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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
But an awful lot of them are idiots.
It is hard to respect a writer who equates Linux zealots, with people that seek nothing less than the complete failure of our modern society and who are willing to fight to death for it.
I think the writer missed out on a big group of people: He seemed to go straight from describing a group of platform-neutral people (Pros) to people who promote Linux without any factual backup (Priests). That's skipping out on a whole lot of people who really prefer the Linux platform for many good reasons. I would consider myself fairly platform-neutral, but I at least respect those that favor Linux over the other platforms.
I think the writer has invoked a modern day version of Godwin's Law: replacing the use of Nazis with Terrorists.
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.
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
However, in this case... Heh, maybe I should rethink that :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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.
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
On Enderle's planet, there is noone between the Pros and the Priests, anyone reasonable just buckles down and buys Windows to help pay his salary.
This would have looked rather less like a troll if he had actually bothered to substantiate the 'threats' and 'lies' he's received. We all know there are idiots out there on all sides, and we might have just nodded in agreement and passed on. I don't see Enderle saying that Microsoft is bound to fail because of some of the loonies on the MSFT stock boards.
Also, if Microsoft wasn't making license payments to SCO to support its IP racket, if it didn't have a history of destroying competition by any underhanded means necessary, if it had at least taken the antitrust settlement seriously, its sock puppet 'analysts'would be better able to claim the moral high ground.
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.
That's an excellent point. I prefer the best solution for the problem - is it my fault that I rarely find a problem where the best solution is M$?
I'm a strong advocate of open source platforms, yet I have the factual knowledge to back up my statements. So where does that leave me in his rant?
It's bad enough that (in certain environments) anyone who dares say "Linux" (let alone repeat it) is branded a zealot. To foster this perception through either overt ignorance or personal agenda, as this writer has done, is simply reprehensible.
On the other hand, it's a tactic SCO will likely admire greatly.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
An act of terrorism is one that has little to no significant military value but he is only designed to basically create FUD. The attack on the Pentagon is actually an interesting case because the Pentagon is a military facility but since the attack was done with a civilian aircraft and really had little to no military value it was an act of terrorism.
Driving a car bomb into a group of soldiers - act of war.
Driving a car bomb into a teenage disco - act of terrorism.
I think we should also be careful with the word zealot. I am a big proponent of Linux but I am far from a zealot.
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.
I don't know if anyone in the professional media can even define "terrorist." Most people use "fear" as a prerequisite. We fear God and He's not a terrorist.
"Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before The Lord. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace." (Genesis 19:27-28)
God used WMD. GWB's has a definition: "a bad guy". Does that exclude women? Is George Thorogood a terroist (bad to the bone)? I need a definition, so John Ashcroft doesn't lock me up without due process.
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
You seem to mis-understand what the whole "terrorism" is all about. Far as I know, those people are not just a bunch of Beavis and Butthead clones, who just like to see stuff explode.
They're nutcases, yes. Definitely. Pathological nutcases, even. But they still need to be motivated by something.
Before going any further, please remember: I'm _not_ advocating terrorism. Just trying to understand how a sick mind works.
They picture themselves as freedom fighters. They picture themselves as fighting against some supreme evil. An evil that, in their sick mind, needs to be stopped at all cost.
Think about it: you don't risk your life just because you like the abstract idea of "fear". You don't fly a plane into a building, killing yourself in the resulting flames, just because you dislike modern society.
I.e., these nutcases have to _believe_ in something. And I mean _really_ _believe_.
They don't want to end modern society, they think they're doing the world some supreme service. One that warrants loss of one's own life.
Now think about Linux and some of it's zealots.
No, don't get me wrong. I know that the vast majority of Linux users and advocates are normal, balanced people. Leading normal, balanced lives.
But then there also are some rare nutcases who view it all as some Holy Battle against the Great Satan. (Microsoft or SCO, of course.) Who see their role in life as freeing the People from some Great Tyranny.
Heck just look at Sun's management, and you have the prime example of such frothing at the mouth. (Not pro-Linux, but frothing at the mouth against Microsoft anyway.)
And that way lies terrorism. Precisely the same psycho mentality of "at all cost, we must bring down the tyranny of the Great Satan" (in their sick mind, the USA) is what motivated those people to fly a plane into a building.
Now would a Linux psycho fly a plane into a building? Well, no. Or at least none has, yet. But they could do a lot of harm nevertheless, like DDOS attacks and spreading viruses. See for example the DDOS attack on SCO.
And stuff like that is a big PR damage to the whole Open Source community.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981?!? Your history isn't even close. Here's the real story of Godwin's Law, written by Mike Godwin himself.
QED
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?
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.
Seems to me that the label of "terrorist" is more usually applied to anyone who disagrees with the extreme right-wing viewpoint of governments such as that of the US. It is becomimg a catch-all word under which any kind of intimidation or injustice is justified under the same "end justifies the means" policies formerly enforced in Stalinist Russia.
Naaahh... I did read the article. He's wrong.
1. I can assure you first had that Windows does crash. (Yes, XP too.) I've seen it, and tried to help, not much fun. It gets viruses too.
2. OSS is good but not essential. I like GPL/proprietry dual releases, myself. I use plenty of commercial software, but I'm willing to put up with a few more OSS inadequacies.
3. His use of zealot is quite incorrect, because he tries to categorize a huge number of people into three silly little categories. He gets them all wrong.
4. Of course there are idiots in every crowd. Making that observation isn't serious journalism.
I'm not a pro by any stretch. I'm not a priest, unless it's of a very broad church. (Linux, Mac, and most UNIX are welcome. Just Windows and SCO can go away.)
Does that make me a zealot?
Beyond the issue of terrorism, he talks about the possibility of a Linux zealot killing a Microsoft or SCO executive. I agree that it is entirely possible, unlikely, but possible. People have been killed because they listen to the wrong kind of music, have the wrong friends, or have the wrong color skin. Everyday people are killed for worshipping the wrong God.
This has nothing to do with zealotry. It has everything to do with bigotry and the fear that their way of life is threatened by those who are different. I suspect most violent acts of violence commited out of bigotry have been encouraged by cultural (micro- or macro-) mores. However, a societal fear of the different is insufficient to provoke wholesale bloodshed or terrorism. The society itself must encourage violence as a solution. For most (I hope), killing people is not in their nature, and is downright scary. Peer pressure and the knowledge that you will be a hero can overcome almost any fears.
There is of course, always the "lone gunman" who commits violence without the backing of the community. This individual is probably capable of killing over just about anything.
Are their bigots among the Linux/Free Software/Open Source communities. Undoubtedly. Are their individuals who fear the actions of Microsoft or SCO threaten their way of life. No question. Unlike the Klan, for example, the Linux community is generally not violent. Does a society based upon the notions of free speech and the common good encourage murder as a solution? For most of us, the closest we get to violence is a first person shooter.
It is entirely possible for a lone gunman to kill a Microsoft, SCO, RIAA, or MPAA executive. But this gunman is also just as likely to kill over a breakfast cereal.
If any of these executives were murdered, it is far, far more likely it would be by a jilted spouse or over inheritance money.
On the other hand, I am seriously surprised that no one has capped a spammer yet.
Finally, to compare the extreme enthusiasm and proselytism of some to the wholesale slaughter of 9/11 is disgusting and an insult to those who lost their lives and to their families.
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...
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!
"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").
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!
The first use of the word "terrorism" was in the 19th century to describe the use of violence typically by a government against its own people to enforce their will. By that definition, the US government engaged in terrorism against the black Equal Rights movement in the '60's, & against the anti-Vietnam War movement. The Myanmar (Burmese) government are engaged in terrorism against the Karen people, as are the Turkish government against the Kurds. Saddam Hussein's regime used terrorism (and genocide) against the Kurds in Iraq. The UK government has used terrorism against the people of what is now Southern Ireland (Eire), India, and various African countries, during the era of the British Empire.
The meaning of the term has been co-opted and corrupted by the governments it used to criticise, so that now it can mean anyone who creates a disruption so as to effect a change in governmental policy (UK government definition, or near enough) so that any demonstrator or striking worker is now potentially classifiable as a terrorist, and imprisonable as such. It's funny to think that a CND activist can be classed the same as Saddam Hussein.
even makes the interesting case that these folks aren't really for Linux as they are against a whole mound of stuff. Linux just happens to be something they can latch onto
3-4 years ago, Slashdot was certainly biased toward "Pro-Linux Zealots". Young, brash, and full of ideas, "World Domination", the revolution was NOW, Linux was the future. Windows was barely worth mentioning.
Over the years, however, I think the balance has shifted away from "Pro-Linux" to "Anti-Microsoft Zealots". Maybe this was because the revolution wasn't as immediate and swift as expected. Maybe the zealots matured into Priests. Maybe it was the editorial stance that publishes every MS newsbit it can find, or just that Linux was the latest rallying point for the ABM crowd.
Anyway, all of a sudden you get the disaffected OS/2, Amiga, and BeOS lusers jumping on the bandwagon. And hey, the great thing about being an anti-Microsoft zealot is that you don't even really have to stand FOR anything. You can sit there from XP and IE6 and tell the world how terrible Microsoft is, with the aura of inevitable failure for your cause. And I'd disagree that everyone in that crowd is young - some of them have been doing the same online act for years.
This encourages a lot of dull "zero sum" thinking. It's not enough that your side is winning, the other side has to be losing. Which in total lowers the quality of debate.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
"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.
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 defnition is: Somebody who Ashcroft wants to lock up without due process....
Okay, as much as this (and the original post) sounds like flamebait, there is some truth here, I think. There is very little that separates zealousness from (what we're being told is) terrorism. In fact the only thing that separates them is violent action.
As desperation or power increases, the likelihood of a zealot commiting a violent act approaches one. There is no difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter...it just depends on which side of the fence you're sitting. Are the Palestinians who blow themselves up terrorists, or are they just so desperate that they don't feel they have any choice and are willing to take their own lives rather than live under the oppression of the Israeli military and settlers?
Keep in mind, this applies to any zealots. I count Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Army Lt. Gen. Boykin, Pat Roberts, etc. among them.
Yes, this applies to something as (relatively) trivial as an OS "war". MS systematically "terrorizes" the Open Source community through oppression, FUD, dishonorably applied money and talent resources, etc. Members of the Open Source community (typically, but not limited to Linux users) attempt to "terrorize" MS by trying to get as many people as possible to boycott their products, vocalizing the contradictions, untruths, etc. with MS's FUD, writing their own software and distributing it for free(!), generating some FUD of their own, etc.
Who are the terrorists? Depends who signs your paycheck....
moto411.com