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.
SCO sucks anyway ;)
Wtf c4 up your ass how dare you question my allegience. Windows suxors. BSD is dead. Linux rules!
He has a valid point. Its just I tend to see most linux zelots as being alot lazier then your agerage Religious zelot, least in terms of destructive capability.
How many people have Linux "Zealots" killed in the past year?
That's only because they lack the upper-body strength required to actually fire a weapon.
That, and all Linux zealots do is talk trash online. They haven't the spine to be assholes in person.
'Rob Enderle is to journalism wht arthur andersen is to accounting. What a lowlife lying asshole! He must work for microsuck'
i splay.shtml?id=18940
From http://www.macobserver.com/comments/commentindivd
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.
I teach OS concepts at a major college.
What I've experienced with Linux is thus.
It's for sure an inferior OS to UNIX and Windows because...
1)It's really hard to use
2)Not very stable
3)Has little real security
It's for sure dangerous to businesses and business computing in general because...
1)It's source code is basically stolen from others work.
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
3)The philosophy behind the distribution of Linux is Un-American and more like communism.
This cannot be good for our country.
It allows terrorists just enough encryption and power to aid them in their efforts to KILL us.
4)The source is provided so ANYONE can create scripts and such to slam a linux system.
It's role should just be for teaching OS concepts.
In that role Linux is great. We use it in our classroom but I certainly explain to my students that it is not a real OS like Sun, SCO or Windows.
If a student writes in a paper in my class and lists Linux as one of the OS's that make up the major market then they get an F on that paper.
The reason is because Linux is not in the major Market it is in the minor market - the second rate
special purpose OS's. Linux is not general enough
to be considered an universal OS.
In it's current state Linux is not ready for primetime. It will never be until Linus Torvalds
does the following.
1) Settle disputes with the IP holder of UNIX (SCO).
2) Restricted source license.
3) Make it a TRUE commercail OS
4) Single source for distributing.(No SUSE, NO RH)
After a couple of years of that you will see
Linux become a first tier OS instead of a novelty
OS.
All I am saying is let's be realistic about what Linux is and is not.
I am in the middle of an experiment.
With the release of RH8 I decided to make it
my exclusive Desktop OS to do all my work on it
for one year.
I bought RH 8 when it came out and the thing I noticed was I had to do about 6 weeks of almost constant tweeking and refining and reinstalling
I finaly had it about 15% as productive as Windows 98! Think about that!
It is also much much slower that Windows98.
Even though I only load the absolutley minimum processes.
1)It is not faster than Windows
2)Does not manage memory better than NT or XP.
3)The GUI is much less stable and crashes much more than winNT, XP or 98.
These are just facts.
Wow, no wonder JonKatz is gone
Finally, the truth comes out. This explains why FreeBSD is dying.
Linux zealots do seek the complete failure of modern society, so far as software production, copyright, IP, etc. are concerned.
Then how, exactly, do you "respect" any opinion on Slashdot, where the "Editors" (and I use that term very loosely) have more than once equated Gates with Hitler?
At least this author claims that there is a large, reasonable group, and beyond them, a group of zealots that does more damage to Linux than good. I've yet to see Slashdot admit there's ANY good in Microsoft.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Mc Bride, in July 2005
The correct spelling is 'cheque', you ignorant fuck.