Slashdot Mirror
Linux Geeks To Take Over World
B'Trey writes "According to this story by Rob Enderle of TechNewsWorld, Linux geeks are one of the most powerful forces in the world and are set to become the next Mob. Does this mean I get to wear a cool fedora and carry my distro CDs in a violin case?"
Does this mean I get to wear a cool fedora and carry my distro CDs in a violin case?
If your stick-on Vulcan ears don't interfere with the hat and if there's ample room in the violin case for your fake lightsaber... why not?
Trolling is a art,
"Does this mean I get to wear a cool fedora and carry my distro CDs in a violin case?"
Sure, but the jocks are still going to kick your ass.
The author has a disturbing resemblance to Dr. Phil.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Enderle does not make phone calls and get facts; he prints opinions. Opinions are not required to be logical or intelligent, and they can run rampant with untruths and stupidity. There's nothing inherently wrong with publishing opinions and commentary.
The reason why this is a commentary and not an article is because there are few or no facts to back up the majority of what Rob Enderle says. I personally consider that unprofessional, even if it doesn't technically break the rules.
-Jem
Let's look at the whole concept of an IT union. That's what the article is really trying to get at, though it seems to be unable to connect the dots.
Unions have historically been necessary in professions where the employees have been at a severe economic disadvantage to the employer. In such cases, the employee would suffer more greatly by being punished by the employer than by doing some odious task. A great example is the auto industry where thousands upon thousands of workers would be literally unable to support themselves if the factory left town. The management is able to use this knowledge and leverage it into forcing longer hours for worse pay upon the workers. It is only through unionization and the threat of collective/mass work stoppage that the management is kept in check.
In the modern age, unions have been a device to demand better treatment for worse productivity. They have ceased to be helpful guardians of employee rights and have become oppressive bureaucracies in their own right. This is not really a good direction, IMO.
If the primary goal of a union ought to be the protection of worker rights and the establishment of a partnership in which both management and the employees receive favorable outcomes. It should seek to balance the power of the employers with the needs of the employees.
However in the software world, the employees are not hamstrung by monetary concerns. Any Joe Programmer can pick up a cheap $200 bare bones PC and a copy of Linux and be programming the next great thing. He doesn't need management to do this.
So management, despite its seeming power, does not actually have very much leverage over any IT employee. It is not the case that if the company packs up and leaves town that the computer engineer is suddenly out on his ass. Rather, he still has the tools at his disposal to continue productive work on his own.
Because of this natural balance in the IT industry, it will never make sense to have an industry-wide union.
My read is that this is a pathetic attempt to link "Linux" and "union" in the minds of IT management. The article is absurd on it's face. It relys on a redefinition of the words "Linux" and "union" in order to make it work, thus rending the entire ridiculous screed meaningless.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Enderle seems to have declared war on Linux. There is so much wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to start commenting or when to stop. Linux supporters are not terrorists (in the main), but the article clearly portrays them as such.
At no time in history has a technology firm been as thoroughly attacked as SCO.
In 2003, SCO started a lawsuit against IBM, began spreading FUD, and demanded $699 for every copy of Linux. Their lies have been attacked, as they should be. SCO's business has suffered because of this, but that's just collateral damage. If you offend a lot of people, a large number of them will respond negatively.
their executive leadership has been threatened, and their ability to function has been almost completely eliminated.
That's what happens when you attack a community. But it was wrong to make physical threats. Please don't imagine that because someone made a threat then all people against SCO must all be terrorists.
In addition, companies using Linux technology and not complying with the GPL generally face a combination of legal and public relations exposures
EXACTLY. People who commit civil torts should face legal sanctions. Why is the article suggesting it's wrong to enforce a licence? Should Microsoft or IBM not enforce their licences?
Let's take the most powerful software company in the world, Microsoft, and imagine a scenario where they had a problem with a negative article. Generally they could call and complain
And that's pretty much what happened - a large number of people complained to the publisher and the advertisers. It is their right, isn't it? It's not mob rule to complain when someone pisses you off.
The O'Gara/PJ saga also demonstrates the lack of mature leadership.
There was no leadership... just a large number of individuals who expressed their views on MOG's article. Linux folks don't need no stinking leadership. Linux isn't a union or a political party.
Without strong leadership any organization with this much power can easily find itself with an image more similar to that of organized crime
I really can't see anyone organizing Linux folks on anything other than a technical level. Too diverse, too independent, too spread out across the globe, too focused on technical issues, too apolitical probably.
I have to wonder if this is just another round in the MS/Linux war. Enderle seems to have picked his side - the one with the money - and is attacking the enemy to the best of his ability. Fortunately, that's not a big threat.
Linux, you see is an underworld agent threatening your profits. With that idea firmly planted, Enderle reaches for his current favorites in his arsenal.
SCO is a reasonable company besieged because they dared sue IBM. This is where Enderle gets to note DoS attacks and personal threats. It seems this alone has sunk SCO and not anything to do with their own buisness tactics or actual strength of their case against IBM. For some reason he also takes this time to mention Microsoft and point out that even this powerhouse is powerless in the face of such an onslaught.
Enderle also notes that companies who violate the GPL face union-like retaliation. And while it does point out "Linux" (which Enderle notes early on he doesn't wish to distinguish from other players) has managed to defend its license... the implication is certainly that this isn't business as normal.
Enderle's next favorite is the O'Gara incident. He generously describes the involved piece as an incomplete expose where O'Gara "implied, but did not prove, that PJ worked for IBM." What Enderle fails to note is that O'Gara also implied that PJ was a paranoid nutjob with generally frowned-on religious beliefs. The impression implied is that the Linux community apparently responded to unwelcome news rather than a personal hatchet job bordering on harassment. And again, Enderle gets a chance to trot out the DoS boogyman. Whats interesting is that he characterizes disapproving emails to advertisers supporting Sys-Con as an "attack". In the end, Enderle characterizes the negative response to this incident as power not even wielded by big corporations or governments. If demands aren't met, Linux moves against you.... and it would seem fits you for digital cement loafers.
You see - Linux is the new Mob. That is Enderle's subtle point. It's more subtle than his normal attacks. But it is a hatchet job, none the less.
One final comment - it's interesting how Enderle highlights the O'Gara incident as damning PR for the Linux community. The opinion is that if the community hadn't responded to O'Gara, the piece would have simply slipped past unnoted. But instead, it was picked up by major trades and gave Linux a black eye. Readers might want to question for themselves why the major news outlets picked this up and pay close attention to the players. Is this Enderle claiming that "suits are back"?