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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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....
He actually makes some very valid points:
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.
> I think it is possible for terrorists to
...
> have very good goals... Most think they have
This is a *very* important point. Most people seem to think that terrorist are just *evil* and enjoy doing damage because they are evil. That their goals are to enslave mankind and laugh manically (probably seen to many James Bond films).
All fanatics *think* they are the good ones. They think they're doing a good dead, and often sacrifice themselves to achieve this. This goes for the christian fanatics who shoot abortion doctors and their families as much as for the muslim fanatics who blow up cafes in Israel.
This must not necessarily be true for terrorist leaders, who could have another agenda (power/money/...) and they usually just sacrifice other people rather than themselves. But the actual people on the ground invariably believe they are fighting for a good cause / their people / their religion /
Anyway, they're all wrong. There is nothing worse for the palestinians than the suicide bombers. If they got those under control and instead held a peaceful protest, opinion in the world *and* Israel would quickly turn away from the hard-liners.
Simiarly the abortion doctor killers have discredited the whole anti-abortion movement, and eco-terrorists have tarnished the reputation of environmentalists.
If you want to further any cause, in 99% of cases it is best to do this in the framework of law and discourse provided. In the few cases where this is not possible. Non-violent civil disobedience is probably the only option that will gain popular support.
Sorry for the long rant
Ponxx
I give you, Steve the Super-Villian - http://www.ubergeek.tv/switchlinux/
A good, humourous, yet only-slightly exaggerated from a (small?) portion of the Linux community...
I don't think zealots are what we should be afraid of, what we should fear are fundamentalists.
"You have to be realistic about terrorism. Ya gotta be a realist: Certain groups of people--Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana--are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time. That's the reality. Angry men in combat fatigues talking to God on a two-way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are eventually going to provide us with a great deal of entertainment." - George Carlin
Join the Free Software Foundation
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 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
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.
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.
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.