can't lobby gov't..
SCO/RIAA/Big Business zealots.. do it behind closed doors, slowly but surely extracting every last freedom you have so that you will eventually become property of the corporations that will enslave you.
Tell me which is worse?
Since the Grammar Nazi (no pun intended, folks!) doesn't seem to be around anymore, I'll say it. I would expect more from an "editor":
Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far, but he does make legitimate points that the Open Source community has wrestled with in the past.
Should probably be, "Like the zealots of which he speaks, he goes too far..." but this is slashdot.
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
This is absurd, relating Linux zealots to Terrorists. There is a large difference between the Terrorists of 9/11 and Linux zealots. Osama Bin Laden and his buddies exist from a material basis. They're actions reflect the universal hatred torward American imperialism both in an economic and political sense. Linux zealots neither hate American Imperialism nor have any tie to the economy. :-) The worst Linux zealots can do is scream and shout, there's no reason for them to take direct action.
To claim that all Zealots are Terrorists would presume that Neo-Conservative zealots for The New American Century like the esteemed President Bush and lackey Cheney are also terrorists. ;)
I'm a *terrorist* - and NOT Franz Kafka
first enderele says this about zealots:
/. is also sadened by this, but i doubt zealots had anything to do with it. my guess is amiga and OS/2 zealots only became more verbal AFTER the failure of those platforms.
"
# Attack first. If you kill the messenger, you can always apologize later.
# If someone disagrees with you, that person must be a crook.
# Behaving badly -- by attacking, lying or bullying -- is only bad if someone on the other side does it."
then he says:
"This group owes its roots to similar groups that existed around OS/2 and the Apple platforms. The Zealots are generally seen as being part of the cause when the related platform fails or goes into decline."
who's lying and atacking first ? or is enderle missinformed ?
I don't see apple's platfform failing, specially because apple's platform is actually a BSD unix variant, wich is going fine, thanks. OS/2 and amiga failled, we all know that and many here on
enderle, the only zealot i see here is you. no. you're not a zealot. you're a troll. and a bad one.
What ? Me, worry ?
Why didn't the story mention that this is the fool Enderle? I don't even bother to read his stuff anymore, he's so full of shit.
He lost his gig as an "analyst" with giga for writing in public that he is just someone whose opinion is for sale. Now all he can do is stir up shit to grovel for eyeballs.
Don't give adverstisers your eyeballs for this one.
Enderle is so far over the top that even PHBs (I hope) will see this for the nonsense it is.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
>>"priests aren't violent or nasty, and they appear to be competent in their jobs, but they are incredibly biased and don't seem to recognize it."
Reading his previous articles, its obvious he falls into the Windows priest category.
Clearly he likes to think he is a pro, but I think he just resembles his own quote above.
They are *so* easy to rule over! People who don't believe anything strongly think that anything and everything is OK. Therefore it is easy to get them to believe that just because you aren't actively beating them, what you are doing is OK. You could be killing off their entire family line and as long as it isn't through active means, they think it is OK.
Does anyone remember this? A couple years ago a group reversed engineered the distributed.net protocol and threatened to release their code to protest the fact that d.net was closed source. Now, the actual cracking code was open source, but the protocol that actually sent the data was closed. Security through obscurity. Distributed.net figured they could deal with the few people who would go through the trouble of actually reverse engineering the client to send fake packets, but that dealing with everyone that could type "make install"
Anyway, d.net threatened to shut down if they released the software, and the group never did. The distributed.net people called them "Open Source Terrorists" and I kind of agree. A lot of people on slashdot were saying "Well, I'm not going to run something I don't have the code for..." so then just don't run it, jackass.
Open source zealots seem to be a lot more fervent and religious then even Mac zealots, but still I doubt any of them would do something really crazy, like assassinate McBride.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I too reject Godwin's law, but that doesn't mean it isn't insightful on occasion (certainly vis-a-vis a Microsofties compensation for his own inadequacies (both physical, no doubt, and certainly those of his employer^H^H^H^H^H religion, Microsoft, in his comparison of 9/11 terrorists and mass murderers to GNU/Linux volunteers and enthusiasts). Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, after all.
... does pointing that out constitute "running afoul of Godwin's law" merely because a great number of Bush's contemporaries would take exceptions (I suspect a great number of Pol Pot's followers would take exception to his comparison as well)?
I don't think Godwin's Law was ever meant to apply to non-trivializing comparisons to Hitler.
Godwin's law was never meant to apply to anything. It was a joke, a humorous aside mocking the many flame fests that would arise in USENET discussion groups, particularly those of a political bent. It never was "true" in any real sense (many flame fests never invoked Hitler once, even in passing, and many invocations of the lessons of WW II didn't involve flame fests at all), it was merely a clever characterization of many of the more inane flame fests that arose at the time.
Saying Bill Gates is akin to Hitler runs afoul of Godwin's Law. Saying Pol Pot is akin to Hitler does not.
Comparing Pol Pot to Hitler is certainly legitimate. How about comparing the rise of the radical right in America, and perhaps even their poster child, Bush, to Hitler? The historical timelines are strikingly similiar, and the rhetoric shockingly so
Or, better yet (and perhaps less ambiguously), lets consider Microsoft and Bill Gates. Bill Gate's comment (or rather, the Microsoft advertisement) of
"One World, One Web, One Program"
bears a striking resemblence to Hitler's famouse
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" catchphrase.
(Translation: One People, One Empire, One Leader).
Does noting that similiarity, and drawing parallels between the mentalities that derived such rhetoric, run afoul of Godwin's law? If so, I would argue that Godwin's Law is, at best, humorous (as it was originally intended) and more commonly a terrible negative, as it is being used to blind us to many of the very apropos lessons of history, insuring thereby that said history will repeat itself yet again, this time perhaps in our very own back yard.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
For all those who back the terrorists:
go to www.ogrish.com and watch the 2 videos of the Russian soldiers being beheaded by Chechan terrorists
then come back with your moral equivalency
The man is MS Bitch Professional Edition and has been for years. You cannot take anything he writes with anything other than a massively insignificant grain of salt. For god's sake - to see the man's clear MS zealotry, got to http://www.enderlegroup.com. Be prepared for underwhelming web design from a supposed professional outfit.
hell, I know a lot of people who like apple, we mean you no harm.
This is neither news for nerds, nor stuff that matters. This is just a fan for the flames.
I don't think this site serves it's credo, and if it were in my power, I'd rename this site "News about Linux". That's essentially what it is.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Rob Enderle does not sufficiently prove his position and ends up being just as one sided as he accuses of AC posts on /. Sure there are people who open their mouth (or type) before they think, but Enderle is no different. Perhaps Enderle should look at history and compare the terms fascism and terrorism. Most people are loud mouths, but that does not make them a terrorist. Nor does being passionate about a topic. Enderle goes about defining different categories like Pro's, zeolots and so on, but no one maintains their composure all the time. Some days a person may be totally composed and provide lucid arguments and another day they rant like an zeolot idiot. Does that make a person a terrorist? The bottom line for me is this. Until a person commits a crime, is tried in court and found guilty, they are not terrorists. It's important to remember that terrorists are also human beings. They just happen to feel they have been unfairly persecuted and want to be heard. The street goes both ways and nothing was ever black and white.
I know this is slashdot, but you really need to read the article before you post. The above comment was taken very much out of context. Don't get me wrong this guy is no friend of Linux or Open Source but he is not the contrarian idiot this slashdot posting makes him out to be. So just take a second and read it before you post.
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
how many real computer nerds are actually going to leave their basements to go out and terrorize people anyway?
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Definition of Terrorist:
Someone who fights on their own terms, not yours.
Concepts such as, military and civilian targets, defined combatants, even war are weighted terms that are not necessarily accepted by both sides of a conflict. The niceities of modern warefare as defined by the Bern and Geneva conventions are simply the rules of a strategic game played by rich powers, there are no rules in a full on life or death struggle, it is kill or be killed. The "terrorist" does not really see themselves as a terrorist merely as someone who is doing what must be done.
Engaging a "terrorist" in conflict going to validate their position in the conflict.
The solution to engaging terrorism is not conflict, it is communication and a resolution of the reason for the struggle.
This analyst is one of the most pro-microsoft/anti-everyone else guys out there. Choice quotes:
i on=us&q=+Ro b+Enderle&btnG=Search+News=Search+News
"It would be wise to do an IPO before Microsoft fully engages them in competition," says Rob Enderle [In regards to Google]
[Junk about the SCO battle snipped] "which probably means I'm spending too much time with the open-source software folks and have begun to become as paranoid as they are about secret conspiracies."
"They are going to have a serious problem with the Windows community," said Rob Enderle [In regards to iTunes]
But don't believe an AC, look for yourself:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edit
I know why he has trouble getting people to finish or even attempt to read his articles. People are just to stunned by his ignorance. You can sum up his article as "I'm right, you're wrong and if you disagree your a terrorist". When an article starts out by pigeon-wholing people you know that is going to be the high-light of the article.
The article is just wrong in so many ways and unfortunately as soon as you try to tell him so, you become a terrorist.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Probably as recently as a non-terrorist. Many 'terrorists' are pretty normal people caught up in situations where they see no option but to turn to violence in order to resist what they see as unbearable injustice. You may see people who are categorised as terrorists as automatically evil, but what would you do if your country had been occupied by a foreign power for the past 50 years, who treated you as a second class citizen, and was able to shoot people, such as your brother, without any form of punishment?
The difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is choice of targets, IMHO. Terrorists primarily target civilian targets. These are targets that are of no tactical or strategy value militarily. The idea is that if you kill enough civilians they will force the government to capitulate and you will get your way.
Freedom fighters generally attack military targets. When the US was fighting for freedom against the British, they didn't go and randomly kill people in London to prove a point. Likewise, when Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR to my knowledge the Afghans didn't go and suicide-bomb civilians in Moscow.
So IMHO, the USS Cole bombing was not a "terrorist" attack since it was against a military target. The World Trade Center attack was a civilian building and that is why I consider it an act of terrorism.
The injustice of terrorism is that *defenseless* people are *intentionally* killed for no significant reason. You can be a pro-Palestianian Jew and be blown up just for eating at the "wrong" restaurant at the wrong time and no Palestianian will will apologize or feel bad because you were just another Jew.
Brian Ellenberger
Um... No. If they were facts, then I wouldn't be crying BULLSHIT!
Now to be fair, I know that Linux is not faster than Windows in most cases, and it really does tend to eat a lot of RAM compared to Windows... Heck, I'll even concede that XFree86 isn't nearly as responsive and reliable as a fresh install of Win98. The X GUI (the only part 99% of computer users ever see) is dreadful when compared with any other popular OS's user interface. The available applications are cheesy hacks and noticeable knockoffs.
But then there's the other areas where you are totally full of shit. The Linux distribution philosophy is nothing close to communism. Access to the source doesn't make script writing any easier, and writing a script to "slam" a linux box... Well, so far, my box's haven't succome to any "Blaster" type attacks.
To say that the source code was "stolen" from other works is equivalent to saying that anyone who uses math for balancing their checkbook without contributing to their alma mater is stealing from the education system. How many differnt ways can you code "add one to register a"? It's not as if these ideas exist in a vacuum, nor should they.
Yes, Linux has it's problems, and most of them are people related, but that hardly indicates that it is an inferior OS. It just has poor representation.
Give Linux a few more years to mature. It's really getting close to being a drop in replacement for a Window's machine, but the snot nosed brats that troll /. have to grow a few more pubes and get laid before that will happen.
"I began to see parallels between Microsoft's image problem and my own view of the Linux community."
I stopped at the first sentence. Nothing worth reading here.
(Aside: now that my XP installation has started spontaneously rebooting, I'm more than ever quite certain Microsoft has much more than an image problem-- and no, the problem does not manifest itself in Linux on the same machine, so it is not likely to be a hardware problem.)
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Anytime you have fanatical idealism without objective questioning of the movement's goals from within, you have a dangerous combination.
Fortunately, I don't believe the Open Source and Free Software movements fit the above model. There are too many people involved with too many different sets of goals. If all Open Source and Free Software projects were controlled by a single individual (they are not), and that individual had a fanatical agenda, I would be much more concerned.
Unfortunately, Rob Enderle (the author) seems to believe that every loud, rude noise is a gunshot.
So if you religiously advocate an OS that is generally more stable, secure, and doesn't restrict its users' freedoms, you're like a terrorist? But if you are a zombie who always picks the most popular platform that is known to be unstable, insecure, and restrictive of its users' freedoms, you're ok?
-- Fratz, human
terrorists are motivated by embitterred love. they are not fighting a human enemy, with feelings and fear --- they are fighting an inhumane monster, possibly evil, in the case of the islamists, they see us as decedance, evil, and sexual perversion _in carnate_, spilling our corrupt semen on their land and hearts. until you understand this you have no hope of understanding that, there are linux/OpenSourceSoftware users, that are very stressed over the ongoing oppression of many peoples from large multinational conglomerates and other entities not worth mentioning in specific --- what would you do if enough politicians were greased that linux became illegal to use? what would you do if it became a felony to use an open source operating system? a felony to view source without a liscence? illegal to even talk about software algorythms that are under copyright? what then? would you join with the rest ofthe brewing resistance and begin to resist? would you, when red/martial law is declared indefinitely, be willing to stand up and fight to restore lost freedoms? to vanquish the monster that has ruined the greatness that was your country? perhaps some of this may not apply if you live in a country with sane laws, and sane lawmakers. i assume, quite possibly incorrectly that you live in the states, canada, the UK or australia, and with a possible kindred sympathy if you live in china or some nearby-china place.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
2) How exactly does he think that Linux Zealots will affect the SCO case? It depends on matters of fact, and the contracts between SCO and IBM (and others).
3) He also acknowledges that unix and open source has advantages. He claims the "Pros" favour BSDs as they are less "distracting".
He is also a comitted MS apologist who has previously written a piece claiming that MS's dissatissfied custmomers have only themselves to blame for,among other things, not buyng Premier Support
can we talk about WWII/nazi/hitler now in arguments, so long as we don't talk about 9/11 now?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
1. Linux zealots are like terrorists -- presumably in that he doesn't like either.
2. Linux zealots do the same thing as the bad elements of Microsoft -- presumably that's something like "supporting a product," as opposed to something like "trying to exterminate healthy competition by leveraging your already illegal monopoly to the detriment of the industry, the economy, the country, and the world."
3. There are three kinds of people in the world who don't hate Linux: people who don't care, ideologues who have no facts to back them up, and terrorists.
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
It's not like people didn't know zealots were dangerous before 9/11. 9/11 is off topic here. Just like in 99% of all other arguments I've seen it used in. Just beacuse the U.S. hasn't seen war on it's own soil in 100 years doesn't mean 9/11 is the end of the world. It was "just another" terrorist attack, like those that happen around the world all the time. I'm sorry if I offend someone but it's all starting to sound like a broken record, playing the same tune over and over again. You can all mod me down now.
The really extreme Linux zealots are posting on Slashdot at -1. The really extreme SCO zealots are running the fucking company.
Posting a story on Slashdot about that article is a flamebait while the story itself might not be. It's not only about what is said but also about the audience the speaker is talking to. When you are talking to a friendly or a neutral audience, you can use rather harsh words of people who are not a part of the audience. However, if you use harsh words of your audience, you must be very, very careful and have very solid backing for every statement you present. Clearly, the article linked in this Slashdot story was not written with Slashdot-readers in mind.
On the other hand, comparing Linux zealots to terrorists implies a rather severe lack of a sense of proportions just like comparing your opponent with Hitler. If you compare someone you disagree with, be it OS zealots, political opponents or whatever, with mass-murderers, there is really something wrong with a person making such comparisons. Even if a zealot acts like an idiot, being an idiot does not imply that one is a mass-murderer.
Let's compare Microsoft to September 11th. September 11th cost the US economy $100 billion. Microsoft born worms have cost the US many billions as well. Code Red alone cost $2 billion. Sobig cost one billion. If we were to add up the costs of every dinky Microsoft worm all the way back to 1984, I'm sure we could arrive at $100 billion in documented costs. The documented costs, of course, pale by compairson with the undocumented costs of lost work. Those costs further pale when you consider the intentional waste of the upgrade cycle which forces users to ditch their hardware every three years. I just love walking into a 8 year old set up of Unix on PCs and see it working just as well as the day it was made without any adminisrtation. I hate walking into the typical Microsoft nightmare, which has not been "rebuilt" for a few years.
Is this killing anyone? Yes, it is. People in hospitals, cars and subways died in the big blackout a few months ago. It all points back to software that failed in the midwest, and I'm 95% sure that was a Microsoft failure. If we were to look at all the deaths caused by software failure, attributable to a mistaken use of Micfosoft software, I'm sure we could find more than 3,000 people and exceed the 9/11 toll.
Call me a zealot if you like. It does not change the truth.
Keep using that Microsoft junk. Just don't come whining to me when it cost you time, money and heartache. Especially stay away from me if you want to use it in a power plant or to operate traffic lights or some other place it does not belong. Someone will sue you for such negligence.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Having read the article thoroughly, this startling news shows the flaws in the brewing Open Source Zeitgeist that is gripping the software community. Have you considered that providing software for free to countries such as China is essentially tacit support for oppressive regimes?
Far-fetched? Think about it: With MySQL, the People's Army will now be able to do multiple queries on their tables of democratic activists in Olog(n) time instead of lengthy searches in card catalogs. The bureaucratic overhead previously allowed activists enough time to flee the country. How about building cheap firewalls so the people can't get the unbiased reporting that CNN provides? Or using Apache to publish lists of Falun Gong people to their police forces instantly? I doubt that never crossed your minds when you were coding away in your parents' basements. Consider putting that little thought in your mental resolv.conf file.
If that does not concern you ( which it probably doesn't, since the slashdot.org paradigm is publishing articles about how not to pay for things ), consider something else. When China eventually goes to war with Taiwan, we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck. One of the advantages of Windows never mentioned in the article is the ability of Microsoft to remotely deactivate Windows XP in the case of a national emergency. Thanks to GNU/Lunix, Taiwan will be on a collision course with the mainland in the near future.
Which throws into question Mr. Stallman's motives. A known proponent of socialism, the Chinese government and RMS are natural allies. Could it be a back door to Stallman's dream of an uber-Socialist United States? We may never know for sure. Next time you consider contributing to an open source project, ask yourself this question: don't you want to make sure your work isn't used for nefarious purposes? Will you risk having blood on your hands?
Consider Bush's zealotry. Ashcroft is a zealot as well. They are no less extremists than Osama and buddies. (Somehow the plot of the movie "Dragnet" comes up, thinking that Osama dropped a whole bunch of "cool powers" into Dubya's lap.)
But ... zealots are only considered terrorists when they are not in leadership positions. We don't have a good name for people like this when they are "the leaders".
(Though the word fuehrer comes to mind.)
The biggest problem with extreme zealotry/prejudice/bigotry is that they feel justified in their actions... Be it taking down SCO, disfiguring a webpage, crashing systems... or taking down a nation's leadership.
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
Disclaimer: most linux users, indeed most linux advocates are not zealots.
Linux zealots are only like terrorists in that they cannot be reasoned with. They are certain their belief is the only correct one, and will not give any ground to those with opposing views.
As this stance is based on faith, not reason or experience, they are unable to defend it in an argument and dismiss all counter claims as disinformation, propaganda, or FUD.
They have a very clear definition of their "enemy", though that enemy quite possibly is barely even aware of their existence and holds little or no emnity towards them. Everything that enemy does is wrong, even if some of those things are essentially the same as they do themselves.
Anyway, to get to the point of the subject header, linux zealots are typically technically uninformed, with a hugely overinflated idea of how much they know. They never let any degree of ignorance stop them contradicting people on Slashdot.
They have incredibly naive ideas, seeming to believe that Linux will make the world a better place to live, as would the annihalation of MS.
They are usually 15 and fit the stereotypyical nerd/loser profile very well.
They might be dangerous black hats if they could just work out how to untar that r00tkit.
A lot of people in here are defending linux zealots by saying they contribute to the open source community. I don't think they do. Linux users contribute; some linux advocates contribute; but the zealots are too busy arguing on comp.unix.solaris. I guess a few of them might have a version 0.0.1 project (written in PERL, natch) on sourceforge, but the world will keep turning after they abandon it.
I used to be an Amiga nut back in the day, and so much of the Linux community reminds me of the Amiga scene back then. Many talented people working on many great projects, but way too many losers caught up in ill-informed flame wars. (IMHO the Amiga was much more worthy of zealotry than Linux - it was something new, exciting, and genuinely different, not just essentially one more Unix-a-like.)
Bottom line: linux zealots are idiots and not worth our attention, just like every other kind of zealot.
BTW - I use Linux.
From the article: "In the end, I think we are all defined by how we are perceived. Our perception is 100 percent of our reality and doesn't have to have any connection to facts to be real to us." This more than anything speaks to the nature of Enderle's life and his incompetence to write about anything technical. No one who has written code for a processor would ever say that his perception defined the reality of a bad compile.
However, I find that these people you speak of who are critical of open-source or Linux, are often ignorant and confrontational, rather than being level-headed and understanding how different people may like different things.
Let's take Slashdot as an example. If you post a well thought-out post about Windows' strengths and it is on-topic for the debate, you will see very few flames, if any. However, most of the pro-Windows posts here are exactly that: Pro-Windows to an extreme, and they attract attention.
Not only are the pro-Windows, but they are also anti-open-source or anti-Linux, often stating that Linux is unnecessary, doesn't work well, is crap, etc. And they pull out the inevitable comparisons that are usually a result of Microsoft's FUD.
When a new security hole in a Microsoft product is posted on Slashdot, these people will start talking about how holes are only discovered "because Windows is more popular than Linux" or similar, which of course is an old and tired claim, especially considering the fact that open-source product Apache, which is more widely used than any other web server, has had far fewer security holes than Microsoft's IIS.
This will naturally attract negative attention, simply because they are posting flamebait. They may not know it, but that's what it is. It is an unsubstantiated claim based on nothing but Microsoft FUD.
So you see, these attacks you speak of against criticism of open-source or Linux are often ignited by ignorant rants by Microsoft apologists who post flamebait, either unknowingly, or fully aware of what they are doing.
Post valid criticism, and I am sure you will find that you will not be attacked.
And regarding the SCO matter, SCO is behaving more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of.
Finally, why should this article be thrown in the trash? Have you read other articles by Rob Enderle? A short while ago, another article of his was posted on Slashdot, and I was amazed and left speechless in disgust at this man's incredible disregard for facts and common decency. Again, I am a relatively happy Windows user (although I recognize a huge number of problems in Windows as well), but Mr. Enderle is simply an ignorant, foolish troll.
So that is why he is attacked. Rob Enderle is an eternal FUD and garbage machine, spewing out nonsense and flamebait. Don't take his word for anything, but rather ignore him, or if you must read his drivel, check every single claim of his carefully.
Clever signature text goes here.
people that seek nothing less than the complete failure of our modern society and who are willing to fight to death for it.
... they're more "willing to send others to fight to death for it."
Sounds to me like the people in power in my own US of A, if you ask me. Except for the part of "willing to fight to death for it"
So you are a moron. I would state that in a nicer way, but there is no acceptable alternative name for you, if you can't distinguish between a person flying a plane into the World Trade Center, and a person calling you a name on a message board.
If you want to call me a Linux Zealot, fine. Just don't call me a terrorist... moron.
This branding of all zealots as possible terrorists makes me want to puke. There are alot of zealous religious people who might want to annoy the world, but never harm anyone. There are many zealous researchers, without whom, no cures for disease would ever be found. Zealousity and idealism in such a thing about free speech (and our belief that code IS speech) is what keeps us from being a police state.
Don't ever allow shitheads like this to influence you. This is just a Microsoftie on the payroll trying to reinforce the uber-geek commie stereotype which couldn't be farther from the truth. They are still using mid 80's geek stereotypes against us, for Christ's sake. Don't they know that in the late 90's we all made serious coin and had hottie girlfriends and partied with the likes of stockbrokers and minor celebrities?
The article page had this advertisement. Just look at the emphasized part:
Just this advertisement made me squirm.
Mmm, Adric.
Don't worry, in less that a week, kernel 2.6.0 will be out.
Yes, the terrorism statement was idiotic, but there's more to the article than just that. The author mentions that unprofessional people hold onto their beliefs regardless of the facts. Then he says that he believes SCO will win the lawsuit because he thinks the "priests and zealots" are bending the truth. With regard to SCO, the facts are that we have no facts. We have a big steaming pile of hyperbole and half-truths from SCO press releases. We have assurances from SGI and IBM that they do actually own all the code they contributed. But we have no facts. Several people known for their extremely professional attitudes (Linus, for one), and who are familiar with the code that SGI and IBM have contributed have stated that they do not believe any of the contributed code could have derived from code for which SCO has the right to restrict copying and distribution. We also know that SCO has not been making money from their products and services lately, and before the lawsuit were in desperate straights. They have motivation to lie. Given all this, I would have to say that the author of the article is himself ignoring the facts.
include $sig;
1;
If the last 25 years have shown us anything, it's that overzealous followers of the Cult of Corporate Greed have made it more difficult for the more reasonable robber barons to make their killings. Boesky, Milken, Keating, Microsoft, Enron, RIAA, SCO, etc. Government restrictions and public suspicion are making it gradually more difficult to take the public to the cleaners. Damn these zealots!
Did he take the analogy over the top...absolutely...does that make it invalid...absolutely not. These are things we should address and discuss. We are too defensive when a piece like this comes out. In truth we should be ashamed that anything we've done or said could make even a part of the analogy true. Perhaps it's time that we took a look at ourselves and started being productive in our promotion of the penguin.
If he doesn't approve of people that express great zeal with something they care about, then what does he want? Sheep?
so if a person always chooses Windows even when it is not the best choice she/he is a zealot and a terrorist.
:-)
if you blindly push the use of Windows on others even when other systems are in place that work better you are a zealot and a terrorist.
if you can not accept that anyone would want to use anything other than Windows and slam them for it you are a zealot and a terrorist.
Wow!, i guess it's true all microsoft marketing staff are terrorist!
to not apply the same standards to windows users as those that get applied to linux users would be hipocritic.
Yes, this guy is a troll, and its bad to feed trolls, but he is not *just* a troll, he is also a propagandist and I think it is worthwhile to point out a couple of the more subtle lies in this propaganda piece.
(1) Religious name calling. Some people think that there are moral arguments for using free software. Enderle uses religious terminology to refer to these people: "priest" for the more reasonable; "zealot" for the less reasonable. He uses religious terminology because that allows him to pretend that these people support free software because an entirely irrational "faith", rather than because of some quite rational and well articulated moral argument. If Enderle ever dropped the name calling then he would have to actually address their arguments.
(2) Making sure that the trains run on time. Enderle is trying very hard to make sure that the question of freedom never comes up, so the only position that he acknowledges as reasonable is the position of the "pro" who only cares about whether the software "does the job". In doing so he is using a well worn tactic, familiar to anyone who has read pre-WWII defenses of Fascism and Communism. Like Enderle the defenders of totalitarianism did not want to address the question of freedom (they either claimed that there was no such thing, or that it didn't matter) and instead insisted that the only question was whether a given form of government could "get the job done" or as it used to be put "could keep the trains running on time".
Liberty is important. Like train schedules, the particular job done by any given piece of software is usually fairly trivial. People like Enderle don't want to touch the arguments about freedom because they know that if they lose those arguments then questions about which particular piece of software does a paricular job best will be irrelevant. If free software really does make a difference to how free people are then proprietary software is a bad buy at any price.
The karma system ultimately allows for self-promotion of the same junk you keep seeing over and over here. It's a colossal circle-jerk that whittles down visible commentary (by default) to posts that represent a limited viewpoint, promoted by like-thinkers with mod points, granted by other like-thinkers for making similar posts. Anything not embraced by this majority will be struck down, sometimes by the editors themselves (also part of the like-thinking group
he is an anti-linux zealot zealot. i think its very 'zealotish' to compare someone to a terrorist over a computer issue. although linux users can be very annoying..i know atleast a dozen people that just installed linux and think its great and have no knowledge of OS design etc..just its easy to use and its not microsoft so its praises obviously should be shouted from the rooftops, and are oh so quick to ramble out some unfounded insult to Windows 2000 etc..
I don't see Linux Zealots sneaking into Microsoft based offices late at night, blowing up the Exchange server and then installing Linux and Linux apps on every PC in a company yet, which would eqates better to terrorism than some guy/gal preaching his or her beliefs loudly and/or beligerently. Heck, if the person gets too roudy, call the cops - even verbal assault (especially with abusive language) can get you arrested these days.
I love this part:
"Behaving badly -- by attacking, lying or bullying -- is only bad if someone on the other side does it. "
A geek bully... LOL... what's he gonna do - point his laser pointer in your eye? If you're thinking firearms Columbine style, think again - those guys were all Doom playing Microsoft users. If you can name a Linux user who's killed for his beliefs, you're a better person than I am, and I read Slashdot daily, so I should know about it. Heck, my grandma can beat me up and she's, like, 89 years old. Geek bully...
they often terrorize society with their:
smell
star trek quips
political correctness
self righteous liberalism
spelling and grammar checking
fashion sense
long winded emails regarding IP
perl scripts
wanton use of the words 'crux' and 'core dump'
exploitation of penguins
obscure references to Ford Prefect
the stalking and exploitation of Natalie Portman
RMS and his viral additions of GNU/ to Linux
RMS and his beard
Michael Johnson and his biophobia
beowulf cluster references
soviet russia references
Yeah, it makes it sound like Linux zealots are on the Microsoft payroll
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
You know, even for us, there's a point where we can sit back and go "Fuck off. You're a douchebag, and we don't have to answer to you". Here it is. Let the silence resonate in this assholes ears. He's trash, and doesn't even deserve to be graced by our rebuttle.
To show that I'm serious, I'm not going to post another message on slashdot today.
Let the silence resonate. Let it deafen him.
It's been a long time.
I guess if stupid people were to be considered Terrorist, CmdrTaco should be NO. 1 in the FBI most wanted list. To compare computer users with a bunch of thugs, whose sole purpose is to inflict terror and death, is without doubt STUPID.
No - but we Mac zealots are...
Check out who wrote this... why, it's Rob Enderle if the Enderle. A research analyst who doesn't bother to find the facts before writing. Instead, he listens to the Linux Zealots and assumes they must be wrong. Brilliant!
Other than his ridiculous invocation of the murder of 3,000 people on September 11, it's a well-written piece. He'll love coming to Slashdot to read the perceptions of others based on 3rd-hand sources of his article. And his categorization of the different groups is pretty good. Sadly, he acts as if MS zealots don't exist, nor even MS priests. Takes the oppurtunity to slur OS/2 and Macs while he's at it though.
Curious how he reveals his own bias by attacking 3 of the 4 (he says nice things about BSD users, though) most signifiant OS's of the last 15 years, while giving the dominant one a free pass.A Windows priest, perhaps?
In as much as Al Quada achieved most of its long held goals, including getting USia out of Saudi Arabia, bankrupting the USA, whipping up fear and loathing of it all across the Islamic world, and as a special bonus, seeing Bush use 9/11 as a pretext to take out a secular regime that both he and bin Laden have always hated. As for Afghanistan, heh, sure, we sure stablised the hell out of that, didn't we?
The asshats who carried out 9/11 were cretinous murdering pawns, sure, but their masters achieved most of their goals.
Now that we've established that terrorism works, we can get back to the debate.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Join hands, brethern, and sing triumphantly the Internationale!
No saviour from on high delivers
No trust we have in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
Ere the thieves will out with their booty
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do his duty
And strike the iron while its hot.
Then come comrades rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race.
Hah! How about we just invoke Goodwin's law and call it all off...
The best thing to do with Enderle's "essays" is to ignore them. He has a forum, but that doesn't mean that his every blathering needs to be discussed endlessly on Slashdot.
Terrorist is a prejorative term:
'America is the biggest terrorist state or organisation', and I do not mean by size.
This statement while arguably true does not encourage inclusive debate in many circles.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
Yea, whatever.
all the lawsuits over unix, source code pulled, high prices, software patents! hey, hold on, that's today!
why can't they all just sit still and accept our software from on high? sure it's expensive, and buggy, but they'll never catch up! hey, that software is getting pretty good!
those, those linux users... they're evil! evil i say! they must be crazy or something! hey, don't use that software, it's made by crazy people!
Oh, I love articles like this! All Linux users can be divided into 3 groups: Pros, Priests and Zealots. Does anyone else see what the hell is wrong with that statement?
The Linux users that I have corresponded with are a much more diverse group than that! I have met at least one from each of the groups that he talks about BUT I think the vast majority of those I have talked to just want to get something done.
Now, that being said, let's talk about my particular case. I started as a Windows user. I used Windows, promoted Windows and found it, overall, to be adequate for the tasks that I had to accomplish. I design hardware and software (primarily embedded software) and, for me, the computer is a tool; not an end in itself.
As time went on, I found Windows to be increasingly lacking in the capabilties that I needed. More and more, I knew what an OS should be capable of and I realized that Windows didn't do it, wasn't going to do it and that any progress made in the Windows OS was not suiting MY needs as a computer user. The endless rounds of "improvements" to the UI on Windows were just useless fluff to me. It didn't help get my job done any faster (quite the opposite, in fact), it didn't offer any improvement in speed or efficiency (quite the opposite, in fact) and it didn't justify the price that I had to pay for every upgrade.
I started looking at Linux simply because most of the progress that I see being made, in the very areas that I need it, are happening in Linux. Now, pray tell, what category does that slot me into? I might say PRO, but I am still a relative noob to Linux.
From the article:
I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
Now that very statement describes Microsoft to a T. Most of the damage done to business has come as a result of viruses, be they e-mail, Word macro or buffer overrun exploiters. With the possible exception of buffer overruns, these are problems with Microsoft's design decisions and a failure to consider the repercussions of their actions.
Further, having identified in advance any such action as a product of terrorists, Microsoft is now free to go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement and they have a ready-made scapegoat to blame! I think we have far more to worry about from Microsoft's "win at all costs" imperialistic attitude than we do from Open Source "zealots".
the fact that some in the Linux "zealot" group are so Linux that they refuse to look at anything else in the open source group. You will see that in the BSD forums here. It seems that they will troll a BSD room just for the heck of it and even use FUD techniques.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Obviously not. Of course, I didn't know who you were before today, but thanks for clueing us in that you suck in the second paragraph of your article.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
We're all guilty of calling other folks names. In reality they are just words which have no real meaning at all. But, the intent behind Enderle's comment is very clear. Much like the Bush administration, he is attempting to instill fear and possibly even incite a riot. Enderle would LOVE to see the "Linux Zealots" get a posterchild who blew someone's head off with a gun or beat the tar out of someone at a rally. It would give him the ability to say "See? I Told you so". I also wouldn't be surprised if things got bad enough that "Linux Zealots" were planted at any kind of public demonstration to start trouble. Now that Linux is getting more attention, times may call for desperate measures for the anti-Linux crowd. BE careful out there folks...
Un-news
The personal attacks, however, are not acceptable. They are outside of the realm of good debate and ARE a sign of zealotry and foolishness. Not just Gates/Hitler comparisons, but ESR/gun-toting Psychopath, RMS/dirty Gnu hippie hung up on one word, Ballmer/sweating monkeyboy, etc. These weak tactics are meant to discredit the message or works because the bearer is discredited, and is a cornerstone of PROPAGANDA.
I have noticed that the Slashdot culture has largely been usurped by Mac OSX. The real zealots here are no longer the Linux fans, but the Mac pushers. The linux fans have largely grown up, while the mac pushers have not. They seem to be just getting started. Read any apple.slashdot.org article to see what I mean. Browse at -1 and tell me the moderating is fair. It can't be 100% fair, of course, but on average, the moderation is of a lower quality than other sections of Slashdot, primarily due to many many good posts being modded down for political reasons. The moderators have a SERIOUS bias towards promoting the "Apple Party Line" at the expense of reality. Excellent arguments against the Apple position are effectively being censored by aggressive and intentional negative moderation. It makes me wonder whether Apple has a room filled with astroturfers much like the one Microsoft reportedly has (no link; hearsay), or does their OS just transmit subliminal messages? (again, no link; hearsay). I know, however, that Mac OSX is by far the favored ("sanctified and holy") OS here. If Linux dies, it won't be Microsoft or SCO who kills it, but Apple.
I use and love Apple computers. I think they have good enough qualifications to STAND ON THEIR OWN. If you have faith in Apple's products, you shouldn't have to lie in order to promote them. You shouldn't have to try to discredit those who disagree with you. It's not possible that Apples are the fastest, freest, best networking, most standards-oriented, best GUI, easiest to use, least expensive, coolest, etc. but that is *exactly* what I'd gather from reading Slashdot. This place is a paid advertisement for Macs. Apple's zealous followers REFUSE to believe that they can be second best in ANY area, though historically, they always have been. Zealotry is deceptive, but it's not the Linux fans who are doing it.
Attention Apple Paid Shills: Flame Away and Mod me down. I don't care.
Disagree with someone but don't want to use reason? Try these labels, they are time tested!
~30 AD-1800: Heretic/Heathen (West)
1775-1782: Tory (US)
1789-1799: Royalist, Jacobian (France)
1862-1864: Copperhead (US)
1865-1877: Carpetbagger (US)
1890-1920: Anarchist
1918-1991: Communist/Commie (West), Counterrevolutionary (East)
2001-?: Terrorist
More to follow, I'm sure!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Yeah!! Windows Rules!! I've been saying this all along.
Zeal is impractical passion which is easily overcome by real world experience. Anybody that is a zealot for any cause lives in a bubble that allows them to be unwavering in their ideology. Practical passion for a cause, however, endures because it is flexible and able to adapt to new enviroments. OSS zealots are just as endangered as Microsoft when they cannot adapt to an environment they don't control. RMS and ESR, for instance, have become so out of touch with reality that they are constantly struggling to maintain their definitions of "Free" and "Hacker", but if they were less eager to control their environment, they might actually convince more people to use OSS, which is infinitely more adaptable than they have demonstrated themselves to be.
so, if linux zealots are terrorists, what are m$ zealots (like the author of the article)?
All your base are belong to us!
-mojo
This is some Zen shit, How does a troll get published in a semi-reputable publication? I am a zelot for open-source in that I truly belive that software that is built by a community has the potential to do more than software built by a single group. (especialy one in a monoculture) That being said I have 2 PC's one Windows XP and one Linux I use both on a daily basis. Does that make me a "pro" or a dangerous zelot who will kill your children in there sleep?
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
Sure, it's possible, but Windows does a perfectly adequate job of advertising its own inadequacies in dealing with the puerile efforts of adolescents with too much time on their hands.
What many of you fail to understand is that it's in the best interest of OSS adversaries to relate zealots to terrorists. Terrorism is the new Communism, and corporations are the new patriots.
Think of the way the media misunderstands the difference between hacker and cracker. People want to fit the world into neat little buckets that they can then put in solitary confinement.
You may not agree, but his warning should at least be considered.
blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah terrorists blah blah fucking blah
It seems to me, I could be wrong, but anyone that says anything critical about open source or Linux or the GPL is instantly attacked.
You could say the same thing about the right-wing neoconservatives running the government and so much of the media these days. Like all real zealots their main (non-violent propaganda) tactics rest on volume and repetition, not truth. Does that make them terrorists? Well, a not-insignificant number of people in the world thinks so. Of course they mainly think that because we're bombing the crap out of countries on the weakest of pretexes, but many of the more level-headed ones aren't yet laying the blame on the American people yet. They're saving it for after the 2004 election, if necessary.
So are linux zealots terrorists? No, because they haven't hurt anybody, except maybe a few companies that used Linux but wouldn't honor the GPL. They are, however, profoundly annoying.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Coming from a Linux user's standpoint, I can see the phenomenon he is 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. This 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. this is my experience as one among many in the open source world.
* It's by Rob Enderle; if you want to waste some time, look up some of his other 'stories'.
* It is entirely composed of faulty arguments, inflammatory statements, bad caricatures, and ad-hominem attacks.
* Therefore, how could it be considered anything but flamebait?
When I saw the intro on slashdot, I figured it was probably by that creep Enderle; then I clicked through, and saw that I was right. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and possibly enriched his corrupt advertising coffers.
Also, note--I have a job, one that is a bit more substantial than being President of an imaginary Research Group named after myself that likely has one member. Knowing that Enderle is an ignorant linux-bashing asshole doesn't make me a "Zealot"; it makes me a rational human being. However, his categories don't allow for that, since he redefines "Zealot" to mean "some lunatic who disagrees with me".
Actually I've been saying for years that I'm surprised some crazed linux user hasn't assassinated Bill Gates yet, then again, there is the theory that they have and the current version of Bill is a Clone or Andriod made to carry on when it happens, kinda like the emperor from Star Wars. Thier motivations, methods and overall ickyness are about the same. :P
...to the article are obsessing about his analogy between terrorists and Linux zealots as if the point of his article was to make Linux zealots look like murderers.
;).
LOL. Of course they complain about that, it helps them ignore the valid points the guy is making (which, of course, can be applied to Windows zealots, Apple zealots, Amiga zealots, et cetera.)
"Zealots are bad."
Pros are fine, but rare, Priests are fine just don't try to convert a priest
Zealots are the worst aspect of the open source and Linux communities. They are, by definition, the worst aspect OF ANY COMMUNITY.
Seriously, read some of the inflamed reaction in the linked page's comments section, it is unbelievable.
Idiots... Zealots are hurting Linux's public image whether they realize it or not. People shirk away when I suggest Linux to run the back end of some aspects of our work because they instantly fear that I'm going to berate everything they say contrary to using *nix. This is not good for Linux, and keeps me stuck with deploying SQL F*cking Server.
Loading...
-1 Flamebait.
If some one shot RMS we might get over this situation. There again he might be in line for beatification in a few years. He would get my vote.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
When was the last time a terrorist helped a little old lady cross the road?
It happens all the time.
Very evil people can act very un-evil much of the time. Hitler was kind to school children in one film I saw. Mafia pray and donate to the Catholic Church.
Very good people can be blinded by their own emotional needs to be right, superior, safe.
Everybody is the good guy in their own mind.
Since I didn't want to register to any website that would publish crap like that I have decided to post my comments on that article here:
I have a hard time seeing wanna be journalists as any different than peadophiles. How do I make this connection? Well, just replace any reference to Linux with "wanna be journalist" or just simply "hack" and terrorist with peadophile. Keep the rest of the article and publish. Same difference.
Mr. Enderle: You are a hack and an ignorant tool. Unfortnuatly jackasses such as yourself will never get a clue.
Technewsworld.com: You're just fishing for readers. I hope your servers melt.
Have a day.
Mc. Jkl.
In case we've forgotton, those people who refused to let the king choose the peoples religion were .... ZEALOTS. And those people that thought we could run a democracy without a king were in fact ..... ZEALOTS, and what about those people who wanted to abolish slavery, well they were ..(durm roll please).. ZEALOTS! Before we stick on lables, how about looking at some facts here.
And, how come there are no complaints about ZEALOUT lawyers, and ZEALOT CEO's. In fact, even more so - I was there these last 10 years where zealot CEO's fololowed every single looser trend, that is except Linux. And I was there during the ZEALOUT stock boom fuled by a complete misunderstanding of the information age and technology in general. I was there only a few years ago when I tried to explain to the company I worked for that SCO is going to die and we need to switch to Linux. (they thought I'd done gone psycho, many even laughed at me). To the contrary, I would say that if theres anyone in this world who knows whats going and on not in zealous denial - I would say it's the people who deal with Linux most often.
Godwin's law is more an observation about human nature than a law that can be invoked in an argument. Think Bugs Bunny hovering in the air while Elmer Fudd plumments to the ground. "I know what you're thinking: this violates the law of gravity. Well, I never studied law."
Basically, if someone trots out Nazis, Commies, or The Terrorists in an argument just mentally chalk them off as losers and DON'T REPLY to them. You don't invoke Godwin's Law or its Corollaries; clueless disputants invoke it themselves.
I agree with one of the folks who posted about an empty slot between "pros" and "priests" (some "priests" actually do back up their biased opinions with facts, see ESR for one example), and although I disagree with the "terrorist" comparison (I do, however, believe that someone at some point is going to pull a majorly stupid stunt in the name of advocacy), I think the author of the article makes some fairly accurate statements about today's open source advocates.
I say that as a reformed "priest" (and one time "zealot"). Now that I can sit back and objectively watch the open source community react to stuff like this I am shocked by some of the stuff I read/hear, more often than not because I've uttered such things myself in the past. Sorry, folks, but some of you truly are creepy people... Not all, but some. You know who you are, too.
And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom. Personally, now that I can think more clearly on such matters I prefer to get BOTH sides of a story before forming an opinion, thank you very much. I recommend you read Animal Farm some time and see which side of the farm you philosophically relate to the most. I'll spoil the ending for you: when all is said and done, the animals on the farm can't tell the pigs from the humans.
Discuss...
Is that George W Bush and his brother Jed will do antyhing to find excuses to terrorize this planet and impose American imperialism upon other countries. War on terror and against terrorists? I guess this means we better warm up the MiGs and call up Beijing, cause we've located Global Terrorists and the intelligence reports are positive that they're located in the White House.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Back around 1999 or so when Bill Gates gave a speech at Indiana University and right after he got a pie in the face by that Belgium guy, someone on a Linux mailing list said that he was going to spell out Linux in 5 pies on a table and put a sign that said "Not a threat, just a reminder". I encouraged him not to do it because the pie thing had nothing to do with Linux. He didn't want to listen to me because he thought he was right. But anyways, there are people like that out there that want to take things to far and do it in the name of Linux/Open source/whatever.
Actually, I've been surprised (and somewhat impressed) that there hasn't been some crazy person who has tried to assassinate Mr. Gates. I would think that with all the pent up frustration, there would be someone depressed enough and who doesn't care about their own life enough to do it.
Especially with all the websites talking about Bill being satan and loose comments everywhere over the past several years about nuking Redmond.
You make a good point. I've become very disenchanted with ./ (don't get me wrong, I love this place) since there are simply so many people who want to say something just for the sake of doing it (myself included).
It reminds me of cafe debating - the debates are about as well grounded (which is often not the case) as the coffee, and need just as much sugar to go down (I'm talking low budget cafes).
Maybe people who post interesting stuff consistenly, should automatically receive a higher mod, so one would not have to peruse the potential flamebait & troll posts.
Hey, this is off-topic, but we must address this problem soon, since ./ is growing very quickly indeed.
"I hate people who fabricate unintelligent quotes to add to their work seemingly by some 'anon' sage" -- anon
You're confusing fanatics with terrorists here.
Terrorists are a subgroup of fanatics, a group that uses TERROR to reach their goals/obsessions.
Linux "zealots", fanatics whatever you name them, do not use terror to reach their goals. W.r.t. fanaticism they may seem alike, but not w.r.t. to the tactics they follow.
Even if one would accuse Linux zealots of illegal actions, that does not make them terrorists yet. Using terror is a subgroup of using illegal methods in general. E.g. stealing and terror are illegal, but stealing is not equal to terror.
So those who call Linux zealots terrorists need to take a dictionary and lookup the meaning of words.
Don't forget, if they weigh the same as a duck, they're made out of wood. But you can't burn them, or the terrorists have won.
First I wanted to write a full reply. Showing :-)
:-)
he is wrong. But I could waste my time otherwise
So I decide to make long things short.
He is working with three cateogries. Why not four or five. Also every of his groups has a special set of characteristics. But he never shows verifiable facts based on a quantitative Methods like polls or interviews. This crap just come to his mind. That is why I suppose he wants to start some sort flamewar.
But there are some things he missed:
a) being a priest in linux or open-source in general because you don't belive closed-source.
Well belive is the wrong word. You think a world were information could be shared freely would be better. Even if nobody can get rich anymore
Well I suppose those people are communists in
his mind. But they could be liberals too.
b) being against MS just because they have a
monopoly. So even if open-source would produce
worse products you could not use MS products
because that would support this monopoly.
He tries to argue from the point of an technician.
He calls them pros. Such peoplee try to choose the
right tools for their job. But he misses all the non-technical arguments for open-source. These arguments are "illegal" in his way of thinking. But as a good technician you should have a look on the side effects when choosing a technology.
cu
reiner
The true irony to this peice is that while talking about Linux zealots, the author sounds a lot like a zealot himself.
I don't think it was intended.
Real Christians don't shoot people even zealots. As a Christian Zealot and someone who takes the Bible literally and believes every word of it with good cause I can attest that shooting anyone, especially the unsaved ie non Christians is wholly against Christianity. You don't kill people who are going to Hell that's against the whole point. The only way to get to heaven is faith in Jesus Christ. Now if someone does not have that faith and you kill them that's not goood.
1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
Now this is countered by faith in Christ as all judgement is but if you profess to be a Christian and kill someone you'd better examine your heart because you're not. That is unless you accidentally back over someone or whatever that's just an accident. Now there is a fair bit of controversy however it is widely accepted that the unborn and small infants go to heaven if they die because they haven't committed a willful sin. (Remember it only takes 1 sin to be punished because God is righteous) so really it's very sinful to kill babies but not so bad for the babies. There is NO cause for murder and no true Christian especially a zealot would be a murderer, perhaps a zealot for humanistic causes who calls himself a Christian but no, not a CHRISTian for then they are not Christians.
By faith we have been made acceptable to God. And now, because of our Lord Jesus Christ, we live at peace with God. Romans 5:1
God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die. John 3:16
All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. [God does not tolerate Sin it is contrary to his just and holy nature and he will not let it go.] Romans 3:23
Sin pays off with death. But God's gift is eternal life given by Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23
After Adam committed the first sin by disobeying God: "...the LORD God sent them out of the Garden of Eden, where they would have to work the ground from which the man had been made." Genesis 3:23a
Your sins are the roadblock between you and your God. That's why he doesn't answer
your prayers or let you see his face. Isaiah 59:2
But God showed how much he loved us by having Christ [Jesus] die for us, even though we were sinful. Romans 5:8
Only Jesus has the power to save! His name [that is to say his authority] is the only one in all the world that can save anyone Acts 4:12
There is only one God, and Christ Jesus is the only one who can bring us to God. Jesus was truly human, and he gave himself to rescue all of us. [Jesus is also God which is why he can forgive sins and bring us to be with himself.] 1 Timothy 2:5
[Jesus Said] I tell you for certain that everyone who hears my message and has faith in the one who sent me has eternal life and will never be condemned. They have already gone from death to life. John 5:24
Every one of the prophets has said that all who have faith in Jesus will have their sins forgiven in his name. [That means their sins will be forgiven on his authority as God] Acts 10:43
Jesus said to his disciples, "Don't be worried! Have faith in God and have faith in me. John 14:1
Some people accepted him [Jesus], and put their faith in him. So he [Jesus] gave them the right to be the children of God. John 1:12
Noo, I never could have figured THAT one out, especially since people generally stop taking me seriously when they find out I use a Mac, and dismiss me as one of "those crazies". Zealots of *any* breed are a bad thing (which is why I can't figure out why so many people here are proudly admitting to be linux zealots); do you really want people 5 years down the road to call you one of "those linux nuts?"
Terrorists..well, not yet. I could concievably see a star-crossed young and naive OSS nut cracking MS's network and erasing/stealing/tweaking/releasing Windows code though - I've hung out with enough radical vegan eco-crunchies to know that there's a fine line between zealotry and terrorism (Earth First!/ALF/ELF anybody?) that can be blurry, if you're commited enough to your cause.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
My day's dose of irony was when I brought up the article and an MS advertisement for their new licensing scheme was just below the openning paragraph.
Also funny was "If you read Slashdot...even regular participants seem to comment that much of the discussion there is not based on what people have personally perceived but on what they have read about others people's perceptions. "
Yeah, that's slashdot for you. The participants have no personal perception about Microsoft.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
ZEALOTS MUST DIE!!!
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
'nuff said.
He is 100% accurate about Linux Priests.
He is about 15% accurate on the Linux Zealot part... that couldve been written much better.
I dont agree on the whole terrorist thing.
But it is really funny how accurate he is about Pros and Priests, yet all the Pros and Priests here (and the zealots) continue to debate that. That I find fucking hilarious.
Divide and Conquer or Judas of Geeks ?
I am about at the end of my internet rope (read: hangman's noose).
From my point of view, the internet stands at the doorstep of 'truckin CB movies with the hate and discontent included'. If you don't understand this scenario, allow me....
I have been interested in and participating with amateur radio since the early 1950s.
When I was in private school, I owned a CB radio with four channels and had a lot of fun, because in those days a lot of people who owned and flew small planes used CB radios too, and they would talk to me. This was an asset, because I ended up earning a cross county license for an Areonca at age 16.
On or about the time we were trying to figure out how to get ARPA to bridge to 'the rest of the world' ('70s) CB radio had started to become popular and the typical CB oriented movies were produced and offered to the public; giving everyone the impression they needed a CB radio too ...and this is when the Channel Masters and the H&D (hate
and discontent) started to surface. In fact, one incident led to a shootout
in San Francisco,
where one person died.
This raises the question, is the internet heading the same way or...
This morning, I read some 'stuff' that got me thinking about what kind of world we have turned into and with a loud sigh, I present a different view.
Starting with this article, Zen and the Art of Being Happy with Microsoft , by Rob Enderle, says, Much of the news surrounding Microsoft seems to focus on mistakes the company has made in the past. There are reporters with broad followings whose agenda appears to be to bring Microsoft down. This problem is exacerbated by the massive increase in blogs written by people who support other platforms -- largely Linux and Mac -- who do an excellent job of reinforcing these negative messages.
I can handle that comment, but in this article Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux , Rob Enderle states, I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement.
is this the first phase of corporate America trying to steal what was set up to be FREE?
Let's take a closer look at Rob Enderle. According to www.technewsworld.com, Rob Enderle, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is the Principal Analyst for the Enderle Group, a company founded on the concept of providing a unique perspective on personal technology products and trends. and their stated goal is, to bring diverse and challenging views into technology advisory services and consulting.
Calling Open Source folks or Linux Zealots terrorists is not a diverse or challenging view and reeks of If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends. by a publicly known liar.
You are entitled to your beliefs and I will defend your right to speak your mind, but as you know, opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one; except in your case, it appears you forgot to wipe. It is also obvious whose toilet you have been feeding from. Just so the public knows, here are a list of stories produced by Rob Enderle and the Enderle Croup:
Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
Transme
This gentleman uses a classic tactic of poor debaters: "people who disagree with me just didn't bother to read/understand what I said."
He also neglects to consider that what he calls "Pros" might refuse to call themselves "Windows experts" not from any religious belief ("priest"? Give me a break) or zealotry, but based on their own knowledge.
I'm a security consultant. I'm happily helping a client figure out how to blow several million dollars on building an organization to deal with the constant threats to their (primarily Microsoft) infrastructure. I realize there is no fix-all solution, but if I wanted to be taken even remotely seriously as a tech columnist, I'd shy away from impugning the technical credentials of real professionals (not pansy-assed tech columnists, to be sure) who refuse to consider crappy software as "the right tool for the job" based on hard-earned experience.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
aren't fundamentalists the same thing?
Anything taken to extreme is bad, eating, religion, alcohol, drugs (perscription or other), feminism/chauvinism, etc.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Please, don't go to 9-11, why you americans have to see everything with 9-11, it was an atrocity to all the atrocities you have done to the world.
...just put "September 11" & "terrorists" in it and someone will publish it.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
We all bandy about this term zealot without looking at its origin. The zealots were anti-Roman Jewish "activists" in Jesus' time. Being a smaller force than the powerful Romans they engaged in asymmetrical warfare, whose tactics usually include terrorism.
A certain Steve Wright has an interesting article about the Jewish religious scene at around Jesus' time. He says: The Zealots, who conducted an insurrectionary war against Roman occupation forces, had objectives that were religious and political: the attainment of a Jewish theocracy, the rule of the Messiah, and the annihilation of the heathen. I don't know how appropriate the use of zealot is for Linux enthusiasts, but certainly many of them do want "annihilation of the heathen".
Simon (renamed Peter) was a zealot who became a follower of Jesus and part of his inner circle of twelve disciples. He was brash, outspoken, tended to take matters into his own hands. When the Roman authorities and certain Jewish religious leaders came to arrest Jesus before his crucifixion, Peter slashed off someone's ear. Jesus had to reattach it. Look at the section "The Whole Truth: An Example" of this article. It's also an interesting look at how different biblical writers wrote their own eyewitness or second-hand accounts and emphasized different kinds of information.
An anti-linux article with a big fat advertisement for microsoft right smack in the middle of it.
Can they get any more transparent?
Fucking flamebait crap.
They're raking in the cash for that ad right now because they managed to get mentioned on slashdot.
Brrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaapppppppppppppppppppp!
I can talk out of my asshole too, but my farts have more truth in them than your posting.
Well now. Such a rigid world-view sounds downright......extremist to me. How ironic.
=========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
...even Democrats (-:
This sounds like a Jon Katz piece!
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
'nuff said.
What about "all men are created equal" priests?
Do you have to be blind if you believe that being free even if you are poor is better than being a slave even if you are rich?
I believe Free Software is better, even if non-Free Software is technically better, easier to use, costs less, whatever.
So much so, that if they ever find a way to outlaw free software, I may just give up my prefession and go into another line of work entirely.
A Nony Mouse
Pro-linux people click here:I TTY-ANTI-LINUX-ATTITUDE
http://www.technewsworld.com/FUCK-YOU-AND-YOUR-SH
Anti-Linux folk click here:- SUCKS-GATE'S-DICK
http://www.technewsworld.com/I'M-GLAD-ROB-ENDERLE
And remember: "Click early, click often".
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
The reason you don't have to fear Linux zealots is because they are not religious fundamentalists. There is a huge difference. As history has taught us over and over and over again millions of people are willing to die, or kill, for their religion, especially those that are fundamentalists.
I have yet to see large scale killing over an industry or a product, which is what Open Source or Linux zealots spout off about. Of course, there will probably be some wacko who will take his Open Source opinions to far and kill someone, but he isn't going to be able to gets thousands of people to follow him to wage a war against Microsoft. It's just not going to happen.
What scares me is the overuse of the word terrorist. Now anyone who opposes anything strongly is considered a terrorist, unless they are Christian than they are doing the work of god. It's getting so its impossible for people in the US to protest peacefully and not so peacefully about anything without being labelled a terrorist, a communist, or an American hater. The fact is that you can't just stamp labels on people and claim that they are this or that, humans are oftentimes much more complicated than that and sometimes they are just idiots.
LoRider
Step I: To create anxiety in the reader, I divide people into 3 groups: Pros, Priests, and Zealots. Immediately of course, the reader wishes to put himself into the "Pro" category; but cannot do so until he read the details.
Step 2: Describe a categorization that has only one desireable class (Pros) and two undesireable classes (Priests, Zealots). This make me look fair. Had I initially used only 2 classes (Pros and Zealots), the reader would have quickly identified me as one of those people who divides the world into two groups - an old cliche' too-commonly used in argument and therefore too easily recognized. By positing 3 groups, the reader is distracted from the fact that there is really only a single dichotomy: either
- Pros or
- (Priests, Zealots)
since neither of the latter are desireable.Step 3: Dash the reader's hopes, by making the first category unattainable, Godly in it's fairness, and longsuffering in it's members. Similarly tar the bottom classes with:
- commonly-found developer traits,
- undesireable characteristics.
The reader sees that he has trait A, say, "does not regularly floss", but that it is associated with undesireable characteristic X, "member of Al-Queda". He is trapped by the (seemingly indisputable) logic of association.IOW Enderle creates a false model (a "Straw Man") and then draws (incorrect) conclusions from it. There's really no argument here at all; it's just a sham.
In a remarkably similar argument, after the release of .NET, Microsoft flacks predicted that Visual Basic 6 developers would follow one of 3 paths:
The outcome was quite different:
So be wary of the Straw Man.
The author sounds like a right winger who neither knows what terrorism is nor what the linux "movement" is about.
Equating linux advocates with terrorists should be limited to the Bush administration and John Ashcroft. Too bad this guy took up the cause...
I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
Does this guy even know what he is talking about? The terrorists view the repercussions as GOOD. What movement are they representing, other than their own? The "movement" was not hurt by 9/11 but rather helped by it. Usama bin Laden is closer to his goal than he was 5 years ago!
Until the author understands what terrorism is, I suggest that he stay away from comparing it to other things, let alone a computer "movement".
Oh, one last thing... this guy claims to "care" about linux but how much do you want to bet that he is a doubleagent?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
1)It's source code is basically stolen from others work.
No. It's source code is basically independent, with a large amount of source code both donated by and licensed from major corporations and six yet unrevealed lines that may or may not be simmilar to code that SCO licensed to Linux developers.
2)It is free and has no market(money) driving it's development so therefore it's not good for the economy and the public interest in general
Couldn't be more wrong. Ever heard of IBM? The big gorrilla of the industry pours money by the bucket into Linux. Also think the benefit to the economy: Every company that uses Linux can effectively shave hundreds of dollars PER MACHINE from their overhead in the cost of purchasing updates and multi-computer licenses to operating systems. Multiply this by, say, 250, 2500, or maybe even 25000 computers, and that's millions of dollars in profit generated by the use of Linux.
3)The philosophy behind the distribution of Linux is Un-American and more like communism.
Couldn't be more false. The GNU public license (which you have incorrectly equated to BEING Linux) puts high importance on the authors of code. You can't use GNU code without full credit, notification, etc. Communism (Soviet Communism anyway) places all intellectual propterty in government ownership. Of course, America has been trying the same thing for decades, so how is Communism unamerican other than the fact that we spent fifty years looking for a good excuse to nuke the world over it?
4)The source is provided so ANYONE can create scripts and such to slam a linux system.
And yet they continue to fail to do so for Linux - and not for lack of trying, but for lack of holes to stick them up - while continually SUCCEEDING in making scripts that can effectively knock down any windows system you point it at.
... and those darn Colonists would have done much better to just sit down to tea and have a nice friendly chat with their British overlords, rather then committing terrorist acts like dumping all that tea in the harbor... lets see now... when you try nonviolent protest and your opponents respond by shooting at you, is that a sign that you're in that 1% of cases?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The author of the piece, one Rob Enderle, is developing something of a reputation as a quote whore amongst the bloggers. Google will reveal more and there's a page of Enderle-watching here.
Flamebait is the right word for this sort of thing.
Yeah...terrorists...yawn...(snore)
strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything
*plonk*
ever tried that?
>spooky
http://zealot.org
A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux zealot.
What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.
But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.
But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material you are interested in, he will do so with g
Dissertation on the Uselessness of Linux Zealots
A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux zealot.
What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.
But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.
But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot
Now that they have bashed the word "hacker" to the point that its original meaning has completely vanished, they are going to do so with "zealot" as well.
While there is still zelots in the Open Source and Free Software movements picking a small group of people and making a major basis on the entire sector based upon that small group is a major mistake. Under such thinking the following are true:
1.) All germans are nazis
2.) All women are helpless
3.) All end users know what they are doing
We all know the above three statements to generally not be true, but under such logic they would be assumed since there are loud yet small populations who follow the statements.
Comparing some linux users to terrorists is just plain defamation. Where do linux users raise suicide bombers from youth with promises of Glory and Women to those martar themselves to ride the world of microsoft "infidels"?
Sure maybe you might find some script kiddie hacking a site claiming to do it for the Open Source but that hardly his true modivation.
Terrorists are modivated by a hatred ingrained in them from birth. Linux users are definitely not.
. . .this one gets somethings right, somethings wrong, and is primarily crafted to generate publicity/hits and thereby sell ads.
For people who are confused, the commentator isn't saying that Linux Zealots are terrorists. . . rather he's just saying that they are loose-cannons like the Sept 11 terrorists, who were radical-Islamist zealots, who in the end caused a *lot* of suffering (war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq) and backlash for their movement.
In the same way, Linux Zealots who go off on their own and do things like the alleged DDOS attack against SCO (yeah, I know their is some dispute as to whether they were really hit with a DDOS, but as far as I can tell that seems to be true), cause bad publicity for the whole Linux and Open Source community. We'd be far better off without idiots doing stupid stuff like that.
Things he got wrong: I don't think the Zealots can really cause IBM and Red Hat to lose their cases. Courts aren't about public opinion (in theory anyhow - juries are supposed to be isolated from the press, etc). In those lawsuits, it comes down to questions of law, and questions of code ownership. IBM has to show that 1)None of the contested code in the kernel itself was illegally used (e.g. like some of the code came from ancient unix, hence the reason the code is the same in both systems) and 2) JFS/XFS et al. are not 'derivative works'.
Whether Linux community members are 'nice' or not, and whether some people commit illegal acts unrelated to the case has no bearing on the case itself. E.g. If some Linux zealot were to do something really lunatic, that still doesn't have any bearing on whether SCO's copyrights have or have not been infringed.
I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement...
This is horseshit. The above is how an author sets up the reader for the next event to happen. My teachers called it premonition. It's a hint to the reader. It's how a psyops "history" is created, like how the bombing in Oklahoma City was eventually blamed on right wing Christians because of some supposed motive. I would suspect somebody is trying to set up Linux for a (false flag) fall. Either that or the author has the the Chicken Little "Sky is Falling" gene embedded in his ass.
Some might call them terrorists, but I revere them as our founding fathers.
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton (and others)
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
Might I remind you RMS suports GPL less license ven BSd through FSF and GNU..
so what do closed source zealots such as Microsoft support?
It is the closed source zealots that are threatening the livelihood of the common worker by oeffensive and opppressive computing taxes on every company worldwide!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Because there are Windows Zealots as well.
I suppose I could go into detail - circa 12/94:
[Havokmon] Anyone want Kali for OS/2? You can be on IRC AND wait for a player at the same time!
[winzealot] No, I don't want a virus.
[Havokmon] What? Goto the Kali site and download it yourself.
[winzealot] I don't want a virus.
[winzealot] OS/2 is a virus, Win95 is the future.
[Havokmon] oh god..
Flame war ensues..
So the reason this is immediately dismissed is because it's the same type of garbage propaganda that MS shilled out almost 10 years ago.
At the time, I thought it was just some idiot from #windows95.. Turns out even the MS reps gave out that sort of shit information.
Anyone with half a brain knows that a 'Zealot' can and will probably cause problems for everyone. Specifically target Linux to get that message across is nothing more than a smear campaign wrapped in perceived unaccountability (but it's just an example!).
IMHO, you fell for it.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
All this is valid for all other OS' out there. Meet the Windows zealot, the Mac zealot, the Amiga Zealot, the BSD Zealot, the Unix Zealot. and then it get worse, because there are programming zealots; the C zealot, the Java zealot, the Perl zealot, the Cobol zealot (the do exist). Or best of all, the editor zealots; Vi zealots, Emacs zealots, Notepad zeahuemmm.. (ok, maybe not that last one)
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
As long as they also make sure that ALL zelots are as well.....including the extreme religious fundamentalists, ...
So watch out Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Ashcroft, Lt Gen. Boykin, etc, etc, etc....!!!
Heck, i'm thinking that would really gut this nation of a lot of BS.......
The good Mr. Balmer had the wit and insight to say we're a communist anti-American cancer AND a virus.
He said all these things, and I documented them in an article for linuxppc.org some time ago. Unfortunately, it's not up, nor is my article, but I assure you, he said 'em.
-- haaz.
anyone that has passion, zeal about something is a terrorist? come one
following this logic one could say the same about
anyone that watches too much tv or goes to church every sunday
shrug
heck anyone with enthusiasm for a subject, anyone with a passion for something is a terrorist
such a paraniod view, its obvious this guy has a zeal for pointing fingers, i guess hes a terrorist?
back in the day we didnt have no old school
This guy completely wrecked my buzz :-)
or this Windows ME machine will die!!!
Oh, wait...
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I think we just identified the founder of alt.conspiracy.
What a freakin` crack-pot!
Quick - go protect your stash of semi-automatic weapons that the government is going to confiscate!!
Watch for the Black Helicopters!!!
Don't take a case to court where the flag is an "Admiralty Flag" (the one with the pretty gold fringe on it).
It's idiots like you, Mr.Anonymous Mental-Patient, that are the REAL threat to America. Nothing is worse than the cancer of malcontent.
If you want to look at how government really works understand this: Every 4 years, We, as a nation, envoke the Preamble to the Constitution's provision for "abolishing" the standing Government via Elections. That provision was placed in the Constitution to prevent a hegemony or some other form of ogliarchy that would be detrimental to the health & personal safety of the populace. Mark well the fact that America was emerging from a social system under The Crown of England, and the last thing they wanted was a permanent government - they wanted a government that could change and evolve with the changes of society. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW!!!
It's derranged individuals like this that honestly believe that the Hapsburgs really DO run everything - per Skousen, there *is* a conspiracy, but not as our beloved Anonymous Pinhead would believe.
Also, the Anonymous Biggot now includes links pointing to people who *claim* that the 14th Ammendment is invalid (Abolishon of Slavery), some obscure ranting by some other blithering idiot who thinks that FEMA is some kind of evil creature with "slavering jaws".
Now you see why your parents warned you not to smoke pot, drop acid or do Bennies or Dexies.
'nuff said!
ScottKin - laughing at the "superior intellect"
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
It was just Flamebait ,nothing more.
Pure attempt at attention.
Don't you all agree ?
Just like why I choose Apple OSX has my desktop enviroment over Linux. I tried using Linux for three years on a desktop and at the end of the day Apple beat linux because OSX just works. In linux, I never did find drivers for my Arual 3D card worth a crap (i know company went belly up), Staroffice wasn't 100% MS office compatable back in the day (1999/2000), GIMP was a worthy effort, but then Adobe made some really good changes to PS that blew GIMP away, I could go on, but let's just say Linux wasn't quite user friendly yet.
I work as a consultant now and had two offices recently switch from Windows to Linux for about 80% of their employees. It was their accounting staff that was using specific payroll and accounting software that couldn't, or I should say it wouldn't have been cost effective to switch them. Why? Well they already had the hardware (PIII 700's - 1Ghz) machines and for $50 we installed Linux on all their hardware which should allow them to keep their existing units for at least another year or two. Then if they need to upgrade due to hardware failures, its pretty cheap for high performance white boxes.
Those were rare companies because they had been using linux on their servers for two years, and almost a year, and had at least 1 or 2 staff members familiar with linux. I guess they paid me the big bucks for a second opinion.
90% of my clients are small mom & pop shops and most of the time I tell them to spend the extra money on an iMac and in some cases an emac and the only complaint after 6 months I have heard is, "It doesn't have solitare". Overall they have been extremely happy with their ablity to say buy a digital camara, plug it in, iPhoto pops up and away they go, or that it doesn't crash like windows did.
The very fact that Apple really beat Linux as a desktop OS has many people in the Linux community pissed. The fact that Macromedia and adobe writes programs for OSX and avid OSX users can run 90% of the OSS applications out there really caused a sore spot.
Its not hard to convence CIO/CTO's of how linux can help save their business money. Now CEO's and COO's are a different story. (I get hired because I am nerd by hobby and have degrees in International Business, German, and International Affairs and "speak business speak") They read the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, and other publications as their bibles. Often times one bad article about Linux in one of those publications and there is no amount of TCO or any numbers you can throw at them to get them to change. Especially when businessmen read of Opensource's "Dotcommunism" like appeal. *Communism, *socalism, or whatever scares the bejesus out of business folk, especially older bosses that lived in the cold war era.
If it wasn't for IBM, I don't think that any of the offices down here would have given Linux a chance. The same lands crediablity to the platform and DELL (although they are backing off of Linux now) and HP comming in offering Linux products has helped make Linux a creditable platform on the server side, no body has for desktop use.
If the community continues to have the over-vocal 1% that bitch how Linux is the next OS for the next century and the ONLY OS, how is that different than Microsoft? For starters, until some of the "freedom" of linux is removed and distro's are standardized to where program X will run on Linux distro A, B, and C without a lot of differnces in programming, forget commerical vendors supporting the platform. Because if they do, it will be for RH or SuSE. And that is something that also irks the zealots, that the CEO of SUSE may just be correct when he said that there is room for 2 commerical distros in the market.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Once the feds get this idea, they can use it against the entire OSS movement, to help restrict access to 'non approved' computing resources..
Cant have free thinking, or free speech.. even in computing.
I bet companies like Microsoft loves that analogy too...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
-
Establishing qualified reference accounts have been a serious problem for the industry. Regardless of the high esteem they hold for the vendor or its products they are unwilling to place their name and brand on a release. This is due to several concerns:
-
The company brand is to be used to highlight company products not vendor products
-
The IT department doesn't want to be overwhelmed with press or other IT managers
-
Even when they do agree to be a reference, when the reporter or analyst calls they point out problems the vendor was unaware of and does critical damage to the product.
Note the third item, preventing "critical damage" to the product by preventing reporters from talking to the real end user and finding out about its problems. Now that's spin control.Their example of the use of this "product" is:
-
Example Quote: "A large multi-national deployed Microsoft Exchange with powerful benefits," said Rob Enderle Principle for the Enderle Group. "They anticipated saving $100K per year by consolidating Open Mail, Profs and Lotus Notes into a single infrastructure. We reviewed the deployment and found that by using Hewlett Packard services they were able to deploy Exchange within schedule and it appears that they are on track to report savings of nearly twice the target amount with expected cost recovery within 9 months. While the name and industry of the reference account is withheld at the request of that account, the Enderle Group certifies that the information provided is accurate and correct".
The Enderle Group is thus in the business of outsourcing coverups. They help vendors hype their products using uncheckable claims about anonynomous customers.And, from their own example, one of their customers (if not the only one) is Microsoft.
Send me e-mail and spill the beans. I want to know whose competition to patronize. ;)
If you don't fit the centrist-yet-slightly-right-white-Christians-are-
Racial, economic, and religious profiling is an undeniable fact that our nation is treading down a very very dangerous path.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The scariest people in the USA are the ones shouting "love it or leave it."
Whenever they read an article with the word 'terrorist', especially in American-based media, mentally replacve the word with 'communist'. If the resulting story sounds like a bad example of 1950's propoganda, then you have just spotted an example of modern propoganda congratulations.
Are Linux Zealot's Communists?
Yeah, I thought so.
-Shieldwolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
So, what about these Linux-o-philes that post that Bill Gates = Hitler - and they get modded 5:Insightfull?
When will the rest of the world wake-up and discover the awful truth: that Slashdot is nothing more than an overrated blog-wikki for people with pasty complextions and no social skills? Slashdot DOES NOT MATTER!
ScottKin - tired of laughing.
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
of Mr Bobby Gillispe
"One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist"
well....it's kinda hypocritical.....since SCO's own tactic IS a form of terrorism so in essence, SCO is a terrorist organization funded by another big terrorist organization, M$.
Hell, just ask any of the variou companies that sell Linux based products. SCO is attempting to bestow fear among their customers in order to disrupt normal economic growth and it's funded by an organization that fears Linux.
dam, a third posting today. i've got to switch to de-caf.
i think i agree. this poster seems to think that by playing the terrorist card that everyone will kiss and makeup afterwards. they don't, even after this war is over, there will still be people that just don't get it. he's wrong, gravely wrong. people die using these types of words. this is not a cute thing. even the questioning of patriotisum is a grave statement. i'll not be suprized when this posters rotting carcus is displayed on the 6:00 news by some horrifed jogger.
now back to what's important. what the hell is that damn 'front page 2003' ad doing on my slash dot header!!! i've told my daughter NOT to say SHIT!; but say MICROSOFT! its a nicer word usage.
Then I read the article, and wasn't disappointed.
Burgess's creation has come to life in this shallow, empty journalist.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Those guys who burned a box of Microsoft software on my lawn *did* say they were from the GNU Liberation Front.
565 comments and counting...
evil adrian
Want to see a true zealot? Play the Steve Ballmer monkey boy video. Or the "I Love This Company" video.
Why do people automatically assume that the zealots are all on one side?
Why do zealots on the other side assume that having passion about anything is wrong? (Unless it is the same passion that they share.)
Why does the article begin by stating that a Pro (not priest or zealot) is platform agnostic? So you can't be a Linux Pro and have a platform preference? Would having a Microsoft platform preference automatically disqualify you from Pro and put you into Microsoft Priest or Microsoft Zealot?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
What's the author saying - taking a strong point of view is a danger to society? Give me a break. To associate extreme, even blind, enthusiasm for a particular point of view with terrorism does a disservice to those who have suffered from or fought real terrorism.
Cute! Though he ought to watch his wording, because it does imply that simply accepting MS products is a poor compromise . . . ;-D
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
A linux zealot or not zealot cannot be qualified as :
a terrorist. A terrorist is an asshole who gets
people to destroy civilians or their property or
does it himself to get his 72 virgins or browny
points from Allah or other gods. A terrorist can
also be someone who preaches hatred.
A few examples of terrorists
Ben Ladin, Robertson, Fallwell, Farakan, Arafat, Limbaugh
and other similar fundies as well as animal rights
and environmental terrorists.
I don't know, maybe when we all grow up and get jobs. Oh wait... some of us already have jobs. Heh-heh, sorry about that Scotty old pal... by the way, who's paying your rent while you sit and lecture us about how the real world works? Just curious.
Slashdot -- tired of ScottKin.
I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement,
Given a sufficiently large group of people, extreme "subcultures" happens with any cult, cause, religion, belief, movement, organisation or group. This does not mean the idea is a bad one, it just proves the group is successfully strong in numbers to have attracted people from MANY backgrounds who naturally have different "solutions" to the "problem." (in other words, every village has its idiots) and you cant please everybody.
However, this is a perfect example of the kind of negative "press" that can frustrate an already angry "Zealot" into becoming a "terrorist" for the "cause".
so to add to your comment, I would say, yes. If you dont have anything constructive to say, say nothing, ignore it. BUT, if you can respond with any intelligence in a positive way, go for it, the "Zealots" need all the help they can get.
Perhaps if we gave a second look as to why these "Zealots" are so passionate about their ideas, we might become a bit more tolerant to their views, or at the very least begin to understand what drove them crazy. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" --FDR
"Terrorist" is the new "Communist." Labelling someone as a commie just doesn't evoke the same irrational fear and hatred anymore, but terrorist will do the job. Plus, as an added bonus, anti-communist legislation is mostly dead while there's a whole new host of semi-constitutional and thoroughly unconstitutional bad things that can be done to terrorists nowdays.
Since people don't seem to think the communial ideals behind Free Software are so dirty anymore, it's time to demonize Linux users with the new label for "Evil."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The comparison to terrorists is of course inappropriate. The danger for Linux/OSS backers is not that they may be perceived as terrorists, but simply that their tactics may wear out their welcome and start turning people off Linux/OSS, just like the Amiga and OS/2 advocates did before them, and Mac advocates still do. Mr. Torvalds seems to understand this, although sometimes he can't resist heckling Microsoft just a little.
He heads his own "consulting group", and has been very busy lately spreading this kind of Linux (zealots, IP robbers) vs non-Linux (very reasonable people) (Microsoft, of course).
Every one of the articles by Rob Enderle I've read shows the Free Software community in a not-so-subtle dark light.
Although he tries to sound reasonable (like other reasonable people, see), his arguments have less-than solid bases. That doesn't make them less dangerous to us. I fear lots of PHB's may be lured by the "reasonable" tone without deeply analyzing his points. This may be even worse if these PHB's have ever seen the "terrorist excitement" (non-PHB-understandable pleasure when WE control our software) that some of us may show sometimes ;).
If he's not a paid liar, then he wants Free Software to be stopped in the tracks of mass adoption because he cannot understand the phylosophy or because he cannot "monetize" the technology. I don't know which of these variants makes him more pitiful to me.
About this particular article, and going to the main point... Where are the people between the "neutral group" that doesn't see Free Software as a mostly advantageous thing and the "priests" that choose to ignore the "truth" without any sense of responsibility?
So... The bottom line of the article is: "If you dare to freely admit that Free Software may be better, then you're a terrorist (zealot), or at best a blind irresponsible (priest)".
He uses the term "terrorists" to describe people who argue with him and say he's an idiot.
The proof that he is an idiot is in that he calls people who argue with him "terrorists".
Terrorists kill people. Terrorists maim people.
Rob Enderle is in no physical danger.
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between someone arguing a point and a terrorist is an idiot.
Please feel free to include yourself in that category.
Perhaps you should look in a dictionary before boldly proclaiming someone else as ignorant, while cowering as an AC.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=check
10. A written order to a bank to pay the amount specified from funds on deposit; a draft.
Now, who is the ignorant fuck?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because zealots do not consider the repercussions of their actions
Nothing amuses me more than when people decry the very freedoms they're exercising.
+++
NO CARRIER
A linux Zealot doesn't necessarily have to be a cracker, or even a hacker... it's just somebody who loves linux. Now granted, linusers generally have more technical know-how than winusers, which means they have the potential to learn about hacking/cracking (both of which may take some skill)... but there's no difference between a overzealous windows cracker who is going about his "cause" the wrong way can do just as bad as a linux user...
Seriously though, I really have to question where this person gets his info. What if anything indicates that hack-attacks are occuring from linusers? I think that if you look at many DDOS/script-kiddy/etc attacks you will find that they come from windows users, or people exploiting windows users/software/vulnerabilies (see: spam viruses capable of possible DDOS attacking).
Yes, linux users can be a threat if they go bad, because of their technical knowledge, and yes, because linux is flexible it could theoretically be used for more cracking methods than windows, but that doesn't mean they will. What you have here is a statement indicating possiblity as a threat of action... I'm not about to go take out a building full of senior war veterans just because the majority of them are going to have arms knowledge... and therefore the potential to get hostile if somebody cut off their viagara supply.
Come on... some of the worst I've seen are people posting full names/addresses/etc and inviting mass-mailings/etc, and even these are not all linux zealots.
I think it's rather safe to say that there are lots of clueless Linux zealots out there. Since there are quite a many of them, they can also moderate and you know the consequences. If people wish to read truly insightful comments, they will have to look somewhere else.
As for me, I think that Slashdot is an accidental meta-parody of a parody of a real news site that gets its entertainment value of its twisted wickedness.
Why? I'll just vote for people who will reverse those laws.
Bottom line, the guy is just another zealot.
How are we supposed to take seriously a journalist or analyst or whatever who admits he can't see the Open Source forest because of the zealot trees.
I particularly like how he asks us to put ourselves in his shoes and think about who we would let determine our opinion, followed almost immediately by a gushing review of what constitues a Pro, and the observation that these are the kind of people he wants working for him or that he would work for...
Umm, Mr Enderle, if you can't figure out who you should be letting determine your position, especially when you worship the pros for their objectivity, then perhaps the Linux zealot isn't the biggest part of our problem. Perhaps the biggest part of our problem is ingorant journalist/analysts who can't be bothered to do their (censored) job right in the first place!
Where'd they get this guy, Weekly World News????"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Here's a direct quote from it:
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats."
Whatsamatta? You no speeka de English?
Terrorists kill people. They kill PEOPLE.
And he has a hard time seeing a difference between someone killing someone and someone arguing with him?
I think that qualifies as an "idiot".
I doubt whether the uncensored writings of Thomas Paine are on the short list of most secondary school reading. And that "Give me liberty or give me death" thing is just so gauche.
It has to be a view you do not agree with.
If someone had an extreme view that Rob Enderle was just the greatest writer ever, he wouldn't view that person as a "terrorist".
They're only "terrorists" when they have major disagreements with him and call him an idiot.
"...but he does make legitimate points that the Open Source community has wrestled with in the past." /.
What do you mean wrestled with in the past? Is it in the past because you didn't see an example of OSS zealotry in the last second because you're eyes were closed? Or is it in the past because you want it to be in the past?
It's not like you have to climb in the wayback machine to find zealotry currently on the www, but there's an especially rich source here at
I don't mean to say that ALL open source users are zealots, but I do mean to say that there are ALOT of open source zealots out there. Some who aren't even using open source, and you know who you are.
/* It's amazing the damage someone with a stunted sense of humor and mod points can do to your karma. */
Never get a Javahead confused with crazy things called "facts" - that only makes them come up with more ridiculous and unsupportable claims to defend the only language they have ever used.
Well, I used to get it all the time but it's been so long
I'm about to declare myself a "born again virgin"..
I don't even think the misguided Rob Enderle truly believes this.
Unless you think he wanted to prove his point via electronic martyrdom.
And in view of the fact that when I last checked he was still trolling away, it seems that his fears, like his positions, are groundless."Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Settle down, Mr. Ashcroft.
I'm platform neutral - I'll use any of Linux, OSX, *BSD and sometimes Solaris.
Do I get to be a pro?
"I don't think zealots are what we should be afraid of, what we should fear are fundamentalists."
With fundamentalist zealots being the kind that really do damage.
What the article suggests is a real potential problem, because any movement -- once they have enough supporters, and Open Source/Free Software definitely does at this point -- is going to have a large portion of zealots, and a large portion of fundamentalists. Get big enough, and these two sets intersect, along with a certain group that is essentially a criminal element. We Open-Source advocates must learn to deal with them.
Look at the environment. There are very few people who genuinely believe that the environment can be sacrificed for any advancement. There are definitely disagreements about how destructive certain activities are, sometimes with the facts clearly on one side and not the other.
A couple of months ago, a building next to me was burned down by a group called the E.L.F. They supposedly stand against urban sprawl, and burn down new developments in response. However:
1. The building they burned was in the middle of an urban area.
2. Any animals that would have lost their homes to the construction had already lost their homes two years ago.
3. The fire spewed several weeks' worth of ash into the air, polluting the air everywhere.
4. Any animals that were still in the neighborhood were chased off by a blaze so hot that it was too intense to stand as close as a quarter-mile away.
5. People who originally objected to the development became supporters -- the E.L.F. made the developer a victim, and so people who originally would have supported their cause are now against them.
In every sense, the act did more damage to the environment than the development itself.
My own religion provides another great example. If you believe the news we read, the typical Christian is a former alcoholic priest fondling altar boys, murdering abortion clinic doctors wearing a T-shirt that says "God hates fags." Of course only a handful of Christians fit any of those descriptions. But the actions of these few harm the way ALL Christians seem to be to the world.
But what hurt the Catholic Church more than anything wasn't merely a priest fondling a boy, but rather the church's apparent complicity in this, by reassigning rather than expelling the guilty party and turning him over to the authorities.
The moral of the story is this: We, the members of the Open Source/Free Software movement, will have our freaks; that's to be expected. It is also to be expected that people will judge us based on the actions of those freaks.
What is important is for us to police our own. When, not If, someone does something awful in the name of Open Source, we must be the first to condemn their actions. We can't say, "These people have the right idea, but they do the wrong thing..." We have to say, "These people are psycho nutcases, and they are against everything we stand for."
What the article says will happen, will happen. We must be prepared to do the right thing with the fundamentalist zealots who do our cause more harm than good.
I suspect that in the future we will also have gnome-burglars, KDE-murderers, Apache-rapists, xfree86-child-molesters, PostgreSQL-drug-dealers, and MySQL-torturists.
But then again, we have Microsoft-dictatorship and SCO-lawyers, so who cares.
By the way, isn't it funny that lawyers is the only legitimate profession that doesn't need to be replaced by another word to sound bad?
This topic is SO OLD...
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.298, R.J. Hollingdale transl. www.pitt.edu:80/~wbcurry/nietzsche/nietzsche.html--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
The writer of the article cited is a classic example of the Aristotlian prerogative to classify everyone and everything into neat little boxes. This is very shallow thinking, not worthy of a search for truth, that science expounds. People are all different from one to the next - classification into 'us' and 'them' is the first steps down the road of xenophobia - and shows an unhealthy heightened fear.
Furthermore, to ride that wave of fear, he compares linux zealots to 'terrorists', which seems to be the fashion these days - demonize someone you disagree with, then get them put on the Justice Department's watch list...
Whatever happened to freedom of expression in this frigging country? America is the cradle of liberty - and yet we are acting like Nazi Germany 1938...
Sometimes I get exasperated with my fellow Americans. However, I refuse to give up because that would be far worse than the pain of fighting the good fight. Unfortunately some people are impervious to reason, and will never learn.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Think how different things would be for the Catholic Church in Boston if the Bishop had excommunicated and turned over to authorities the priest who fondled altar boys the very first time he did it.
We probably can't prevent having Open-Source zealot-fundamentalists who will do great harm to others and to the Open-Source cause. What we can do is police ourselves well to make sure that the dangerous ones are brought to justice, and distance ourselves as far as possible from them and their actions.
By doing so, we can help prevent a major catastrophe, and we end up remaining the good guys.
"he talks about the possibility of a Linux zealot killing a Microsoft or SCO executive"
I think its more likely that Linus Torvalds gets killed by some one trying to stop linux than any one killing an Microsoft or SCO executive.
BR Bjorn
Are as bad as Windows zealots... Zealots all suck. Terrorists? No.. Annoying.. Yep
http://bofhcam.org/co-larters/unix-terrorism/index .html
This guy is a jackoff.
By saying this he probably equates me to some sort of a zealot, even if I'm platform agnostic (though I prefer Linux).
It's like, "Hey... just because people point out the obvious fact that you're a fucking retard doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with them."
Fine, he wants to throw so-called Linux zealots into the same camp as terrorists that blow up buildings. Fine. Let's toss him into a camp. He's the sort of do-nothing would would have made an excellent Nazi citizen that just sort of allowed a nation to become imperialistic butchers.
Terrorists really are small potatos compared to large business and imperialist nations. Gimme a break.
I may be platform agnostic, but I'm not people agnostic. I generally do not integrate well with cocksuckers.
And I read his article. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have had anything more to say than "cocksucker" and "jackoff."
"Are Linux Zealots Terrorists?"
Honestly, yes.
I actually found the article quite refreshing and a good call. I agree with most of his points. In his terms, I would be on the borderline between a Priest and a Pro. I dislike Windows for technical reasons, and I dislike Microsoft for philosophical reasons; but I also know that there are situations where solutions other than Linux or Open-Source are the answer. Sometimes, there just isn't a Linux or Open-Source alternative. I would it were that I could program well enough to remedy that situation, but alas, I am a mere sysadmin and not a coder extraordinaire.
Wherever you go, there I am...
have the Romans ever done for us ????
siggy played guitar
A Zealot was a "terrorist" to the roman empire, but they were fighting for the freedom of Israel. That was 2000 years ago.
Are linux enthusiasts going to kill you if you don't like linux? No!!
Then enthusiasts are not terrorists!
"peace loving Americans"
So the US people dose not support the war in Iraq?
My logic is (War != peace).
CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
zealotry is simply another name for a very strong belief in something. If that's a very strong belief in, for example, individual freedom or pacifism, there's nothing wrong with that belief. It's only when someone has a zealous belief in something that is dangerous (like forcing all women to cover their faces) and is willing to back that up with dangerous force, that zealotry becomes a problem.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Read More... | 268 of 686 comments
Looks like it worked...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Why write code? Because you want it to accomplish something.
Why write an article in English? Because you want to convey your thoughts and experiences to other people. English is a language. It uses words to communicate thoughts and concepts to others who speak English.
The trick is to use words properly, while you are in a calm state of mind, so that you can get your idea across. A writer who is filled with hatred, and lets that hatred affect his or her writing, will not only fail as a writer, but will also fail to convey his or her message to the readers.
Here is a better way to get the point across:
"I am afraid of people who are willing to do damage to other people's property over the filing of a lawsuit."
Understood. Plain and simple. The word "terrorism" has so many connotations right now that it's not a very good vehicle to get your ideas and concepts across.
Linux does not create terrorists. Linux does not encourage terrorism. Linux does not cause terrorism. Linux is not bad for any society. Linux does not represent a security threat. When something is open source, there are many advantages to that, advantages that you may not necessarily notice if you are just using the binaries in a desktop environment.
We should dive in deeper, and really get at the details, really understand what's going on. There is a "reasonable doubt" that what happened to SCO's website was an actual attack. There is also "reasonable doubt" that any individual from the "open source community" commited any crime against the SCO Group's website. It would be interesting to some people to really get at the details, to dig deeper, and do some investigative research. In any case, some more investigative research is necessary before any conclusions are drawn concerning what happened to SCO's website.
A few weeks ago, I tried downloading Knoppix through Bittorrent. Within minutes, my DSL connection was subject to a massive DoS attack that lasted probably about an hour (I turned off Bittorrent). Apparently, this kind of DoS attack on Bittorrent sites is quite common.
If we are going to refer to DoS attacks in response to things that annoy Linux users as "terrorism", then those DoS attacks on Bittorrent are "terrorism" as well. And just like Enderle draws inferences about Linux, we have to infer that these are related to Microsoft zealots trying to keep me from obtaining a copy of Linux.
Those attacks are persistent and on-going, and they keep me from exercising my right to share and distribute content that I have a right to share and distribute. Shouldn't corporate IT departments advocating the use of Microsoft software be afraid that they are going to be tainted by those kinds of terrorist actions as well?
Need to go to a Microsoft board of directors meeting with a Tux Shaped bomb belt.
Though many people here might just dismiss this man as misguided or a fool. I believe we should try to reconcile with him.
To start, Rob Enderle makes is very clear that his basis for argument is that the other side doesn't know what they are talking about. That we accept whatever comments are on Slashdot and have never used a command prompt to say our lives.
I hate to dissapoint Mr. Enderle but I must tell him he is mistaken. I for one am not an MSN "tech support" person, and I will always go to computer management before an MS help page.
The second assumption Rob makes is that linux is destructive. To my knowledge it's only harmful to MS profit margins and I don't see why I should care about that. Linux is free, not worthless. Linux is open, not defenceless.
It seems just to ironic. In trying to damn Linux "Zealots" he has made himslef into an MS terrorist. trying to scare people from using Linux.
"There is no need to convince someone to run away from that which they know is deadly. Why are you trying so hard?" - Me
I hear what your thinking. I said "try" to reconcile.
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
Because it categorizes people in a heated debate, dismisses large number of them as people whose opinion should be ignored, and includes people in the "dismiss and ignore" category who have valid opinions which should be evaluated rather than dismissed out of hand.
This is guaranteed to bring heated argument from the people the author says should be ignored. Thus it's flamebait.
Taking the author's advice means ignoring important informed opinions and paying attention only to spokesmen for a particular set of positions. Thus the article's advice should be ignored.
In more detail: The article creates three categories and implies that these are exhaustive:
- Pros.
- Priests.
- Zealots.
This is a variation on the debating technique called "The Excluded Middle".
"Priests" and "Zealots" are to be ignroed. "Pros" are defined as people having good things to say about both Microsoft and Open Source software. So anyone who doesn't have a bunch of good stuff to say about Microsoft's products, but does say good stuff about open source, must be a "Priest" or "Zealot". Ignore him.
Among the excluded categories are any experts who have evaluated both sets of software, decided that open source is a much better choice than Microsoft or other proprietary products, and are attempting to bring decision makers (who would otherwise pick Microsoft or other proprietary software thorough inertia and/or conformity) to agree with their position, by pointing out the comparative disadvantages of the proprietary products.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It sounds like all people who believe strongly in freedom are now zealots or terrorists according to the quoted statement. If that is the case, why not just toss the Constitution. It must have been written by a bunch of anti-British zealots anyway. I suppose it then follows that the Founding Fathers should not have waisted their blood, sweat, and anguish and instead accepted the benevolence of English rule.
People who believe in things are the only ones that make the world improve. Everyone else just does what they are told. These same people, who improve the quality of everybody's lives, are always ostracized by those who bask in the benevolence of these so-called zealots creations.
If everyone in the US is to be afraid of terrorists and zealots, the US is no longer the "home of the brave". This author is a bandwagon jumping pussy. He should be thanked for making the National Anthem a mockery of the value system the US once embodied. He is, after all, a mindless team player doing his part to rid the world of free thought.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
... Hitler would say!!!! typical.
I'm still trying to figure out which Dewars are the Evil ones.
-pyrrho
His final statement about looking past our perceptions of others is actually quite apropos. However, he taints his otherwise acurate description by the comparison to 9/11. 9/11 carries so much baggage that to use it in comparison to anyone is over the line. 10 points on content, -1 on style... which is really too bad cause I liked the message of moderation.
Zealots aren't necessarily fundamentalists, and those zealots that are, eventually compromise the fundamentals involved, and just keep on fighting blindly. I'd like to borrow from the world of Amiga users to define Zealot (and then contrast with Linux).
Amiga users historically fell into two categories of interest and enthusiasm: an Amiga is a well-designed computer, or the Amiga is the most innovative system ever conceived. In today's Amiga world, there are two categories of Amiga enthusiasts: it is still a nice computer to have around or emulate, or it will rise from its third (fourth?) round of ashes triumphantly, and return to its once-lived glory. The latter category of Amiga enthusiasts are zealots. They "fight" with visceral spirit in forums, striking down those who speak in opposition to the view of zealous Amiga enthusiasts. They rally to the defense of what they believe in, with no cause for their own well-being (go look up the Amiga 'Club' and see how that panned out in the last two years), and no regard for practicality. The world of Amiga is facing another demise, with the owner of Amiga, Inc. mired in court cases he seemingly cannot afford. Yet still, the Amiga zealots fiercely oppose Amiga offshoot technology, such as PegasOS. Since there's no consistent core of fundamental Amiga beliefs, there's no Amiga fundamentalist in existence. A purist, perhaps, but no more. Such a purist might reject the Amiga Operating Environment that ne'er saw the light of day.
Linux does differ from the world of Amiga. It has a core of beliefs in the form of the Open Source movement (not a fanatical devotion to 13-year-old hardware/OS principal designs). A Linux fundamentalist, however, cannot be against commercial Linux software and cite fundamentalism as his reason, since commercial Linux software is admissible within the 'canon' of the Open Source movement, merely not in support of it. Such a person might be tossed into the category of zealot, by seeing a black-and-white decision point when there is none. Clearly, a doctrinal departure.
In general, what I call platform zealotry (remember the smug Mac Zealots?) is a manifestation of either intolerance, envy, or distrust of other platforms. I further condemn the Taliban and Al Quaeda not as fundamentalists (for they depart on several points from Islam), but as zealots. The Muslim fundamentalists I see as a threat are the clerics in Iraq which are intolerant of a new government which is controlled not by the church, but by the people; IIRC, it is (in one of the sects) a Muslim belief that government should be controlled by the clerics. Such a government may likely foster the development of zealots that pursue the genocide of non-Islamics in Iraq, as we have already seen in Africa.
Zealotry is imperfection or disobedience.
That definition is totally inadequate. It makes the question of "unlawfulness" paramount. How do you apply that definition to the US's attempted assassination of Castro, or an Israeli soldier killing Rachel Corrie?
It's funny how people fall for the same old BS (history is more valuable than people think) nowadays if anyone says anything against the Republican Agenda they are labeled someone that is "soft on terrorism." I'm glad you pointed this out. When will people learn?
Hahaha this has been one of the arguments of the comp.os.linux.advocacy trolls for a while now; that we're all terrorists and zealots. I see they've gotten attention of the Internet technology press now.
First is their utter inability to compromise. So much so that they cannot even agree amongst themselves, and start splitting into factions, fighting each other instead of their main enemy. A perfect satirical example of this is to be found in Monty Python's Life of Brian, where the People's Front of Judea say to Brian upon recruiting him, "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front."
The second problem with extremists is that they have a tendency to get wrapped up in winning at all costs. "The ends justify the means" is a phrase often heard in such circles.
Thankfully most extremists end up wasting so much resources on factional infighting that they render themselves impotent to do much real damage beyond discrediting everything they stand for.
no text
Guess that would make him a terrorist, too. Ouch...
Terrorists however are a small subset of a larger group of religeous and political fundimentalists who deal with issues of history and eternity, salvation and damnation, blood and death. These are issues that one can get far more passionant about than one can simply about how ones operating system is structured which in the scheme of things is pretty meaningless.
As a result of this difference, there are only a few million linux users about half a million of them are commited to linux as an ideal, there are however two billion christians and one billion moslems with about half a billion of each group practicing their religeon. Out of those probably 20% of each would be considered fundimentalists.
These fundimentalists are not neccisarily violent of course, but it would be safe to say that all would kill for their religeon if they had a good reason, possibly 1% of Christian fundimentalists, and 20% of Islamic fundimentalists consider that their god actually does want people to kill some people, about 1 in 10 thinks their god would want them to kill civilians, it is those people would would be called terrorist sympathisers and even potential terrorists, sort of the religeous equivilent of linux zealots. That leads me to a figure of 2100000 people who would consider killing innocent civilians in god's name as a justifyable act.
If however you assume that there are 1 million people who use linux because they like it, I have about 20 friends who like linux, one of which is a zealot nutcase like the article discribes. That is only 50000 nutjobs, 1/42nd of the number of religeous wackjobs
When you consider how few terrorist acts are committed per year (about ten major attacks average, excluding attacks on soldiers in occupied territory, vigilante actions targeted against individuals and other disciminatry attacks), Linux zealots, to maintain the same per-person average would only need to commit one major terrorist action every four years, and since the cause was very small in the past there is no reason one should assume that just beacause there were no terrorist actions in the last four years by the linux zealots that the linux zealots are any less dangerous than any religeous zealots.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
link to the picutre.
"Our New York-based cover girl, Cammy Kinney, sat for hours half-naked and nursing a cold (she's feeling much better now, thank you)."
Re: Israel's occupation of Palestine, world opinion has been on the side of the Palestinians, even historically.
There is no question in the minds of most non-Americans that what the Israelis are doing to occupied Palestine is not only criminal but borderline genocidal.
I agree that suicide bombers have had a harmful effect on the common cause of Palestinians. However, this is not because the world views the Palestinians poorly (in general) nor because a "peaceful protest" would have any meaningful effect (such demonstrations are ongoing in any event, ever since the forced relocation of Palestinian Arabs from the former British province when the first zionists arrived).
No, it is because a) Palestinians are not organized to the point where they can successfully defend against the inevitable Israeli retaliation and b) violence is abhorrent, ultimately, and it pollutes the soul.
The fact of the matter is that Palestinians are backed into a perilous corner--they have little left with which to strike back. When you have nothing but your life in the face of incredible tyranny, what would you do for your family and your people?
Americans, for instance, revolted for less... can't you step into the shoes of people who live in squalor, servitude, violence and tyranny--all through no fault of their own--and each coming to the conlusion that it has no hope of ending? Can you imagine being a child in this place? Take what happened to the Jews in World War II--but make it last fifty years.
If the Israelis want peace, they have no choice but to surrender the racist policies of the apartheid state they have created. It is truly ironic that it is in the name of security that they have beaten a people to the point that they
now resort to religious fundamentalism for answers (where they had previously a nearly secular and popular governance)... if I ever saw a solid plan to usher in an era of guaranteed cafe bombings and bus bombings, well, this is it.
We won a war in the 1700s so we didn't have to spell like the prissy limpwristed brits! Check Please!
Gun Rights!!
Learn lisp today!
First, create the strawman... Let's call it the "Linux Zealot."
Now, stuff the strawman with mythical arguments about attacks that have never and will never happen. Use that to support the assertion that the straw man is a Terrorist.
It is hillarious that he goes from people who are OS neutral (Pros) right up to people who are fanatic Linux supporters (Priests.) Then right on upto the violently supportive Terrorist Linux Zealot. Which is a myth. A strawman.
What about the vast majority of people who have tried Linux and found it to meet their needs more than Windows. I personally switched to Linux in 1993 because I wanted long filenames and a system that wouldn't crash all the time, and I have never looked back.
If I didn't have to program windows at work, I would probably never even run windows. That doesn't make me either a Pro, a Priest or a Zealot, just a normal human being who prefers Linux based on technical merit.
Islamic terrorists say convert or die, and kill you if you don't.
Linux zealots say convert before MS kills you, and continue to become more shrill if you resist.
The Linux zealots may be annoying(or at least that is how some have described me), but not dangerous.
Try witches. BUUUURN them all.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Does that include yours or not?
Btw, this article doesn't speak about the RIAA, does this mean that you are also on Microsoft's payroll?
Parenthesis matching error detected. Execution aborted due to compilation errors.
There are things wrong with Linux, but I doubt that Enderle knows what they are.
I keep wondering if he's on Waggener Edstrom's payroll (MS's PR firm) as well as getting a check from whoever it is that mistakes his pieces for objective journalism. Or perhaps he himself is one of these evil zealots he keeps warning us about. Of the Microsoft variety.
Don't know, but I doubt I'll be reading any of his articles again regardless of whether slashdot links to it or not. If I want to read a MS press release, I can find any number of real press releases on the Microsoft site.
Tech Public Policy stuff
First the Forbes article now this. The Forbes article was a variation on the classic BSD vs GPL troll. How is it that the ear of the U.S. media is held by trolls?
It's about time to extend the definition of a 'terrorist' to include everybody who exhibits any kind of anti-social behaviour
then it's fine. What you define as "zealotry" I simply call being firm in your beliefs, and having a backbone, as opposed to compromising your "principles" to be more popular, which is what you seem to advocate.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
> bits of boilerplate text that ruin Slashdot.
All your linux zealots are belong to us?
I for one welcome our new terrorist overlords?
In soviet russia, terrorists are linux?
Blame MicroSCOft?
I haven't seen any of the above being posted, all I see is semi-or-entirely-rational comments and interesting discussion...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Good luck. Some day I hope you go to far.
-pyrrho
-Turnip Onion --- Neither micro nor $oft. Linux is a fine tool.