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.

Comments

Waste of our time

[jkrise]

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....

-

Try to read the article

[BenjyD]

He actually makes some very valid points:

• Much (not all) Slashdot (and pro-OSS) discussion never actually references sources, preferring to stick to anecdotal second hand knowledge - "Windows always crashes" etc.
• 'Linux Priests' can be blinded to flaws in OSS by their love of OSS in general. I'm guilty of this myself. Blind belief is never a good thing - admit flaws and fix them, don't just flame/ignore people who point them out.
• His use of zealot is different from what a standard slashdotian would use it for. He means the real nutcases (check out arstechnica openforum battlefront for examples).
• He doesn't call zealots terrorists. He says that the nutcases are dangerous to the OSS cause, just as islamic terrorists are dangerous to moderate Islam - the nutcases get the press coverage and we all get tarred with the same brush. Take the DoS attack on SCO, for example. That didn't do anyone any good and gave the other side ammunition to use against the Linux community

Re:Terrorists vs. Freedom Fighters

[plumby]

The difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is choice of targets, IMHO.

Shall we discuss Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam, or the bombing of the TV station in Serbia?

Most people in the Western media are certainly classifying attacks on US troops in Iraq, and IRA attacks like the ones in Hyde Park and Regents Park in 1982 as terrorist.

TERRORist is not good

[Baki]

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.