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
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.
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.
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.
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.