Slashdot Mirror
Feature:Zeal, Advocacy, and the Future of Linux
Zeal, Advocacy, and the Future of Linux The future of Linux in the computing world, now so centralized around the Internet, worries me.
It REALLY worries me.
What worries me, specifically, is the light that Linux is being put in because of very bad advocacy. Anti-advocacy, almost, from those who claim to love and support it the most. Rude, insulting, and obscene attacks fly out of the "mouths" of these people to anyone who speaks one thing about Linux that doesn't put it into an immaculate light. Never before has the ordinary, everyday user had such a voice in the software industry. In this Internet-centralized computing world, the everyday advocacy by the average user can have huge ramifications on how Linux is presented to the world.
Everyone remembers the Amiga, OS/2, the BeBox. For their times, they were technologically superior to the Intel/Microsoft framework that dominated. Their (relative) failures to reach a substantial portion of the marketplace cannot be narrowed down to one cause, but among the many, advocacy was definitely a poignant one. A defensive and often rude greater-than-thou attitude without addressing the shortcomings of their products pushed away possible supporters and hurt their chances of widespread support. Rumors, myths, and speculation ("The Amiga is just a game machine! It couldn't possibly by used for any productive task.") became widespread. An inability to dispel this hearsay through supportive, informative, and polite advocacy implied that it was _not_ unsubstantiated, regardless of how untrue it really was. As
members of this open source community and supporters of our projects and ideals, it is important to correct erroneous reports and dispel FUD[1] directed at us, but it must be done in a polite and professional manner. WE are the spokespeople for our community, for our ideals, and for our projects. There is no PR department in the open source community that can sugar coat our feelings and statements. Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized. Without politeness, professionalism, and pride we will dig ourselves into a hole that we may not be able to get out of. And the shovels have already broken ground. Take, for example, the posting of the EXTREMELY embarrassing comments directed at Mindcraft regarding their Linux vs. NT benchmarks[2]. Want more dirt? After an article[3] by Jack Bryar from the Andover News Network that he himself admitted was hasty ex post facto was posted to Slashdot[4], he was flooded with hateful email telling him hundreds of different places to stick it. Was the article appropriate? Certainly not from our point of view, but many readers courteously and meticulously described the errors in his article, much to his delight. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the proper way to handle with this situation, not with obscenities. Fortunately, in his response article[5], he put the flames in a much better light than anyone could reasonably expect. This is not a slam on the Slashdot folk; it is a problem that the entire community suffers from. Nobody is perfect, obviously, but please give thought before you shoot off an email like the ones mentioned. There ARE real people with real feelings on the other end and many times they have a valid point.
You are all ambassadors for the open source community whether you like it or not. You don't want to be ostracized and called "rabid fanatics" or "zealots" by the rest of the world. It defeats our purpose and will ultimately doom us. Advocate Linux. Advocate open source. Don't put down competitors. Despite what some of you may think, many in (and perhaps most of) the community do NOT believe that Microsoft is the enemy and the evil corporation that we must kill. Rather than narrowing in on destroying Microsoft, focus on this: improving the software. And if you can't code, there is still much more you can do: dispel the rumors, the myths, the speculation, the FUD. Test the programs that these people write, offer well-thought suggestions, report bugs. Many coders aren't good writers and their programs need documentation. Offer to help them with it or join the Linux Documentation Project if that's a strength. The programmers are only a part of making this thing work, although the most glorified in this community. But they simply can't do it alone.
[1] Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
[2] Linux Net Rage
[3] Article 1
[4] Slashdot
[5] Response to article 1
Suggested reading:
Linux Advocacy HOWTO (part of the Linux Documentation Project). Paul L. Rogers.
"Thoughts from the Furnace." Rob Malda. Article and user comments.
Regarding "The Charity Case for Red Hat." Frank de Lange. (Author's side note: at the time of writing, the first listed user comment is EXACTLY what I am talking about. From an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot: "A good reply but the original article was such a vapid pile of unresearched dogsh*t as not to even garner a reply.")
"Rebuttal to `The Charity Case for Red Hat.'" Dale Merrick.
Comments on "Andover News, the sequel: A Well Braziered Bryar" on Slashdot. Frank de Lange. Article and user comments (particularly from Lemmy Caution, mastagee, Skyshadow, x mani x, and more.)
GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahaha, and you never actually made it to first, someone with something to say did.... hahahah
We are out to destroy Microsoft. They have illegally leveraged their monopoly to squash all the other software developers.
Also, most journalists with any e-mail savvy who take outlandish postions and even deliberately lie are trying to get responses out of their readers. They know, and expect, to get flamed.
The evil Microsoft's PR machine assigns a "spin" person to each tech journalist. These cretinous agents of FUD cajole the poor tech journalist all the time. Microsoft carries with them the threat that will not advertise in their journals; so often the journalists are subtly coerced into obeying.
Perhaps we do not need to remind the journalists of their sexual deviancy every time they spread FUD; but people like Jesse Berst or Mindcraft, who sell their souls to the devil, are hopeless and the only way they'll ever get a clue is to have it beaten into them.
Any advocacy forum on the web eventually turns into a flamefest as the advocators refuse to see the strengths in anything but their own product.
As for linux in particular, linux users seem to think they invented unix.
AC? i doubt it, the vast majority of the flaming zealots are most likely registred nick users. zealots very rarely want to be anonymous in any context.
In any crowd there will be _some_ people who send out hate-filled messages. Mindcraft just deliberately chose the worst ones to post because they're in the pay of Microsoft and it is in their interest to make Linux supporters look like fools.
Appealing to Linux advocates to calm down is completely missing the true nature of the problem. If a lot of people sent hate mail to Mindcraft, that's just a coincidence--because Mindcraft didn't _need_ to have a lot of people send hate mail in order to be able to put those letters on their web site. It takes a very small proportion of hate mail in order to have enough letters to do that; Mindcraft can always make it _look_ like there's a hate mail problem.
Mindcraft is spreading FUD. Responding by trying to speak calmly is useless. There's nothing _wrong_ with it, but it's not going to have any effect, because doing so assumes that Mindcraft is being honest and is posting letters that are representative of what it gets. They're not.
I volunteer.
And you jam those 4 NIC's up the journalists . . .
Ok, maybe not such a good idea.
Umm, I don't think they're directing the comments towards SlashDot AC's. If you remember, it wasn't just /.ers who were flaming the Mindcraft people, or any other reporter for that matter.
Well, it's not quite that simple. "impersonation" can work really well over the Internet because you never really know who you're dealing with. "impersonation" where real names and identities are involved can only work if (in some sense) the movement supports the impersonators.
I had a run in with a radical feminist on my campus a couple of months ago due to my 'politically incorrect' views. She's your stereotypical man-hating, butch lesbian, bitchy radical feminazi. She went totally overboard, posting stickers all over women's bathrooms saying I was a dangerous rapist for example.
Some members in her organization (a 'pro-woman' campus organization) contacted me personally claimed they didn't support her actions. But there she was on Friday, getting a stupid achievement award from the frigging Dean of Student Life while the student org members stand by and cheered her on. They shouted me down when I brought up her slanderous attacks on me. I think it's pretty clear they support her, and therefore, her actions.
My point? Someone can't really hurt you or your group's reputation unless they have a plausible premise. Anonymous flame mails aren't plausible; they could have come from anywhere including Microsoft. We should, however, as Linux advocates, do our UTMOST to distance ourselves from prominent pro-Linux flamers. Otherwise the critics who say we're a bunch of teenage punks will have a plausible premise.
(Anonymous Coward because there may be legal action at my University)
"My nuts are itching"
You haven't been masturbating in the poison ivy patch again have you?
Unfortunately, many of us will be tempted to take this attitude, because it lets us think the situation is out of our control and there is nothing we can do about it. This allows us to ignore problems closer to home for which we can effect real change. We should look for problems we can solve, rather than problems we can't.
I don't think that saying:
/. effect to vastly amplify the apparent magnitude of the flaming
.is going to convince anyone that Linux supporters aren't zealots. Even in defense, you put down others.
4) This is not just characteristic of the Linux crowd -- it applies to OS/2, BE, Apple, and even mainframe supporters. The difference is one of scale and timing. There are *lots* of Linux supporters connected to the Internet. Their timing is coordinated by the
. .
...or are you just a loony conspiracy theorist?
Evidence. You know... not speculation?
Not that something *could* be true, but that it *is* true?
It's exactly your types of comments which most annoy objective journalists who write both positive and negative things about Linux. The positive things are "obvious", and the negative things are "because he sold his soul to the devil", "because he gets directly/indirectly paid by Microsoft", "because he's never programmed in his life."
Having known at least a couple individuals who have been attacked on Slashdot due to criticism of Linux, I've been amazed at the sheer inaccuracy of ad hominem assumptions that posters whip up to defend their viewpoint. "Must have been paid off." "Obviously doesn't know squat about coding" (said of someone who has coded persistent data stores for RMI objects.)
If I claimed about you that "eh, he's just an old UNIX hacker who saw the writing about NT on the wall and were desperately hyping Linux so you'd still have a job in five years," I'd be making motivational speculations based on no specific evidence. Sure, it might be true, but that doesn't mean it *is* true.
Plus, if I was right, you'd probably wouldn't admit it to yourself, and if I was wrong, you'd be as pissed as hell at someone attacking your integrity. So what good does this "beating on others" do? It's certainly not likely to work on people who already have high egos; beating is really only effective on people with low egos, and those aren't the kind you're trying to beat on.
So why do you persist in attacking others? All you do is throw FUD on people like Jesse Berst.
To label someone you disagree with as "sold out" or "an idiot"....much easier than actually using your brain.
I'm glad however to see you acknowledging your own motives- desire to crush Microsoft. That'll get you far.
Assuming that people who want to hurt Linux will use such tactics, should we not at least make an effort to reduce the potency of their ammunition, namely our flames? The flamers may be only a small fraction of the Linux community, but they can send out a significant portion of the community's total "advocacy" material in the form of flames. Now if the average person knew this was not representative of the Linux community as a whole, they would dismiss Mindcraft's actions as exactly what you've stated above, trying to misrepresent the community. The problem is, the flames are so widespread and well-known to the average person, they do believe it is representative of the community. If we just sit back and allow this perception to continue, we will continue to be treated as zealots by the general public. We should not turn a deaf ear just because the flamers are part of the Linux community (if community is the right word in this case). If we do nothing about it, then the flamers will continue to be a dominant voice to those on the outside. If the calmer majority were to speak up more, the relative amount of flaming advocacy would actually appear to decrease, putting us in a somewhat better light among the general public. Water down the flames, in effect ;)
--too lazy to register-- Pitting an open source operating system against a product developed by a massive company whose main goal is market share - silly and pointless. Why does it have to be a competition? You _USE_ what works best for _YOU_. If Linux works best for you, use it. If you think you can add something worthwhile to it, do so. Don't run around hitting people on the head with a spoon, saying "NT SUCKS! USE LINUX! #@*&$!"...I mean, what's the point? Do you really care what everyone else uses? If so, why? And why is it worth flaming anyone about? Spend your time helping out with the LDP instead of wasting your time flaming someone with a different perspective (or who isn't quite as enlightened as you). Or write a patch. Or go eat some ice cream or something. KISSpunkleMYSPAM@swbell.net
Astroturfing Bill Gates lover! I guess size matters to you.
You earned your paycheck today. Most "journalists" these days know that "they work for the man". Knowledge of modern Public Relations tactics are well known.
This is the first truly intelligent and well thought out post I have ever seen on /. Thank you.
For once a post has actually made me think differently about the way I approach something in my work. Proof that honey catches more flies than vinegar.
I think it actually _would_ go some way toward solving the problem (though like some other posters I'd miss being able to "get it all" in one place...)
/.'s "mission" -- )
./ problem"? -- well, nobody could deny that I suppose; but in a way it _is_ specific to ./ -- didn't the MEGA-flamage, and the really vile, line-crossing stuff of this last guy begin _right after_ the story was posted here? Didn't he say he got relatively reasonable, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger mails _until_ the link appeared on ./ ? -- granted, "the advocacy problem" is not slashdot-only, but _something_ slashdot-specific seems to be happening -- whatever we decide to call it...
:)
;-)
:)
(I _don't_ think this would be "censorship" either [this word gets tossed around a lot too frequently...]-- more like redefining or streamlining
"Not just a
This proposal has the merit that it might _actually_ solve a real problem -- if that story hadn't been linked here, the guy would still have got plenty of corrective mail, but not (so it seems, anyway) so much sheerly hateful stuff...
It has the merit as well of actually _being_ a proposal, as opposed to a piece of rhetoric ("People need to grow up/take themselves seriously, yada, yada"... yeah: they also need to stop killing each other -- where's my magic wand? I'm gonna wave it -- I can't believe I never thought of that before...
I think it should at least be considered, though it might turn out to be too hard to actually draw the lines involved -- (i.e. what's a "news story"? Or could we say, no ZDNet stories?... Or, "no links to articles by clueless people"...
(FWIW -- since OS/2 keeps coming up -- I have sometimes noticed the more sane, trying-to-keep-order types on their ng's trying to quell the idiocy and flameage by saying things like "Look at the Linux community! Why can't we be more like them?"
I'm not sure whether to take this as heartening ["We're not doing so bad after all!"...], or as simply a reflection of the really really desperately bad state of things in OS/2-dom...
What economic theory is that??? Raw microeconmics 101 says NOTHING ABOUT POWER. You're just making that crap up. Alternatives may or may not spring up to counter a monopoly. That monopoly may have access to laws to protect themselves from competition; which totally negeate "economic theory".
http://www.brillscontent.com/f eatures/bill_0998.html Brill's Content Article entitled "Making Bill" at http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.ht ml
The evil Microsoft spend billions of dollars to distort the truth, cover up , lie and otherwise spread FUD and the coporate press eats it up. So, what happens: couple of sophmores sending out flames is labelled "the problem" ? WTF ?
Deals primarily with supply and demand. You characterization of it is misleading. Microsoft still sucks, regardless of you rationalizations. (hotmail is a dead giveaway for Microsoft astroturfers)
I sent email to every author in Mindcraft's "Net-Rage" post, first to make them aware if they didn't already know their email had been posted, and secondly to ask them to send an apology for the use of name calling and crude language.
I'm not sure if any have followed up on my suggestion.
Disagree. Fine. Post your reply. But remember: Unless you're a big enough person to identify yourself, I won't even hear your opinion, polite, abusive, death-threat, or otherwise.
/. and think it is a riot. I have signed up for an account, and will get my "password" soon. Sorry for this anonymous...
Like you are identifing yourself. Put your real name, address, city, state and phone number so someone may call you and you identify yourself. Otherwise, you are pointing everyone to a queue that only waits on you, and nothing that "ties" you to your comments. You are still "anonymous", whether you think it or not.
Unfortunately I agree with people hidding behind anonymous - I just started reading
If you want to hurt MS, then quit shooting yourself in the foot. You may think you're being a strong OSS advocate, but you're just convincing people that OSS folks are a bunch of ill-behaved children. You can't hurt MS with flames.
Linux will never, ever, EVER be used by corporations if the first thing that comes to a business person's mind when he hears "Linux" is flame-filled obscenity.
Everytime you flame, Gates laughs, because he knows that you're helping to destroy the credibility of OSS in the corporate community.
It would certainly behoove us to change the "tone" at Slashdot.
3 51,407644,00.html
I recently had the opportunity to discuss some issues with a member of the very prestigious Internet Engineering Task Force and a senior person in charge of doing some very important core work on Linux. Somehow I happened to mention Slashdot in passing, and things suddenly got a bit chilly. Both of them were major proponents of Linux, and they were both equally disdainful of "Slashdotters". "Disdainful" perhaps isn't strong enough to describe their reaction. They were tactful and polite, but they wanted to make it VERY clear to me I shouldn't take certain opinions expressed on Slashdot to represent the attitude of "the developers of the platform" regarding a certain issue. They added that "those doing serious development of the platform spend very little time in the unpleasant company of the spoiled children on Slashdot. Right now, they're mostly an impediment to us."
This is a real shame, especially when I consider some of the very well presented and informative postings I've encountered on Slashdot. I've learned a lot from Slashdot posters, and I'd like to learn more.
I think that the ratings system is a step in the right direction, but I'm pretty unhappy with how often it seems to be simply a reflection of how much the moderator agrees with an opinion expressed.
What I would much prefer to see is a system whereby any intentional misspelling of a name for the purpose of derision (Windoze, M$, Microsux, etc.), ad hominem criticism of the poster of a comment rather than the ideas expressed ("you're a moron if you think..." instead of "That statement isn't correct because..."), the use of derogatory terms for groups of people such as "lusers", "idiots who use Windows", "stupid Americans", "Macintrash evangelists", etc., would be GUARANTEED to subtract from what your point score would otherwise have been without the insults. You could say what you liked, but you would be certain to lose points for, in essence, damaging the "tone", and thereby the collective credibility and overall usefulness of the Slashdot community.
I say this, not out of political correctness, but because it requires significantly more effort to create a compelling argument when you have to stick to ideas alone, and emotional outbursts and attacks on other people can't be used to artificially charge up the force of your argument.
On the other hand, you can add a point or two to your own score by trying to carefully state some of the counter arguments to your own. For example, "while I'll have to admit that KDE is easier to approach from purely OO coding, Gnome is still more practical overall because..." or whatever would get you an extra point beyond what you would otherwise have earned from your Gnome advocacy alone.
Again, this is not a political correctness thing. I don't propose this for all forms of speech, but I think it would give a real boost to Slashdot. Being guaranteed of getting extra points if you do an effective job of presenting arguments counter to your own in their best possible light, also forces you to have to come up with even better arguments to counter them, and it may even cause you to rethink your own position entirely before making any statement. If so, your statement is likely to be of more value to everyone who reads it.
I'm not normally a guy that people associate with "political correctness". Even the suggestion would send some of my closest associates into fits of uncontrollable giggles.
What I'm proposing here, though, is a way to create some genuine pressure for posts to be of more value. Instead of having to wonder whether the moderators will agree with your opinion or think your clever "Microsuck" putdown was "way kewl", we should have more of a feeling of control over what point score we'll get with some simple, deterministic ways of raising or lowering our own scores.
I'd also like to see as much peer pressure put on posters who use derogatory putdowns of others as I currently see put on anyone who doesn't automatically toe the "Linux rulz, M$ sux" political line. (Talk about "political correctness", it often feels as though any posting that doesn't at least start with "I love Linux, but" will be flamed off the page. We already have plenty of peer pressure, but is it the most useful kind?)
This could go a long way toward making Slashdot a more useful, and even more interesting (because it's harder to present an argument without insults) site.
It's important, and as evidence of that, take a look at what was written about us Slashdotters in PCWeek today, but DON'T prove him right by flaming the columnist:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/columns/0,4
i hope you patched wuftpd and pop3. lotsa security holes in redhat 5.2. i'd recommend upgrading to 6.0 (without gnome/kde). its the same thing but it works faster and has less security problems.
i hope you patched wuftpd and pop3. lotsa security holes in redhat 5.2. i'd recommend upgrading to 6.0 (without gnome/kde). its the same thing but it works faster and has less security problems...yes, all the old wms work/are there too.
> Unless you're a big enough person to identify yourself, I won't even hear your opinion,...
Fine by me. I doubt many other people will listen. I'm Anonymous because I can't be bothered to create an account - there's too little benefit to me to make it worth my while putting even that small amount of personal information out there to be trolled by spam engines.
FWIW, I think Julian Elischer's piece on the *BSD results was the best I've seen on this thread. Any given system is going to have benchmarks that put it in a bad light. Linux is finally achieving some degree of stability, and *BSD is finally having to crowd over. I run FreeBSD myself because I was on the DARPA Steering Committee that oversaw its development, and so I know it well enough to be comfortable with it. I have never cared for the System V flavor of UNIX.
But each in its niche. NT is for those who can't get a PO signed unless a billion-dollar company is on the other end...whether or not it actually supports what it sells. (And be it noted here that Microsoft DOES support what it sells, and very well indeed...if you yourself are a billion-dollar company, or a major government program office. I've seen this.)
*BSD is best in the back room, pushing bits. ftp.cdrom.com blows anything else on the net out of the water.
Linux is lurching, gradually, toward an acceptable desktop. It has a ways to go but it's closer than anything else, except probably for a Smalltalk-based product (remember, we're not talking existing market share here!).
Try what you buy.
Buy what you need.
Enjoy the flamage in the press and on the net. It has less than no relevance to actually getting useful work done, but what the hell, the Fourth of July is in a week and fireworks are in season.
Gee, that's a pretty good response, isn't it? Too bad no one's going to read it.
==Mr. Protocol, the Anonymous Coward
(yes THAT Mr. Protocol)
Face it, like it or not, without Microsoft you wouldn't be able to surf the net, send email, or choose an OS, because computers would be something you might see on occaision but you'd never be able to use one the way you can now.
What can I say? You're obviously a genius !
yes, they are called agent provocateurs, and if you did any research on COINTELPRO, you will see how our gov't used them to squash unions, equal rights groups in the 50s and 60s, and currently corporations use them to combat environmental groups. For example, whaling groups had people go around pretending to be the Sea Shephard Conservation Society and saying that they're going to kill some whalers and blow up their ships with everyone on them. The mainstream press picked that up and now the organization looks like a bunch of terrorists, when in fact, it was all lies.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft used them to make us Linux users out to look bad. Yes, there are some punk-ass kids who have no concept whatsoever of a fair argument. But most of us realize that you can argue for linux without appearing biased. Yes, it is harder to install. Yes, it is less user-friendly. However, the average secretary before Windows used dos and didn't seem to have any problems, and with KDE and Gnome, it's much easier to use than dos.
It also is more stable, and best of all, YOU own linux, not some corporation. That's usually the extent of my argument for linux.
Advocacy means knowing about your subject, such as Linux and using it for what you want to use it for, and if you are a smart computer user people will ask for your opinion on how to do something with computers, and you can give them the facts, and you might be able to tell them something about Linux (for example) if that is what will work for that situation. Let people make their own decisions if it is their place. If they don't decide to use Linux, then let them. I don't feel the need to make everyone look at eveything the same way as I do.
This from a super hard core, #LinuxwareZ residing, microsoft loathing super hard core (meesa say that already?? heh) Linux user.
Linux's faults need to be brought out and exposed. Let Darwin call the rules. The Open Source will always win in the evolutionary shakeout. Period. Linux can be super user friendly and super powerful at the same time and never betray the GPL and the principles that made it so great. I won't accept anything less. If someone has a legitimate beef against Linux, BRING IT ON and let's fix it!
When I read comments like this, I sense two things coming from the author: fear and rage. Of course the rage is just a product of the fear, so it's really it's just fear coming out.
What people must realize is that MS FUD can't hurt Linux. Linux is a grassroots movement. I learned about Linux from a friend, who learned about it from a friend, etc.... That's how Linux spreads, and there's nothing MS FUD can do to stop it. They might be able to slow it down, especially in the business world, but the seeds have been planted there too. The MS PR machine can say whatever it wants about Linux, but as long as there are people around saying "Here, let me show you what Linux can do," it's going to keep spreading.
So don't be afraid of the FUD. If you want to politely correct the author (for his own sake), by all means do it. But don't get all worked up about it, there's just no need.
I owe a lot to Microsoft ? Horsefeathers. I've got a clean balance with them. Oh, no, wait I don't; they still owe me a freaking copy of "excel" with they gave me a certificate for which never honored.
Your comment basically indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'll give credit to Andy Groves and the pioneers of Unix for moving forward the computer revolution; not Bill Gates. Sorry, IMHO, you're a sucker for Mickeysoft PR.
No one is saying that immature ranting should be illegal. I think the point is that this stuff is harmful to the cause it is supposedly promoting. With the anonymity of the net, people spout off a lot of childish crap that they would never say in person (well, at least some of them wouldn't).
Whatever we think of it, it is undeniable that flames turn a lot of people off to Linux and OSS in general.
Silence, in the face of behavior that is clearly out of line, can say an awful lot. It suggests that you approve of the behavior, or that at least you don't disapprove.
We have to stand up and tell the world that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. We don't need to dissect immature flames word by word (that's not statesmanlike) but we do need to speak out in general terms against the vocal idiots who think there is safety in numbers.
I think giving up on Linux because you got flamed is a poor way to react... you wouldn't stop driving if some idiot in the other lane gave you the finger, would you?
Flames are annoying. Flames are intimidating to some. But they're definetly not a reason to 'give up' on anything. They're only opinions, and as with all opinions, you take some and you leave some.
I would not quit driving. But I doubt I'd drive the make of car a flamer was trying to sell me. ("Buy this car, you moron. And you better know how to fix it yourself.")
In fact, I wouldn't buy a make of car if 50% of the people who recommened it were ranting yahoos. One must protect one's reputation, or suffer the consequences of guilt by association.
This useless argument has been made too many times.
Decisions on use of Linux or any other system have almost
nothing to do with the manner in which some strongly held
views are expressed by individuals who post here at Slashdot
or who email journalists. Expression of such views in an immature
and undiplomatic manner does little or nothing to hinder the
adoption of Linux by users, corporate or individual. Likewise,
diplomatic and painstakingly informative advocacy has no
effect either. This is all meaningless because it has absolutely
nothing to do with the reasons why people and businesses
choose a particular os or application.
Well - what criteria are meaningful ? Perceived market share,
advertising, usefullness of the products, etc. Any number of
things. But not comments posted at forums like this one.
Generally, most individuals and businesses just want to use
whatever everyone else is using. A few want something that
really meets their needs. Some businesses are looking for
a competitive advantage. They may choose Linux or another
"open source" system for that reason.
Bad advocacy had nothing whatsoever to do with the current
status of Os2, Amiga or Be. Get real. I disagree that the
advocacy was bad - even by TeamOs2 and Amigoids, but
that is another whole issue.
There is a valid issue - that many home users view people
who use Linux as "nerds" regardless of how they behave.
It's a stereotype. This is a double-edged sword. To some
this is sexy and attractive - to others it causes fear or
hatred. But this is almost totally unrelated to comments posted
here and to flaming email. It is a general characterization of
Linux and unix users especially in America. As more people
start using Linux at work this stereotyple will fade away.
Please - no more of these useless stories about bad advocacy.
Say and write whatever you want - but be aware of the possible
misuse of your comments and corespondence by potential
employers and the risk of lawsuits. Just use common sense.
But say what you think and feel. Don't always try to be
diplomatic. If you are, you are, but if you are not diplomatic
by nature be youself.
There are better things to do with your time than to worry
about what effect the expression of your feelings and views
about a computer operating system might have on its market
share. Market share is not the goal. It will continue to grow
for the right reasons, regardless of the manner in which you
express your opinions.
Very, very true. As a software engineer myself I've gained a great degree of respect for many software products, including many of Microsoft's, and seeing FUD used as the "intelligent" follow-up to anything that might not totally demolish anything Microsoft is foolish. My NT machine runs for weeks doing a wide variety of tasks without a hiccup...must be FUD! Everyone knows NT machines can't run a day without rebooting! (Yes it's sarcasm). Someone's Linux machine crashes relatively frequently? MS FUD! Linux runs perpetually and has no bugs! (Sarcasm). The examples of this are countless and it ruins any chance of intelligent conversation. It is like some people are in their little fantasy land and as long as they say it, that's good enough. Who cares if reality doesn't correlate with their imaginations.
Another favourite is the fear of Windows 2000 that causes some Linux zealots to followup every posting referencing Windows 2000 with the term "vapourware". Unfortunately these kids are too young to realize that vapourware is products that are publicly announced and hyped but have very little of a chance to make it to any sort of working status (i.e. Java Corel Office is vapourware). Windows 2000 isn't even remotely falling in the category of "vapourware", and it has been more real than Linux as far as being a complete operating system for more than a year now. Yet, post something referencing a feature of Windows 2000 and out come the vapourware comments. Very very bizarre.
There are a lot of ultra-zealots in the Linux camp. Linux isn't to blame, rather these people have some deep seated psychological problems that will cause them to be like this regarding whatever happens to be their interest. It just happens that anything that is the "underdog" will always attract these psychos like mosquitos to the zapper.
OK, so you are kind enough to first notify authors that their
email was pulished without their permission. But then you
take invasion of privacy to yet another level by asking them
to apologize for their letters which you only were able to read
because they were published in a very misleading manner as
being representative of the letters recieved from LInux advocates.
If you really respect privacy, then leave well enough alone.
A mistake was made in publishing the letters. Too late to change
that, or your compounding the damage.
If you could, you'd probably tattle to their wives or mothers to
shame them into being good boys. Does this get you brownie points as a proper linux adcocacy
proctor or hall monitor, or a promotion in the ranks of the
Hitler Youth or Red Guards? Who is the overzealous advocate
here? Think about it.
Microsoft did NOT build an 'OS for everyone'. They bought a CP/M clone from some poor schmuck who didn't know what he had and then took advantage of IBM's trademark. It wasn't even the best DOS around and they had to actively sabotage those that had the gall to provide a better alternative and thus for MS to get off it's duff and improve it's product (Quarterdeck,Digital Research).
In 1988, the PC was no machine for a novice end user. Don't try to kid us. We simply know better. Supported or not, a cheap kludge klone plus DOS3 was a pox on the end user you claim that is Microsoft's benefactor.
Even after 1995, the PC still wasn't a real replacement for a Mac or a console. That's why a great deal of us bothered to put up with Linux.
And just because NCSA or Netscape weren't spamming us to kingdom come, it doesn't mean that they weren't distributing the technology far and wide. It's just sick and demented that you would even think this a suitable type of argument. Microsoft didn't even start to really address the web until Netscape had already carved out a market.
Your attempts to trivialize the entire rest of the market that existed and was delivering machines suitable for 'the rest of us' is simply not going to be left unchallenged.
Many of us (myself included) LIVED different.
BTW, logging onto a BBS with a Usenet or Fido feed in 1988 was FAR simpler than attempting to configure a pre-PCI WinDOS PC.
DOS is not an OS 'everyone can use' by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't agree with this part, because you only refer to anonymous postings. I never counted how many badpost came from anonymous posters and how many good post came from registered one, but certainly don't feel like pointing only to anonymous ones.
You could get an 8Mhz 68000 with 512K in those days for well under $1000. Even without a harddrive, such hardware in an ST or Amiga could run circles around those 'cheap' PC clones.
$1000 got you a 4.77Mhz Packard Bell 8088.
Next to that, even an older Mac is not such a bad machine.
While it's true that an open platform that allowed for vicious competition helped consumer prices, it was the hardware vendors that drove that process.
Really intelligent subject line, guy--you sound like exactly the sort of person that the origional article was talking about.
If you *really* believe that hordes of flamers pouring vicious personal invective down on people has no effect on Linux' popularity/usage then I feel sorry for you. After all of the examples above and below mentioned by "RatBastard" and others you still don't get it, do you? Human beings have feelings, and they can be influenced by those feelings in a negativge or positive way. This *certainly* has an effect on what they will buy, eat, wear or do. True, a lot of factors entered in to the fall of OS/2, the Amiga, etc. (bad marketing just to name one) but bad advocacy was definately one of them. The old cliche "you can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar" is a cliche for a reason--it's true. I hope that in spite of the views of persons such as yourself, Linux uses honey to catch it's "flies," and catches a lot of them.
This is not the place for intelligent and insightful commentary like yours...this is slashdot!
:-)
Now go away!
And I agree Groucho. Mr. Barr checked any respectability at the door with the mindcraft post.
Now, unless Mr. Petrely's has changed his mind, he adressed the issue within 24 hours, saying he was of the opinion that Mr. Barr's standing as a columist was NOT impacted by the Mindcraft letter.
Mr. Petrely made a call. IMNSHO, the wrong call, but he make a call. And I see the call as a desperation to have authors.
Like the Mac community, LinuxWorld is preaching to the converted.
Personally, I will no longer visit LinuxWorld. I do not wish to see such preaching to the converted, for such ignorance is NOT bliss.
If one can't express oneself in a decent manner, they'll get nothing but contempt from me. Sorry guy, but flamers go straight into the killfile where they belong.
This is pretty cool.
:)
A moron responds in a thread about morons.
First there was slashdot.
Then rose the flames.
Next was Y2K.
Here are ardent reins.
Generation, regeneration,
disintigration, proliferation.
Tiresome threads, loose strings.
Don't panic, go to sleep!
Ahhh, sweet dreams,
but contemplate what you've seen.
Humanity, beloved,
wash up at the stream.
gdb
Anyone with negative comments about Linux is all of a sudden evil and in cahoots with Microsoft? This is news to me. It's also news to me that Linux is a perfect OS and doesn't have a single flaw. It's a shame that Torvalds and crew spend so much time chasing bugs that don't exist, and writing drivers for hardware that's obviously supported well (Like my Montego II).
C'mon folks, you need to think rationally when posting responses. Is there perfection in OSes? Nope. Will it ever happen? Nope. Is Linux pretty darn close? Yep. Quit whining about how Bill Gates controls the world like Big Brother and do something about it. Yelling insults instead of citing facts is exactly the problem this article describes, and yet some of you sub-humans feel the undying need to ignore the reality of this and continue on with it. I'm hoping Microsoft will die just so I don't have to read any more of this drivel from those who can't handle a true thought process.
I found the emails from Joe very disturbing. I certainly wouldn't have used the same language to get my point across. I'm equally teed that Mindcraft took those emails, along with the others and posted them, they display their unprofessionalism by doing so.
I've been reading Joe's columns on LW, and I have enjoyed them, it is difficult to believe that the same person could have written those.
I guess this message is kind of pointless. It's just a sad situation all the way around.
Every time I have had a problem with my Debian _GNU/Linux_ (!) I got the solution fairly quickly on the Debian IRC server. No flames, ever.
I wonder about the situation with Debian GNU/Hurd, which I'm going to try next (I have 1 gig of unused/unpartitioned diskspace set aside for it). BTW, Hurd might kill Linux... It has superior OS design and it's also GPL'd, most of the Linux software/drivers should be portable to Hurd (I think I saw a version of ALSA for it). Hurd still quite alpha I'm afraid, but I hope they get it running smoothly soon.
I don't care what the OS is as long as its developers keep up the free software spirit (this does not include flaming everyone !) and I can use a free high quality Common Lisp compiler (eg. CMUCL for Linux) to develop applications with it. =)
There's grep, but it's no good if you don't know the exact words you're looking for. It would be nice to have a complete graphical search engine to browse the docs. Preferably something that can understand related words.. Is there something like it yet ? This could be a good new project for some of the programmers.
When I was in 8th grade, I had a friend who ran an "I love macs site" And basically it just talked about the history of the macintosh... well....
... He got about 5 flames (really nasty ones too) from windows users.
Just thought I'd put this into the light
Amigoids?
Never been called that before. Me and the lads
all grew up with those machines, and now and again
they'll get dusted off for sensible soccer.
Ah nostalgia. Not to say we didnt stick by our
choice of machines and try to convince atari ST
owners to switch (which a couple did after they
caught the demo bug, cos we showed em some stuff
rather than argue them down into the ground).
But I dont cling to amigas hoping the business
world will suddenly use em or they will be resurrected. I also dont go to atari forums and flame everything in site.
I dont think bad advocacy had much
,if any effect on the amiga. Most bad advocacy I have seen is from the internet like "Fuck you bill gates, you go to hell, you go to hell and you die! " etc etc. In the mid 80's to early 90's magazines didnt frequently print letters from rabid cultists. And the internet was relatively small then and did not have a large amount of home
users. And I feel home users are probably more fanatical than any employee.
I also feel no (sane) company in the world selects an OS purely on who is advocating it (im pretty damn sure we wouldnt stop using HP-UX at work just because some guy slashed his wrists and wrote "I die for HP" on the walls. I'm sure they are quite likely to ask about its performance, support and if someone else is using it. Microsoft flourished here cos if you know the company over the road can at least do some work with it, you'll likely to play safe and get the same as them.
If the spanish inquisition wanted to sell me a good OS that never crashed and worked a dream, I wouldnt think twice about it. Long as they dont do on site support...
And didn't someone always say, all publicity is good publicity?
Brad
Mobile Telecommunications Software Developer
(and no i don't flame people who can't code either, because everyone at some point couldn't code for toffee.)
...the greatest "defense" against misplaced Linux advocacy is to keep the platform fresh and keep more well-reasoned people interested.
----
But one of the characteristics of "well-reasoned" people is that they have little patience for the kind of zealotry that the Linux community has thrown up, even if the OS has some advantages. Reasonable people will be the *first* to walk when they smell the adolescent hormones.
That wouldn't really solve the problem, would it? It is _NOT_ just the /. community, it is the entire Linux Advocacy community (kinda like the old Gravis Ultrasound people) that is the problem. Not linking stories from /. would not stop the problem of rabid flame attacks at all.
The only way to solve the problem is for the Linux community to take itself SERIUOSLY and act in a manner that will generate the respect they want. If the community does not change then no ammount of "link cencorship" Rob puts here will help at all.
For Linux's sake I hope the community grows up.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
True, but this growing up can be hastened by reasoned guidence. I would not advocate cencorship of anyone's opinion, but I DO favor people helping the "less articulate" be more mature and reasonable.
The "Shock Troops" of change may get people's attention, but it is the advocacy of the reasonable agents of change that make new ideas become part of the new status quo.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Why? The best way to stop riots in prisons is to give the inmates something to do. Give these rabble rousers an outlet that channels their energy into a creative direction and not only do they not have as much itime to flame for no damned reason but they also improve their writing SK1LLZ.
I'm not too current on the LDP, but don't the HOWTO's and such get reviewed before they get "published"?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
As a Be User I resent the fact that you chose to speak on my behalf and make "us" look just like the Linux flamers that the article was addressing.
Thanks for setting "our" cause back to the stone age.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
If I got visciously yelled at and called a "fucking Windoze loving moron" every time I asked a question on how to best use my car that would really put a dent in my desire to learn to drive, wouldn't it.
.rc file to edit on this particular version of Linux, or just trying to get ppp working? Sure most of my questions were bonehead but I asked in a very polite way - not DEMANDING and answer - and I DID try to RTFM (but that's hard to do when all of the FMs are out of date and nothing is where they say it is ot called what it used to be.
EVERY time I asked a Linux question on Usenet I'd get at least three flames telling me I was a moron because I had the lack of common sense to ask a simple question.
Why the hell should I put up with being yelled at just because I want to turn off sendmail and httpd and I don't know which
If the online community had been more helpful than insulting I might have bothered to stick it out. But getting shit on everytime I asked how to do something just was not worth it.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
They are NOT overstated. I know quite a few people who gave up on Linux (myself included) due to the massive amount of sh!t they recieved asking "beginner" questions in the newsgroups, or from being attacked as either Windoze FUD-slingers or idiots when they make (valid) complaints about the fact that Linux is NOT as easy to use as many say it is (not all of us know much (if anything) about Unix).
Unlike some of these attacked people I know, I do not tell people to "Stay away from that Linux crap and its psychotic zealots", but niether do I tell people that Linux is all that great, in my personal experience it is not (I hate unix, all flavors, but that's me).
How many more people would be using Linux today if the respomce to newbies was along the lines of "the solution is X" rather than "RTFM, you f*cking moron!"?
Understand that I did get helpfull replies to my questions and I did get people telling me how to make Linix easier for me to use, but for every positive responce I got I recieved at least three repsonces telling me I was an idiot.
So I've given up on Linux and moved to Be. At least the BeOS community is helpful.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
...whether he wants to be a common foulmouthed troll or a spokesman for the community. Letting him be both exposes the Linux community to situations like this one in which Mindcraft posted his bile. It makes us all look bad.
The LinuxWorld forum for Joe's latest article, "competition keeps Linux lean and mean", contains posts from people who are addressing this issue. From Joe's responses, it is clear that he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. Nick Petrely's mealymouthed response is also sad and alarming.
I think the Linux community needs to stand up and tell Joe loudly and clearly that his behavior is unacceptable. I won't be satisied until he acknowledges the gravity of his actions (given his position), apologizes, and promises not to do it again. Sadly, I'm not sure Joe is capable of it.
Groucho
The author used his voice to remind us that flaming is rude, immature and EXTREMELY harmful to Linux. Supposedly the flamer's goal is to defend their beloved operating system, if this is so then I would think they'd want to know if they're causing more harm than good.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism of your speech.
I browse with my threshold at 2 so I can't read my own comments :-)
Hey, why did this get moderated down? The more info we get out on positive advocacy the better.
I browse with my threshold at 2 so I can't read my own comments :-)
Check this out.
Quit trying to rewrite history. Some of us were 'surfing the net' and 'sending email' when Microsoft was still pushing DOS3. Once again Microsoft is being given credit for things not it's due.
Microsoft did not create the PC clone market which gives us nice cheap (and quite often shoddy) PC's: Phoenix and Compaq did.
Microsoft did not create the home computer market: MITS and Apple did.
Microsoft did not create ease of use computing or even push it into the marketplace: PARC and Apple did.
Microsoft did not create ease of use Internet computing: the NCSA did.
Microsoft is great at exploiting ideas once a map has been laid at their feet.
People computed cheaper and easier DESPITE of Microsoft and did it a LONG time ago. Thus all of the frustration and flammage from Amiga users, Apple users and the odd Atarian.
You justify every bit of an Amigan angst.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
From the /. faq:
"Advanced users should consider Debian, especially if they are familiar with Unix already. Nobody should use Slackware..."
I am appaled to see that the slashdot maintainers think to knows what I should use.
If advocacy is such an item to Rob Malda, could he be so kind as to remove that line? And admit that such a line is a mistake?
wayout
See LWN's news summary; it frankly blows Slashdot out of the water when it comes to collecting news stories.)
Part of the problem is that discussions on /. can tend to hysteria, causing authors to be bombarded with flames. So, Rob, why not simply drop such items, since other places are doing better jobs, and concentrate on what /. does best -- amusing and interesting stuff that's off the beaten path? Discussions of technical topics on Slashdot are still often quite good, modulo the occasional flamewar over GNOME/KDE or Linux/*BSD.
On the other hand, Open Source projects are usually started because of an immediate need. There are millions of Linux users out there and their needs tend to cover quite a bit. I have yet to find something I needed to do that didn't already have an open source project going...
It's not too far of a stretch to assume that the bulk of the flame-writers work for a P.R. firm close to Redmond. Radicalizing "undesirable" movements by using impersonators to discredit them is an old trick. This technique was used effectively throughout the last decade or two by large pharmaceutical, oil, and surgical interests in order to combat environmentalists and whistleblowers. The loudest, most destructive activists were on the payroll of the companies they sabotaged. It's all about creating the kind of press that most benefits you.
Or they could just be a bunch of deranged teenagers. But that's not nearly as sinister.
"Many coders aren't good writers and their programs need documentation. Offer to help them with it or join the Linux Documentation Project if that's a strength."
...am I wrong to be just a little bit concerned that you're suggesting flame-writers take part in the Documentation Project?
This is precisely my point; not as far as you've seen. If infiltrative FUD is taking place, it is most certainly a covert operation.
The fact that the flames work to Mindcraft's advantage (to the extent that they are worthy of posting on their front page) makes them immediately suspect.
Maybe I'm just in love with the notion of highly-paid PR specialists pretending to be rabid 3733t kiddies. You have to admit, when you take the Evil out of it, it -is- a funny picture.
The linux community needs to stop looking at every problem person as a Microsoft shill.
Indeed. I fear that the atonality of text has robbed my original statements of their intended facetiousness. Armchair conspiracy theory is a lark as long as it's not taken seriously.
Please, let me believe that the flame composers are working for the other side. I don't want to face the prospect that the standard bearers of my OS of choice are a rabid horde of social retards.
I'd been looking for a good message to point BeOS users toward on how not to advocate for our favorite operating system. Thanks for this one--it's just perfect!
Scott Hacker, for example, provided no data on the percentage of flames versus constructive criticisms. It may be that the negative comments were not at all representative of the whole.
While you're right, this is also somewhat misleading; he said the responses he received ran the gamut from complete agreement to obscene flames, and never implied that most of what he received was flames rather than constructive criticism. Beyond those introductory paragraphs, in fact, he didn't address flames at all, but instead did respond to the constructive criticisms, including acknowledgement of points he hadn't considered or wasn't clear on. Obviously people can still disagree with his conclusions, but just as obviously he's not just ignoring well-considered responses.
It should also be noted that consistently misspelling Scot's first name as "Scott" probably doesn't help things. :-)
If the crowd using an Operating System was something to choose an Operating System by, then NT would be the last thing anyone would want to use.
A group of people with thier heads buried in the sand, chanting "Bill will fix it!" while rebooting the companies most critical system 3 times a day, assuming of course they can turn it on, would not be my choice of crowd.
From my experience (only 5 years admittedly) NT
admins seem to be happy to have NT, just so they can blame MicroSoft for anything going wrong.
Not to mention the number of NT admins who call me
up and don't seem to have even the most basic debugging/diagnostic skills.
I'm sorry, but I feel these things should be prime
requirements for an administrator of any network, and MicroSoft seems to breed Admins with a serious lack in this area.
They do seem good at sitting on hold for long periods of time and following instructions given over the phone however.
Possibly the lack of NT evangelists is due to them still digging for that thing to evangelise about. I'm sure NT has some good points... Somewhere...
The previous comments are only true, if no-one says they're wrong.
Oooh! You're so cute when you're mad!
The previous comments are only true, if no-one says they're wrong.
part of growing up is the adjustment that we all go thru. from being over-zelous about our object of affection(band, song, girl, sports, hero, os, whatever) to the other extreme of becoming jaded. eventually we all will reach a middle road and a balance. that's part of growing up, which is what the linux community is still doing. yeah, the kind of advocacy the we saw with the mindcraft fiasco is unfortunate, but we don't need to be facists about it either. better to let youthful exhuberance take it's course. in time the authors of bad advocacy will eventually realize how silly they look(ed) and their attitudes will shift in the other direction, and hopefully a more balanced point of view.
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
Are Be users existentialists or beers?
Is the Be posix shell called the xs10sh?
support gun control: take guns from cops
Here's a tip to Linux advocates everywhere:
... erm ... rabid. Linux users must do the same, lest they be avoided and scorned.
Be careful.
As a Mac user, I know exactly how this goes. The Mac advocacy community has at the same time helped and hurt the Mac platform immensely. on the one hand you have stories of Macs being brought back in droves to various educational and corporate environments. This was often due to some volunteer work by Mac advocates in such activities as handing out pamphlets are Best Buy or training salespeople or whatever.
On the other hand, the Mac community practically tore itself to shreads a few years back when Apple was at its worst. A community with something to worry about gets defensive - a stereotype the Mac community has had to bear for a very long time. Do you want this to happen to Linux too?
Now, as things begin to look really good for the Mac platform and its users, things are getting better. Mac users are being more open to outside technologies (ie. Unix/Linux, USB, etc) and less
This is not an insult - just an insight from a member of the Mac community. Be careful...
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
I write software for a living, and have done so for (egad!) 10 years now. One of the rules that has seeped into my brain in that time is: "Engineers must stay in touch with reality."
Everyone else in a software organization can, and probably will, drift off into believing what they want to about the software a company sells. But the engineering team is the one that must make it actually happen, in the real world, with the tools at hand. They must listen to what users say.
I've written, among other things, a few small languages in my career so far. Not all of my users think that the languages i've written are really all that intuitive, and some get frustrated by them. Now, i'm a human being, so when i hear this, there are times when my dander goes up; "What? They don't like it? Well, they must be idiots! It's just like LISP, but with completely different commands, and specialized for the weird environment it runs in. What's so hard about that??"
Now, mind you, i NEVER say that out loud. I've known programmers who would say it out loud, and i never want to work with them again. I don't give them good recommendations when they're looking for work (unless i'm trying to get rid of them). I'll note that they tend to be somewhat lonely people. "My way or the highway" is not a good axiom for social graces. (I'll also note that Bill Gates seems to be this kind of person, but he can get away with it, via his accumulated power.)
No, when someone says, "This doesn't do what i want", i make every effort to listen. What are they really trying to do? Is there an approach that they're overlooking, and is this approach given the proper attention in the documentation (which i probably wrote). Did it not occur to me before that this function was needed? Given that the user, for whatever reason, expects the software to act in particular ways, can i provide that? Would doing so hurt other users the code has?
Now, this may sound like i'm bending over backwards for the user. I am. I want my work to be used. I'd hate having my code sitting somewhere in a source tree, never to be used again, because my users resisted it until they found something they liked better. Why did i bother sweating out the details in my algorithms, if the code never executes? Getting paid isn't enough; making my user's lives just slighter better is why i work. (This is why i like writing tools for my co-workers; the exchange is much more direct.) Users, as much as the hardware and the tools, are reality for an engineer.
So, if someone mentions a perceived problem with your favorite OS/editor/hardware, make every effort to empathize with them. See through their eyes what they are going through, understand that their needs are not identical to your needs. This is how excellent software is written.
If Linux vs. the world becomes a pissing contest, Linux will lose. If engineers lose touch with reality and start believing the hype about what they're products, that product will likely fail in the long run.
mahlen
Some men see things as they are and say, why; I dream things that never were and say, why not.
--George Bernard Shaw
Everyone likes to talk about how good democracy is until it disagrees with them. Like it or not, the net is bringing true democracy to more corners than anyone has ever dreamt of. Democracy means EVERYONE gets a voice, immature or not.
--
Infuriate left and right
I was in a hurry to go see a couple of steam engines going over the Sierras. Let me elaborate on what I meant.
I imagine there has been the equivalent of flamers at every widening of political power. I have no doubt that Bad King John winced at what the new guys said when he signed the Magna Carta and was forced to share a bit of pwer; he would have understood quite well the term "flamer" as applied to his new sidekicks.
Same with the beginnings of the English parliament, and the expansion of that parliament to include mere merchants, and so on down the line to today.
At every step, the old guard screamed bloody murder about the new kids not understanding how things really worked, how things should be, why they were what they were, and especially how the new guys were going to destroy the Internet errr, excuse me, governemnt, society, etc.
How many of you remember rec.humor.jokes before it got loaed up with newbies? The last two times I visited that newsgroup was just to harvest PeeWee Herman and O.J. jokes. It seemed like every fall, a load of new freshmen would discover that if they responded "That was funny" to some joke, their buddy two terminals down could see the same thing! Wasn't technology amazing?! Of course, it never occurred to them that a million people around the world also saw it, and even to the few who did have a glimmer of understanding, "so what? cool!" And of course there were a zillion predictions of "Death of the Internet", just like Metcalfe several years ago.
Well, guys and gals, look at the new hoss, same as the old hoss. Yes, flamers say silly and offensive things and show little understanding of the nuances of their native language. Also yes, they have exactly as much right to post their opinions and make fools of themselves as you or I.
That's the price you pay for democracy. Soon ordinary housewives (gasp!) and (dare I say it?) even grade school kids will post to the Internet!
Think of a mythical New England town hall meeting. Everyone speaks their piece. But do they? I reckon not. Only a few do, because most people feel too intimidated by the regulars. Is that really democracy? What would happen if they actually forced everybody to get up and speak for a couple of minutes? I tell you what -- the regulars would snort how the new guys didn't know what they were talking about, hadn't done their research, used bad grammer, and worst of all, showed no respect for tradition and their elders. They just didn't understand. They shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Why do you think graffitti shows up on walls and buses and even the trains I watched today? Because those people feel they have no other voice. Who would listen to them anyway? So they write graffitti in frustration. It's been going on since Roman days at least.
Certainly some people write graffitti just for the kicks, just to piss off the elders, and so on. But I wager the vast majority do so because they are not skilled socially, they resent being put down for bad grammar and non-conforming dress, and it is the only recourse they think they have left.
Flamers, first-posters, anonymous cowards: they are the graffitti artists of the world. They draw mustaches on political posters and flame columnists because they know no other way. Pity them if you want, sneer at them, but ignore them at your own peril. They have opinions, they buy things and they hassle cops and sysadmins. Their lashing out is a sign for you experienced, mature, and god-like veterans to read.
--
Infuriate left and right
You own what you write, idiotic or not.
Beeing "right" is no excuse for violating anybodys rights.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
What realy happens when nobody ever gets flamed for a bad (wrong) paid FUD ??
If somebody is getting paid for writing the FUD, do you realy think he cares if he gets a few 'corrections' to his "article" ???
How many do you think will take there time to create a good pice of ansver to a obvious Microsoft FUD ?
You folks realy can't be searious stating that "flames are bad for us" ? It's the silence that is.
Imaging this:
Scenerio: Nobody ever flames a Linux article.
Microsoft spokesman: "We have recently been getting only a tiny fraction of responces, we used to get, on our lates OS benchmark reports. Some of them have a valid points some are right out wrong. We understand this as interest in the so called "Linux" operating system has decreased drastically. We are glad to be able to put this small issue behind us and concentrate on what consumers *realy* want.
MS will *always* try to take advantage of any situation. It doesn't matter what you write to them, they will try to gain something from it.
The bottom line is:
Say what ever you feal like !
Let everybody talk, everybody from Little angry Johny to Linus himself should be heard.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
You missed the point, who cares if he gets 30 responses like "Your article was incorrect in claiming that the Linux kernel does not have support for multiple processors, it has had this feature since version 2.2x. Thank you.".
If he wrote that article as FUD from the start, the he realy doesn't give a shit.
If you *stop* writing, then MS will *realy* have something interesting to talk about.
>>So? Are we trying to produce good software, or give MS things to talk about?
Not all of us write code, those that don't can bark at the gorilla.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Example: several times a story appears first on LinuxToday and later on Slashdot. Journalists report that the tone of the responses changes after it gets picked up on Slashdot, because the proportion of flamers is just higher here, and because the LinuxToday people are much more likely than the Slashdot people to add "if you respond, be polite and coherent" warnings. When it's on LinuxToday only, the responses may flame the journalist but they are literate and well-thought-out. When it's on Slashdot it's more like "you suck! How much does Bill Gates pay you?".
For this reason, I suggest that Slashdot avoid carrying "some journalist said something stupid" articles. People who want to find such things can go elsewhere.
Scott McNealy of Sun doesn't want a fair software industry for all. He wants to be Bill Gates. The same is true of most of the other big egos in the executive suites.
Both Sun and Netscape tried the monopoly game. Netscape, for a while, was unilaterally defining what the web was going to be. Sun's model for Java was that everyone would run Java on everything and would pay Sun for the privilege, so that Sun, rather than Microsoft, would in effect get to be the tax collector for the net.
Reflexive rejection of all things Microsoft is stupid. Sometimes they do the right thing for perhaps the wrong reasons (e.g. help undermine Sun's attempt to be the Microsoft of Java by supporting Kaffe, which is free software). People who think the game is about defeating MS are missing the point.
Microsoft needs to be contained, and prevented from capturing the open standards the net is based on. But the same is true of Sun, and AOL, and the phone companies, and the cable companies.
The people who need it the most will fail to understand this article and the whole situation.
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
1) Resistance is sometimes necessary. It is not entirely bad when an inaccurate article draws flames. We can only hope that the flames are tempered by the presence of more numerous polite comments. And, hopefully, the percent of flames will not exceed the degree of inaccuracy and/or malice in the article.
While this may be what happens, it doesn't mean it's the right way to respond. Flaming is NOT the correct way to respond, period. Flaming merely demonstrates that the flamer perceives themselves to be superior to those they flame, and as a result they alienate and offend those we should be trying to reach (or teach). The proper response to an inaccurate post / story is a reasonable, intelligent rebuttal of the inaccuracies, not personal attacks and invective. And the proper response to a malicious article is no response at all.
2) The Authors are always free to selectively cite and publish negative emails in order to disproportionately prove "rudeness" on the part of Linux advocates. Since they will quite likely feel defensive, this is always a possibility. Scott Hacker, for example, provided no data on the percentage of flames versus constructive criticisms. It may be that the negative comments were not at all representative of the whole.
Even so, we cannot permit ourselves to justify or condone bad behaviour, regardless of how the author might respond. At some point, we should demonstrate that we ARE better than that. As a matter of likelihood, it is very probable that the negative comments, while not representative of the whole, are representative of those received by the author. All too often, the reasonable replies are swamped by the childish ones.
Yes, there will always be those among us who cannot resist demonstrating their immaturity, but we cannot allow them to drag us down with them. A vocal minority is often perceived by the rest of the world as representative, and the rest of us must be just as vocal to offset it.
We spend a great deal of time improving our software, etc., and we spend a lot of time in discussion among ourselves. We should also use some of that time to offset the actions of the childish few. We should put the same effort into reasonable advocacy as we do into coding, etc. The mature among us IS the majority, but the rest of the world won't know it if we just sit back and allow the immature to speak for us.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
This "us versus them" mentality is strengthened by wave after wave of attack and retaliation. So when those from outside the "battlefield" try to bring actual points of rational discussion into the fray, the "dogs of war" rush to attack thinking the newcomer is just another member of the "other side."
The simple solution is simply not to get so attached. Does someone say "Linux sux!"? Ignore it. Does someone say the "UI sux!"? Ask how it could be improved. If their entire argument boils down to "It sux becuz it's not Windows!", no one will take it seriously. But if even the stupidest complaint is seen as a suggestion dropped into the collective suggestion box, maybe people we'll see the open source community is working to help everybody, and not working against them.
IMHO
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
It is entirely possible that the level of flaminess and general inability to take criticism as anything other than a personal insult by some members of the Linux community is having entirely the opposite effect than they intended as far as getting Linux (and the rest of the free / open source SW movement) taken seriously by those in what, for the sake of simplicity, I'll call Industry. If I was an IT manager looking at using Linux, and I came up against any of these attitudes, I'd instantly take my business somewhere that can show a more professional attitude than flaming anything that might be even slightly negative. The price is insignificant in most of these markets - with the kind of IT budgets most corporates have, a pile of NT Server or Solaris licences isn't much of a hit.
It's important to be able to view things subjectively and rebut criticism in a constructive way - "you stinking MS whore" is a not a valid point to make in response to someone else's work that suggests Linux may not be as wondrous as you thought.
Linux is not everything to all users, and never will be - there will always be a place in the marketplace for Microsoft and their ilk, and what should be being focused on is gaining a reasonable slice of the pie so that users have more of a choice than _just_ one OS - whatever it may be. A world in which Linux is the only OS available is as unattractive to me as a world universally tied to Windows 95.
The type of flaming advocacy that's indulged in by some people can be described as nothing less than totally counterproductive, unprofessional and damaging to the cause as a whole. If you want to be taken seriously, speak reasonably or not at all!
In an ideal world, people would use the best OS for _their_ needs, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOS or whatever. Any one person's opinion of "best" is not necessarily the opinion of the rest of the world, and there are valid arguments in favour of and against every one.
The flaming weenies (most of whom, I suspect, contribute little to the development or documentation effort) are one of the biggest negative points of Linux, and are one of the reasons why I still have problems seeing it as a proper OS for real, hard, production use against Solaris or (even) NT.
If the most vocal group of proponents sound like 13-year old 3l33t d3wdZ, then what they're marketing will look like a toy rather than a tool however well-engineered it is.
In summary, think before you open your gob. The other folks are people too. Forget this, and you'll be destroying a lot of the hard work that more reasoned folks have done to promote the whole field of free/OS software over the past years.
mpk
If there is one thing I've noticed about the Open Source/Linux movement, it's the ability to see us get close to the edge of some bad things and correct ourselves. OS/2 is notorious for having such a violently over-reactive following and we have begun to swing that was in the public light. Yet somehow, people stand up, see the errors, and remind us to suck it up and cut it out. We seem to be gifted with the ability to not only code around anyone else out there, but we also seem to think around them too. We second guess and anylize Microsofts posible strategies and examine opponents arguments with the same vigor and attitude that we scour each others code, looking for errors and better methods.
All in all, it's articles like these that confirm my belief that this `movement' is clearly self-correcting (as long as people care about it) and each person is just as capable of finding problems to fix as those who actually fix them.
Be cool.
Party on.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
The Linux crowd needs to grow up and realize that this is just an operating system, not a religion. Total domination is not necessary, but being taken seriously is of paramount importance.
Rob, this statement would make a really good quote of the day thingy for Slashdot sometime.
FinkPloyd
I couldn't agree more. At my advanced age of 35 (I think that puts me in the oldest 2% of /. readers, heh) I've seen more flamewars than I care to recall. None of them accomplished anything.
.... or the people who immediately began work on kernel enhancements that would help Linux get an edge in the next round?
... well, maybe that's just too Freudian for the 90s. :-S (Interpret subtle meanings there as you please...) On the other hand, all this flaming existed before with other OS wars (not to mention editor wars) and the same equation didn't apply. So I'm left to conclude that it's largely the adolescents -- irrespective of physical age -- who are doing the flaming, as opposed to the adults.
/. readers are barely out of high school, let alone college, so they don't have the experience with the real world that teaches you that sometimes there are other, more complicated answers to the questions you once thought were simple. Like, for instance, why corporate America goes along with an OS/office suite monoculture despite many clear drawbacks. These youngsters jump on people who say even one nice word about Windows NT or W2K as if only a Microsoft employee could ever say such a thing.
... neither unsophisticated journalists nor certified insiders like Metcalfe. It will be because of the practical successes that the OS racks up.
The beauty of Linux and Open Source are that they allow dramatically practical contributions by the little guy. I wish that half the energy expended on flames were put to good use instead. As we've seen with the Mindcraft debacle, there were good reasons that Linux "lost" this head-to-head; who contributed more to Linux, the people who wrote idiotic flames either here, on Usenet, or directly into Mindcraft's email server
Now, obviously, we all aren't kernel programmers. I wonder if some people aren't actually intimidated by that prospect and resort to flammage as compensation
I know that half of
Well, the truth is, some of us have economic interests in the Windows world, so perhaps we are beholden to it in some form; but it's more complicated than that. Windows just happens to be the flavor of the moment, and it's turned into a very long moment. That flavor could change, and I hope it will, but I don't make all those decisions. The only way I can influence them is by working at the coalface -- putting together solutions that work, or don't, and keeping my customers mindful of the reasons why. If Linux is ever to make serious permanent inroads in corporate America, it won't be because of columnists
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
This discussion brings to mind an interesting anecdote from a camping trip I took a couple of weeks back. A bunch of folks from the engineering company I work for went out to the mountains for a little whitewater rafting and a little relaxing in the Rockies.
Around the campfire one night, a few of us got to talking about OS's, with myself and another Linux dabbler trying to shed some light on Linux to a couple members of our IT group (we are a hardcore NT/95 shop). The conversation was very calm, well reasoned, and informative for both sides. The M$ guys admitted that there was things they liked about Linux, like development tools etc., but pointed out the barriers to it being accepted on desktops. Which was a point fairly well taken. The whole discussion was a great exchange of views and information for both sides.
And then I mentioned I was (and to some extent still am) a Mac user and advocate. And the mood immediately changed. The M$ guys became actually quite hostile, dragging out every possible argument against Mac OS and Mac users in general. They became argumentative and unwilling to listen to any of my points. At the time I was extremely annoyed, but in retrospect I see their attitude as a result of years of exposure to Mac evangelism. I have to admit that over the years, I have ran into an awful lot of Mac zealots exhibiting the exact behaviour the author is warning against.
I guess my point is that if you jump down peoples throats for long enough, eventually they are going to get defensive and ignore you. But if you try to have calm and well reasoned discussions, maybe both sides can learn something. And maybe, just maybe, you can subvert a few folks without them even knowing it.
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
Flaming M$ is fun but not _at all_ productive. I try to limit my flames to audiences that know me as a (realtively) responsible person.
;-(
Flaming anyone trying to learn Linux/Emacs/BSD/... will ONLY deter that person from further association with the product. It may/will also make the person a strong anti-advocate. In other words flaming someone trying to learn helps Bill
I havn't sent any emails in defense of Linux....yet. My biggest fear in doing so is that I may get carried away and my once informitive email becomes another flame from another Linux zealot. As I see it this article is another in a collection of filters to run any responces through I may decide to send in the future. Basically I want to do it right.
It seems that the same passion that motivates people to spend countless hours making Linux what it is (and more) causes them to become raving lunatics at the slightest criticism.
I can say the evangelistic process that brought me to Linux was done well. I'm currently working toward that level of advocacy....
But until then, my little 90 MHz Pentium, chugs along nicely, doing yeoman work without any notice at all. Just like a good network should.
All I'm saying is win 'em over with a bunch of small kindnesses, a quiet competence. Let 'em figure out for themselves that "Hey! I guess that thing really does work"
Metcalfe and his ilk are like the guards around the Wicked Witch's castle. Before Dorothy doused the devilish dame, they were all for killing our heroine, but afterwards, they were all for her. All the noise now is simply the beginning of Micros~1 screaming "I'm melting".
Patience, we'll be able to wear the Ruby Slippers in due time.
Chris (sorry about the Wizard of Oz ref. It's my fiancee's favorite movie and we watched it again this weekend and it's still in my head)
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
I myself am a fairly recent convert to Linux (about 8 months), but I came from MacOS and BeOS, so I was used to this sort of stuff. That said, I got much more help from one friend of mine (hey Kosh) than from the whole of the internet put together. I do agree that the help system(s) could be significantly bettered, but I don't think I have the necessary experience yet. If someone wants to collaborate on this however, drop me a mail at dw_wellington@NOSPAM.yahoo.com and at the very least I will try to give you my perspective on this.
" There is a rational explanation for everything. There is also an irrational one. "
"I you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and change."
The Man in the Mirror.
How 'bout this for an idea: We can't control the Linux Nazis assasinating every journalist on the web, but we CAN refuse to play that game here on Slashdot.
Anonymous Coward posts have, in my book, outlived their contribution to the shaky notion of being a bulwark of free speech. I'm not of a mind to tell Rob what to do with his site 'cause...well, it's HIS site. But I'm so bloody tired of the bad karma that I've dropped my preferences threshold to winnow out the AC posts.
If YOU want to help Slashdot GROW UP, do the same. Strain out the ACs and that way, those that WANT to hear the fist shaking little bigots can set their preferences to access all posts. Those who don't, won't have to waste either bandwidth or brain juice on their irresponsible rants.
Before you flame me, consider:
1) I might be right. There is always the outside possibility.
2) I'm not suggesting that Rob pull the plug on ACs, so the 1st Amendment Shriekers can sit down as well.
3) I am suggesting the possibility that if no one is willing to listen to those who don't want to take responsibility for the bile they spray on this site, maybe the ACs will either STOP posting their crap, or at least, by taking enough responsibility for their opinions to put their name to it, leave them open to censure by the members of this site. (For the dictionarily challenged, I don't mean CENSOR, I mean CENSURE, that is, corporate display of displeasure.)
I want to make this place better for all. Or if not better, at least more reasoned. I have always marvelled at the murderous abuse, mockery, and derision organized religions takes on this site. Marvelled, because the zealotry with which those who disagree are cruxified lies clearly in the realm of pharisaeism that Slashdotters, on the whole, despise.
Is this a case of "becoming what we behold?"
Disagree. Fine. Post your reply. But remember: Unless you're a big enough person to identify yourself, I won't even hear your opinion, polite, abusive, death-threat, or otherwise.
webwalker
flames > dev/null
You're right. I'd have realized this earlier, but I was busy sending death threats to Steve Balmer.
--Shoeboy
Flames per second! We can top any commercial OS out there. What a way to harness the talent of the AC community ;)
--Shoeboy
A lot of people say stuff like this, and it doesn't seem to make any difference. I doubt the people who sent the flames actually read this entire piece. Or maybe they did and thought "That's not me" or "That's stupid". So, did anyone here send one of the nasty emails to Mindcraft or the guy at Andover news? Anyone want to fess up to it? Have you changed your mind?
Somehow it all just seems like preaching to the choir.
Like newsgroups, we *could* treat each other on /. like 'family' and flame the hell out of each other, while still putting on a more civilized face for the 'outside world'. This does run the risk of allowing just anybody to troll, or otherwise kick the /. ant pile just for fun. You are correct in making the distinction between a /. posting and direct, personal, email.
Besides, real flaming is an art that has little to do with vulgarity and obscenity. Look back at, say, Maddie Hauseman flaming newbies in alt.fan.dan-quayle for great examples.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
I use Linux, and I love it. However, at the same time, I run multiple other OSes. I currently run Red Hat Linux 5.2 and 6.0, Debian GNU/Linux 2.1, and Slackware Linux 3.6 and 4.0. I also run Solaris 7, FreeBSD 3.6, and BeOS r4.0.
Why do I run all of these? A few reasons. To name a few:
1) I am interested in OSes in general
2) These OSes in particular interest me
3) All of these OSes are suited to certain tasks.
The third of these reasons is a very important - and oft ignored - fact. If you read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, there are three lines that I feel are the most important:
I am so very tired of people who are unwilling to admit that Linux is NOT the only choice out there. So many of these people came to Linux because they resented the lack of choice forced upon them in the Microsoft driven world of computers... and yet now, they seek to take the freedom which they sought out and found from those who seek it as well.
Mutual respect for each others' personal choices is something severely lacking in this community. I choose to run Red Hat. Why should this matter to anybody but myself? And yet, to many it does. Then again, I choose to run Debian and Slackware as well. I even choose to run (horror of horrors) a commercial os: BeOS. Why? Because I like it, and it does what I want it to do. Will it ever replace Linux ? Most likely not. Will Linux ever take over the niche that it fills ? I don't know. It is questionable at best. But for the time being, BeOS does what I need it to do, and that is all that matters.
Linux is NOT the be-all and end-all. BeOS is NOT the be-all and end-all. Solaris is NOT the be-all and end-all. FreeBSD is NOT the be-all and end-all. OpenBSD is NOT the be-all and end-all. NetBSD is NOT the be-all and end-all.
Do you see a pattern here?
No OS is the be-all and end-all. At least not for all users. Sure, Linux may do everything you need to do, and if it does, great. Use Linux for everything then. But this community needs to realize and acknowledge that as human beings are individuals, they in turn have individual needs and wants. Freedom of choice is one of the most basic freedoms. Without the freedom to choose, many things which all of us take for granted, Linux being nowhere near the most important, would not exist.
Don't take that freedom away.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
There are too many linux zealots... there are also too many macintosh zealots, amiga zealouts, and, yes, believe it or not, somehow, windows zealouts.
...
Usually these are people who don't understand much about the system they're using and are just in it for the group mentality. What can we do? We can try to show them the error of their ways, and educate them so that they can be sure of, and defend, their choices. If this doesn't work, then it's out of our hands.
It's not just a problem with linux advocacy. Almost any product will have something simmilar -- and if you don't believe me, go ahead and write an article that upsets windows users, or netscape users, or
The linux community certainly has more than its share of these people. Maybe it's because linux users feel "connected" with their o/s. If that's the case then they'll want what's best for the community as a whole, and articles like this _will_ work; It's our duty to watch out for this kind of behaviour, and correct it if we can. Otherwise, we've done our part, and we have to hope that the sane voices will outnumber the flamers.
If there's any truth to this, the greatest "defense" against misplaced Linux advocacy is to keep the platform fresh and keep more well-reasoned people interested.
if($self.angry)
{
kill($mail);
echo "Have a smoke and create new message.";
eval_attitude();
}
Recursively calling eval_attitude() will generate lots of overhead and may even cause a stack overflow. I propose this slightly modified algorithm:
function eval_attitude()
{
$mail = $self.thoughts;
while ($self.angry) {
kill($mail);
echo "Have a smoke and create new message.";
$mail = $self.thoughts;
}
send($mail);
echo "Mail Sent!";
exit;
}
These aren't slaggings-off on Slashdot. These are written by people who are reading the linked-to articles and then emailing the author direct with abuse. And yes, the Astroturf theory has occurred to me, but frankly, I _really_ doubt that MS is paying a bunch of people to do this for them when it's blindingly obvious that we have plenty of people who are quite happy to do this off their own bat.
In addition, although being selective with your news and hitting LWN, Slashdot, Linux Today, linux.com and so on is very common, there are a _lot_ of people who really, honestly, truly, haven't heard of Linux, haven't heard of BeOS, haven't heard of *BSD. If they read introductory articles, take part in discussions, or subscribe to comp.os.linux.* and the first things they see are some of the more.. er.. intolerant articles: yes, they _will_ assume that's typical of the Linux (/BeOS/*BSD/whatever their new interest is) community. Especially if they see nothing done to stop it. If my mates tell me there's a cool new nightclub in town and we go there, and people keep spilling my drink or fights keep breaking out, I might listen to them say "Oh, really cool folks come here, and the music is well cool." But I will certainly be influenced by the fact that the drink-spiller doesn't offer to buy me a new one, and no bouncers show up to stop a fight, and it's most unlikely I'll be convinced to go again.
Guess what: immature people abound everywhere, in every community. If people take the "Mindcraft is the spawn of the Devil!" type comments as evidence against supporting Linux, it seems to me that they just need an excuse of some sort. Those of you here who use Linux: do the "Linux sux freeBSD rulz" idiots make freeBSD any more or less attractive in your eyes? Come on!
Slashdot is an open arena, not a closed magazine. There will always be idiotic posters, and there will always be embarassing, misguided, inflamatory comments. This reflects no worse on Linux than the people who stand in line for a month and dress in Chewbaca costumes reflect on the Star Wars saga. There will be idiotic zealots everywhere (my apologies to the Chewbaca people). Live with it.
No sig.
I can't believe no one has mentioned that Mac bigots (including myself) were getting slammed for doing the exact same things two or three years ago. Stewart Alsop, James Coates and Hiawatha Bray, among others, had their inboxes subjected to the wrath of Evangelistas with the same mixture of substantive criticism and flame.
The situation was also the same, a mailing list instead of a Web site, but a captive audience who were exposed to anti-"cause" articles by one or two moderators (Guy Kawasaki and John Halbig). Evangelistas eventually cleaned up their act, but it took a while for them to do so. Plus, they needed constant reminders when flamebait was posted not to flame the writers and to write in a constructive manner.
I would suggest that Taco and Hemos practice restraint on when they post inflammatory links and to warn people to keep their responses on the up and up. It seemed like the best method for the Mac community.
This isn't anything new. Let's just change our ways quicker than other advocates.
1) Resistance is sometimes necessary. It is not entirely bad when an inaccurate article draws flames. We can only hope that the flames are tempered by the presence of more numerous polite comments. And, hopefully, the percent of flames will not exceed the degree of inaccuracy and/or malice in the article.
/., I assume on a fairly regular basis. How can you not assume that most of the e-mails he received weren't flames, we flame each other all day here. I think he probably got mostly flame responses, due to the fact that most of us who are intelligent didn't bother to send any e-mail at all. There was no point.
Whether or not someone is inaccurate flaming only proves that those who respond that way are not capable of responding in a calm and collected manner. Any flame-mail sent under the banner of Linux advocacy is wrong. If this can be publicized the public will see only the hot headed children amongst us, this can only hurt us.
2) The Authors are always free to selectively cite and publish negative emails in order to disproportionately prove "rudeness" on the part of Linux advocates. Since they will quite likely feel defensive, this is always a possibility. Scott Hacker, for example, provided no data on the percentage of flames versus constructive criticisms. It may be that the negative comments were not at all representative of the whole.
You read
This is precisely my point; not as far as you've seen. If infiltrative FUD is taking place, it is most certainly a covert operation.
The fact that the flames work to Mindcraft's advantage (to the extent that they are worthy of posting on their front page) makes them immediately suspect.
Jeremiah - these weren't forged. Two of the emails were from noted columnists. One was Tom King, an ex-lawyer turned computer talk show host, and the other was from Joe Barr, a columnist at Linuxworld.
Neither had denied sending the emails, and in fact have defended their position. Not only are they well known, public figures, their emails were some of the worst ones posted.
The linux community needs to stop looking at every problem person as a Microsoft shill. We need to apply peer pressure on our colleagues to tone down their vitriol a notch or too. Demonizing Microsoft and Bill Gates just makes you look like a zealot to those you wish to convert. Nobody trusts zealots because they're incapable of having a balanced viewpoint by defintion. Frankly the conduct of those two almost makes me want to switch to BSD (and the 9 boxes I run at the office). The only thing giving me hope is that the real doer's (Linus and Alan Cox types) are looking at the Mindcraft tests with a positive eye, learning what they can so that they can address what problems they do find.
And who am I? The IS department head who you want to convert (sigh).
http://www.bullnet.com
Please, let me believe that the flame composers are working for the other side. I don't want to face the prospect that the standard bearers of my OS of choice are a rabid horde of social retards.
Verify it for yourself. Check out Tom King and Joe Barr's emails on the Mindcraft Net Rage page. Their URL's are listed. I've contacted both of them to protest their advocacy techniques as being harmful and irresponsible to the community. Both of them called me a Microsoft shill and said they have a right to say whatever they want (which I never disputed).
Tom King is at www.computalk.com
He's a radio talk show host.
Joe Barr is at www.pjprimer.com
He's a Linuxworld columnist.
We have met the advocacy enemy. They are us.
http://www.bullnet.com
The Linux crowd needs to grow up and realize that this is just an operating system, not a religion. Total domination is not necessary, but being taken seriously is of paramount importance.
:)
I couldn't have said this better myself. But I'll keep trying
The only way we'll get our community to reform is if we apply peer pressure.
http://www.bullnet.com
Oh, I can tell you about advocacy.
I am a linux user myself. I have a box at home I have set up as a server, and often spend time on it. It's a good, sturdy little machine, and I'm quite attached to it. So I was a bit amazed to be set upon by the hounds of advocacy.
When the Be Gimp port story came out, I made several posts about what I thought were very positive things about the BeOS. Nothing negative was said about Linux, in fact, Linux was not even mentioned.
The flames began. I had people tearing me apart on the message boards, and began receiving nasty, obscene, and hateful mail. I mean vicious.
I was offended to the point of posting some of them on my website. I couldn't believe it.
Well, I guess I can. I used to be a very regular poster until a few months ago when I dared to say I liked the Mac OS. After 35 obnoxious emails, and several hateful posts, I was pissed enough to leave Slashdot, returning only this week.
People need to understand that advocacy like this will not forward their calls. Instead it makes the average linux user seem a febrile six year old.
Reasoned arguments, not flaming emails, will bring the linux movement to fruition.
BTW - flame me if you must from this post, why make it different form any other one with less than glowing comments.
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
Please ignore post of same name at bottom, hit wrong button...
Oh, I can tell you about advocacy.
I am a linux user myself. I have a box at home I have set up as a server, and often spend time on it. It's a good, sturdy little machine, and I'm quite attached to it. So I was a bit amazed to be set upon by the hounds of advocacy.
When the Be Gimp port story came out, I made several posts about what I thought were very positive things about the BeOS. Nothing negative was said about Linux, in fact, Linux was not even mentioned.
The flames began. I had people tearing me apart on the message boards, and began receiving nasty, obscene, and hateful mail. I mean vicious.
I was offended to the point of posting some of them on my website. I couldn't believe it.
Well, I guess I can. I used to be a very regular poster until a few months ago when I dared to say I liked the Mac OS. After 35 obnoxious emails, and several hateful posts, I was pissed enough to leave Slashdot, returning only this week.
People need to understand that advocacy like this will not forward their calls. Instead it makes the average linux user seem a febrile six year old.
Reasoned arguments, not flaming emails, will bring the linux movement to fruition.
BTW - flame me if you must from this post, why make it different form any other one with less than glowing comments.
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences with Linux newsgroups. I myself have always found respondants from Linux newsgroups to be polite and very helpful. I once did, however, recieve a somewhat abrupt response to a question I posted to a FreeBSD newsgroup.
I don't think you should let it stop you from trying out Linux if that is what you really want to do.
With the user-friendliness of current distributions you should be able to set up a desktop system with very little support - maybe none if you get yourself a good reference book on Linux. I'm still a relative beginner so I can't speak for setting up a server - I would assume that much more support would be necessary.
I recently recieved my Slackware 4.0 CD from Cheapbytes. The installation was very easy and setting up a PPP connection with Slackwares pppsetup utility was effortless. Much easier than Windows95. Even though I have done MANY setups and installations of many distributions I still think that a distribution like the one mentioned above would be a breeze for a prepared beginner.
Good Luck
What ever you decide to do.
#include "mysig.h"
Not all damaging zealotry is of the obscenity-laced kind. I find much of the "good" advocacy to also be pretty zealotous. For example, the fact that no article about Microsoft can be posted without immediately being called FUD, and no one can possibly agree with any of it, even if it does make some good points, because they are obviously astroturfing.
/. and in numerous other places. They don't get anything done, and frankly they make people look bad. You heard the term FUD bandied about like it was gospel truth - but maybe some people actually *aren't* in the pay of Microsoft. Ever think about that? Maybe some people actually do like Windows. Doesn't mean they get a paycheck from BillG, doesn't mean they're trying to spread the wicked FUD (is there any more nebulous a term?)...
These memes - FUD and astroturfing - occur in probably every 2 out of 3 posting on
Many might reply to this saying that I am, in fact, a Microsoft mouthpiece. That is sad, and that is zealotry just as well as if you flame my mother.
IMHO (and not Microsoft's)
ryan
3) A few Anti-Linux folks can be counted on, now that the
Linux flaming reputation is widespread, to supply a small
amount of obnoxious flames for PR reasons.
Far more than a few, read the ZD net article on the latest
Mindcraft tests... (You also see MS, Mac, etc zealots
whining about "Linux Zealots") As well as anti-linux
flames showing up as "editorial".
In fact, I wouldn't buy a make of car if 50% of the people
who recommened it were ranting yahoos.
Great technique for a rival car maker to adopt
since it can be tricky to determine people's "real" identity
(and one actual person can be several "flamers".)
is to IGNORE news magazines/articles/opinions which are clearly biased (e.g. ZDNET publications).
/.
/. accs to filter COMPLETLY ZDNet articles or similar.
We should concentrate on LINUX and OpenSource, and only take notice to news/articles which are the most possible concensual of interest to
Sugestion to Editor
-------------------
Please make an option available for
This is similar to the issue of harassment. And the way that has been handled is for companies to have clear statements of policy and respond appropriately to complaints.
In this case, the Linux community's statement of policy is the "Linux Advocacy HOWTO".
The consensus of the responses to articles such as this one, seems to be that we wish everyone could refrain from using gutter language. However, in many cases, the original article/posting seems to be taunting the community which guarantees at least some flames.
So, when flames are published (or even referred to), it would be really slick if one of the Linux portals either gathered comments that are more representative of the whole community or invited a representative of the community to post a response. That would hopefully make it to some of the mainstream press and demonstrate that the community does have its act together, in spite of a relative few who can't control their tempers/tongues.
While I agree with the general advice of this article, I think the concern is a little overblown. Some points:
/. effect to vastly amplify the apparent magnitude of the flaming.
1) Resistance is sometimes necessary. It is not entirely bad when an inaccurate article draws flames. We can only hope that the flames are tempered by the presence of more numerous polite comments. And, hopefully, the percent of flames will not exceed the degree of inaccuracy and/or malice in the article.
2) The Authors are always free to selectively cite and publish negative emails in order to disproportionately prove "rudeness" on the part of Linux advocates. Since they will quite likely feel defensive, this is always a possibility. Scott Hacker, for example, provided no data on the percentage of flames versus constructive criticisms. It may be that the negative comments were not at all representative of the whole.
3) A few Anti-Linux folks can be counted on, now that the Linux flaming reputation is widespread, to supply a small amount of obnoxious flames for PR reasons.
4) This is not just characteristic of the Linux crowd -- it applies to OS/2, BE, Apple, and even mainframe supporters. The difference is one of scale and timing. There are *lots* of Linux supporters connected to the Internet. Their timing is coordinated by the
5) In a large enough crowd, there will always be some jerks. As Linux becomes ever more successful, expect there to be even more jerks. Nothing can be done about that.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I understand your fear that this could actually hurt somebody, but the people that get the most upset often have the least mental hardware, so it would be a quick and painless process.
Seems to me that the type of people who do this sort of immature thing will skip right over the title of this article, in search of something to flame. For some of these people, I imagine it's fun to do this, and no amount of article writing will get them to stop. We need to call up their parents, and in the only way they'll understand, let them know that there *are* actual people on the other side.
"Please don't sigh like that, maam"
There are two things that you might want to consider.
...
First, Microsoft has an organized force in customer/public relations, PR people that go out and evangelize, distribute and install their software as their way of earning life. They will come on call - which is something that Linux will never have (before you say "I would do that", imagine installing 500+ machines).
Second, because Linux is a "grass-roots" movement, Linux must be careful about the people its movement consists off. Even though I see the nice things about Linux, there is still the choice of with whom I want to be associated. And I do not want to be associated with anyone fighting a holy war. Even if Linux "wins" (whatever winning in this context might be) and is "the right OS for everyone", I don't want to be counted among such a childish group of users.
Thinking about the good ol' times, I have yet to see an NT user with the same attitude as a Linux user, running around and trying to evangelize everyone towards it.
On the other side, my experience with NT users comes from time when NT was not the heal-everything OS, but when NT didn't even have DirectX, one selected hardware by first asking if it had drivers for NT and one was still wondering if moving to NT 4 was really a good idea stability wise.
Those fond times
Premier argument to install Linux at the workplace - I get paid while waiting for fsck to scan the partitions.
Notice how all your "sub $1000" computers that you mention were all many years out of date at the time you are talking about. You could buy an apple ][ for less than a thousand too, I bet, if you don't mind a 1Mhz 6502 processor. I bought one of the early macintosh machines (a 512K unenhanced mac) in 1989, and it was, indeed, less than $500 (as I think you meant to type). But it only had 400K disk drives, no hard drive, and a tiny black and white display. Not only could it not run most mac software that was available at the time, there was almost no way to expand it so that it could. It was close to a dead end machine, although it could run mac write, which was fine for my purposes.
:) ) The reason being, of course, that there is no competition Macintosh hardware, so they set their prices to whatever they can get.
The situation then was very different than it is today, where you can get a machine that is not much slower than the top of the line consumer machine and pay less than $500 in many cases. Your $400 333Mhz machine can run pretty much anything that a faster machine can, and if you really are bothered by the lack of speed, then just open it up and drop in a faster processor.
The fact is, on a power per dollar basis, computing power is cheaper today an ever before. And rather than making computers more expensive, the PC "bandwagon" actually allowed today's current situation to develop. Once PCs became more popular, people wanted cheaper versions of the PC, and clones became popular, hardware prices started dropping, and now you can put together a quite usable machine for less than $400 if you look around a bit. Contrast this with the macintosh, with their cheapest machine being about twice that of the cheapest PC. (And that doesn't even include a floppy drive!
You hit the nail on the head. I've been using and programming for Windows for several years. And one of the reasons I won't do anything on a Mac (or use and/or own one) is the constant stream of insults and put downs from the holier than thou Mac community. I simply don't want to be identified with people who have turned a computer into a religion.
Not only do they rag me for using Windows, but when they find out I write sofware I suddenly become one of "them", i.e. someone with a degree of technical competance, the very antithesis of the proud to be untechnical Mac crowd.
Please all, lets not let Linux turn into that. The more I use and learn about Linux, the more I like it. It doesn't mean I'm going to put down someone elses decision to not use it.
Once again, great article.
What was he trying to do, incite a riot? And why did he not want to admit that there might be performance problems in Linux?
IMHO it's more productive to turn the other cheek, and work on fixing our own faults. That's why my page on the Mindcraft benchmarks is relentlessly objective and focused on helping everyone, rather than cutting anyone down.
Check your road rage at the door, folks. One thing that helps me is, when I write an angry email, I let it sit for a while, and then when I'm calmer, I rewrite it until I'm sure everything in it is reasonably fair and true. It's so easy to write stuff quickly that isn't really accurate.
I've seen all of this "up close and personal", and it ain't Redmond doing it. On our local Linux User Group list, a company (primarily NT) put out a notice that they were hiring Linux admins. (I happen to know that they're considering switching) Instead of being welcomed with open arms, they were barbequed for being an NT shop who was obviously completely ignorant of the real world. Needless to say, the company was NOT impressed, and I highly suspect will be delaying if not outright abandoning their move to Linux. I regularly get ignored on the list because I run a 50/50 Linux/NT shop, even though I've got years more experience with Linux than most of the group.
The Linux crowd needs to grow up and realize that this is just an operating system, not a religion. Total domination is not necessary, but being taken seriously is of paramount importance.
We beers (BeOS users) don't try to make BeOS a GPOS. Many of us use it as one, but we don't push it as the Windows replacement. We push it as a multimedia and internet appliance OS because it is better than linux (god forbid!), Winblows, MacOS and all the other *nix's and bsd's at those areas. Multimedia isn't as simple as artists and musicians. I believe it was alex st. john (the guy who started and headed the directx project) that said that games are the ultimate test of an OS's multimedia capabilities. Linux will ultimately fail if you people don't get some humility and try to do like what we beers are doing, we are redefining the OS market. We are trying to kill windows by pushing an OS that is a master of a trade instead of a master of no trade. If you Linux users, advocates and biggots try to push it into M$'s own territory you will lose. Windows is the best GPOS (not saying much) and you can't win against a company that puts billions of green backs into marketing its POSOS (Piece of shit OS). You linux users will win by not trying to fuck around with win32 OS's on the desktop and working only on making it a perfect server OS!!
---Got Coffee?---
After re-reading my post you people are right. However I will still keep to my original statement that any OS that tries to take on Windows head on is doomed because M$ has had so many years to build up its connections. I am a little too wary of dealing with most of the linux advocates that I have seen because most of them won't admit that there could anything wrong with linux. I find it surprising though that so much effort is being put into getting linux to the masses instead of making it the ideal server OS. Afterall it was linux as a server that got it where it is today. More work needs to be done on getting it ahead of NT (no easy task it seems) because otherwise most companies might lose interest. Without those companies sadly both the linux and beos communities will be fucked royally in the long run against the legions of mindless advocates of Win32 OS's like wankerdesk's jesse berst.
---Got Coffee?---
Privacy? What privacy? It's e-mail! They were dumb enough to sent it in the first place!
The mistake was in the sending, not the publishing. I doubt those letters had a thoughtful little note at the bottom:
I've just used lots of worthless profanity, so would you mind terribly keeping this confidential. Gee, thanks!
Let's not defend idiots here, OK.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Slashdot regularly feeds us newswire stories on issues relating to computers and the law, be it privacy, cryptography, censorship, or taxation. But often conspiciously lacking from many of these stories is contact information -- which lawmakers should be contacted if an individual thinks the implementation of these laws is a poor (or for that matter, good) idea?
A journalist might skim through the email they recieve, but a politician's staff is damn well going to tally it all up. Most
Sure, we whine about being reamed by the government, but how often do we actually do something about it?
Granted, the author's urgings in regards to clarity and eloquence apply in this scenario as well. "t4x3z suK!" would not fare well, but I think my point has been illustrated.
Second, and directly related to the wonderful world of Linux advocacy:
Keep in mind who the target audience is. This is to say, suits. The usual arguments don't work, the bottom line is everything. Microsoft releases a substandard product. Great, yeah, just about every business has cut something to make a few extra bucks. This is pragmatic business planning. It's not a moral issue, it's only decisive if it affects THEIR finances. And be realistic about it. Even if they were GPF'ing once a day, that's what, ten minutes of labor? Hard costs are about the same -- a blanket license for linux with support isn't going to be that much cheaper than NT if you figure in switch over costs. Think out the arguments fully.
And finally, directly related to the previous comment:
What would be the legalities of some enterprising individual set up a linux support/distro as a federally registered non profit? They could hock their services to a business -- who could write it off -- pay their employees liberally, and then dump all the excess money back into the community. Seems like a tricky but valid plan to me.
Or maybe I just should have slept last night.
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
This article is worth printing out and keeping by your bedside. Even if I think the negative effects of excessive advocacy are overstated in the article, it's definitely the case that they are there. Be reasonable in all your works...
"The Charity Case for Red Hat." Frank de Lange. (Author's side note: at the time of writing, the first listed user comment is EXACTLY what I am talking about. From an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot: "A good reply but the original article was such a vapid pile of unresearched dogsh*t as not to even garner a reply.")
/. and not e-mailed out. Any journalist who can actually publish such a piece of fiction should be ashamed ( and possibly flamed in the hope he'll wake up) and I hope you are not defending him.
Thanks, author, it was from me. And I stand by that comment. Because the article was obviously unresearched and a certainly an unprofessional piece of journalism, if you care to call it such. However, it was posted only on
However, I agree that flames like these can only hurt the Linux community in the long run and personally plan on abstaining from such in the future and advice others to do so no matter how deserving people are of such treatment.
I am interested in alternative operating systems but one the reasons that I haven't made much of a attempt to learn it is that I have seen so many Linux newbies get flamed on newsgroups and mesage boards. It not worth it to get a bunch of nasty e-mails, or worse yet, mailbombs or virus attachments.
At this point, I think the Linux community is coming off very badly because a minority of poorly mannered zealots are ruining the reputation of the community as a whole. A lot of people seem to scoff at concern over flaming, but Linux needs reasonable, helpful people in order to grow its user base.
I'm with you RatBastard. At this point I'm more interested in BeOS than in Linux. Why bother going to the trouble of learning Linux if I'm going to be flamed to a crisp for even making an attempt?
As for "that monopoly may have access to laws to protect themselves from competition" - certainly, if we were talking about a managed economy. We aren't, to any real extent, so it doesn't apply. Microsoft can lobby for laws to protect their position all they like, it will not happen. If it had, do you really think they'd be in this lawsuit?
Try studying the subject a little bit before you try to attack your betters on it. You'll look like less of a fool, even on those occaisions when you're wrong.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
I almost replied with a stream of vile invective. I didn't though, because I realized that I really don't care about your opinions, such as they are. So instead, I will make one last attempt to correct ignorance and stupidity.
I had a biology textbook that stated the human genome consists of 30 chromosomes. That don't make it so. Supply and Demand as a general topic is properly in the domain of Macroeconomics, unless you're discussing the specifics of it, such as actual price points for ratios of supply/demand. Neither of which has anything to do with what I was saying.
I never actually said Microsoft didn't "suck." I said I feel no need to destroy Microsoft. I still don't. Why should I? Their marketing techniques have caused damage to businesses not intelligent enough to avoid it, but they've also created a market for PCs among the general market, which caused PC makers to manufacture cheaper PCs. Which allows me to purchase a top-of-the-line PC for considerably less than a low-end PC could be purchased for 10 years ago. I may not like their OS or their products, but I feel no animosity towards them personally. I simply use better alternatives, such as Linux, and continue with my own business of engineering. The only reason I use Microsoft at all is to use AutoCad and to create native Word documents for clients.
In short, Microsoft has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. So did General Marks when he first started publishing his Mechanical Engineering handbook. Regardless, he still took hundreds of separate, individually expensive manuals, and combined them in one, relatively inexpensive handbook. Am I forced to use the handbook? No, there are now other handbooks available. But Marks was the first, and the one that created the market. Face it, like it or not, without Microsoft you wouldn't be able to surf the net, send email, or choose an OS, because computers would be something you might see on occaision but you'd never be able to use one the way you can now.
I can't resist, one last comment - I use Hotmail to filter unwanted mail. Not all of it comes from Spammers, you know...
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Certainly. I didn't mean to imply that Microsoft was Al Gore. (Although I've never seen Bill Gates and Al Gore at the same time...) But I don't recall anybody who was not either
A) A member of Arpanet
B) A sysadmin
C) A hard-core and extremely lucky computer geek
doing any of those things. There were bbses and even a few networks, but there were no instant-lookup movie ticket price sites, no free web-based email accounts, no average-Joe-Blow-ISPs ready to take your money and gingerly hold your hand through connecting to the net.
Microsoft did not create the PC clone market which gives us nice cheap (and quite often shoddy) PC's: Phoenix and Compaq did.
Wrong. Phoenix and Compaq built the IBM clones, along with Sperry and Panasonic and Sony. Microsoft created the market for the cheap clones by building "the OS for everyone." That it was imperfect was irrelevant; Windows (the original windows) was the OS that everyone could use, from the business man to the housewife to the kid down the street.
Microsoft did not create the home computer market: MITS and Apple did.
Wrong again. MITS and Apple created the hobbyist market and then abandoned it by welding the hood shut. By 1988, the average home user and hobbyist was using the PC because it was configurable, it was upgradeable, it had the illusion of support, and you could tinker with the damn thing.
Microsoft did not create ease of use computing or even push it into the marketplace: PARC and Apple did.
You expecting argument? I never said Microsoft was the best solution. I said they created the market. They made it look like Windows was easy to use and well supported. Which meant that average people thought they could use it. Apple seemed to just expect everyone to come to them without any effort.
Microsoft did not create ease of use Internet computing: the NCSA did.
But Microsoft marketed it. Name one print, radio, or TV advertisement not in a computer publication by the NCSA.
Microsoft is great at exploiting ideas once a map has been laid at their feet.
Exactly my point. They may be terrible at creating OSes, and I certainly wouldn't want to try competing against them myself - but they are great at exploiting ideas and marketing them.
People computed cheaper and easier DESPITE of Microsoft and did it a LONG time ago.
Agreed. A few. We're talking mass market here. Wozniak is a genius and a brilliant engineer. Would the Apple have gone anywhere beyond San Jose without Steve Jobs? No. Would the GUI have gone anywhere without Jobs and Gates marketing it? No.
Thus all of the frustration and flammage from Amiga users, Apple users and the odd Atarian.
You justify every bit of an Amigan angst.
I have never read a single line of justified Amigan angst. I liked the Amiga. Fine machine. Poorly supported, poorly marketed, and poorly received. Hmm. I sense a trend. Could those be connected?
For the last time:
I did not say even once that Microsoft was good at creating software. I said they were good at marketing and at business. They were. They still are. And without that skill at marketing, all you get is another Amiga. Microsoft proves that you don't even need a good product if you're good at marketing.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Here we go again... if we convince even one misguided soul it's worth it...
"Microsoft did NOT build an 'OS for everyone'. They bought a CP/M clone from some poor schmuck..." ad nauseum.
Yes, I know, I saw the movie.
Please. I beg you. To bastardize a phrase I'm sure you know, Read The Fucking Thread. I have never, not just here but anywhere, stated that Microsoft ever actually created a single product that lived up to its billing. I never hinted that Microsoft created the Internet. (I joked about it, but it was clearly a joke.) I never even said the PC was a perfect machine for novice users. I believe I said it was a better machine for hobbyists and tinkerers, and it was. Damn things were always giving you an excuse to pull of the case and replace, remove, or glare balefully at the parts of the interior. I should know, I did it.
What I did say, what I continue to say, and what I will repeat until someone gives me a valid freaking argument about it, is that they had an excellent marketing department.
That's it. They had an excellent marketing department, and because of that they managed to pass off their products as "the OS for everyone" (Microsoft marketing slogan) and convinced all those non-computer users that there was only one type of system to buy. Does anyone here dispute that simple statement with an argument not involving proof of their immaturity and stupidity?
For those of you still paying attention, let's go over this AC's (surprise!) comments, shall we?
In 1988, the PC was no machine for a novice end user. Don't try to kid us. We simply know better. Supported or not, a cheap kludge klone plus DOS3 was a pox on the end user you claim that is Microsoft's benefactor.
One word - cheap. That was my whole argument, and you aren't arguing with it. So tell me, what's the problem? DOS 3.x was a bad series. Worse than bad. DOS 5.0 wasn't too bad, and 6.x was actually pretty useable. None of that was relevant, because the damn things were cheap.
And I love the cute spelling of klone. You don't have a handle 'cause "3l33t" was already taken, right?
Even after 1995, the PC still wasn't a real replacement for a Mac or a console. That's why a great deal of us bothered to put up with Linux.
Depends on the job. For drafting, you couldn't beat a high-priced workstation. But you could come close enough with a Wintel box running AutoCAD or Microstation. Slower, less stable, and not as precise, but it was one hell of a lot cheaper. And still irrelevant to the thread.
And just because NCSA or Netscape weren't spamming us to kingdom come, it doesn't mean that they weren't distributing the technology far and wide. It's just sick and demented that you would even think this a suitable type of argument. Microsoft didn't even start to really address the web until Netscape had already carved out a market.
It's just sick and demented that you're so narrow-minded your notepads are an inch wide. This discussion/thread/Sunday School picnic does not give one discarded monkey foreskin about tech users. We're talking about the entry of Joe Blow into the market. And I don't recall hearing one thing, not one, about Netscape or NCSA until after entering the market. Before the user had bought his shiny new box and started using it, the responses were closer to "Microsoft? Sure, everyone knows who Microsoft is. They make Windows, the business software. Apple? They made those kids' machines, didn't they? Are they still around? Netscape? What the hell's a Netscape? NCSA? What's the North Carolina Schools Association got to do with me?"
Your attempts to trivialize the entire rest of the market that existed and was delivering machines suitable for 'the rest of us' is simply not going to be left unchallenged.
OK, you lost me. I'm sorry, I just flat can't make heads or tails of just what point you're trying to make here. Do you have one? I don't recall saying anything about "the rest of us" that marked us - and I mean us - as trivial. Irrelevant, yes. Are you saying you want to be with the sheep and cattle who fell for Microsoft's marketing ploys? Alright, presto, you're a sheep. Congratulations, try to live up to your new status. Say it with me, "Baaa, Microcrap sux, baaaaa, I have no ability to form an intelligent statement, baaaaa, flame is my only form of expression, baaaaa...."
Many of us (myself included) LIVED different.
OK - pipe dreams do not count as reality, got it?
BTW, logging onto a BBS with a Usenet or Fido feed in 1988 was FAR simpler than attempting to configure a pre-PCI WinDOS PC.
WTF does a Fidonet or Usenet feed have to do with Joe Blow the guy down the street? Dialing a bbs with Terminal in Windows 3.1 was a snap. See those keys off on the right? Punch the right 7 to 11 of them in sequence (here in the US) and you were halfway there. And that's all there was in 1988, so far as the average home user was concerned. Most didn't know or care about that.
DOS is not an OS 'everyone can use' by any stretch of the imagination.
Covered that, let me see, four times already in this thread. With one exception... it was an OS 'everyone can use' in the imaginations of Microsoft's marketing department. Which is exactly the point.
Enough. I grow weary of fools. If you have a valid argument, post it. Otherwise, shut up.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
this isn't a very good post ... i'm tired and there isn't much more to say after the most elegant text i am responding to ...
... i have slowly been enticing our net people to take a look and they have been receptive, given all the media coverage, etc ...
... they have managaed to keep 4 NT servers, 2 Suns and 2 DEC/Alpha (w.Dec Unix) alive and well for, well, a long long time ... given all the problems and situations that occur, these machines never go down unless they take them down - just wanted to setup that our net guys are quite good ... they are also a bit anal, and like situations they percieve as good for business ...
... just recently i was hearing things they had found - their impressions: it's a bit immature, but for basically a "free unix" (their words) they were very very very very impressed ... the future for linux in our shop looked bright ...
... in the article they were reading (off ZDNet ? im not sure) it lead to the flaming posts from the zealots ... they didnt like that at all ... they are professionals, and their opinion was basically, "if thats the open-source movement you've been telling us about, you can have it" ...
... for me personally, it will be awhile before they take me seriously (not that i care), but geez, it really didnt have to be this way ... i love linux, but i am not liking this "religious" or holy-war crap at all ... it stinks ...
over the past several months i have been using linux on several of our development servers
our net people are EXTEMELY good at what they do, and take it quite seriously
anyway, a few months ago i lent them one of our linux boxes to see how it performs, etc
then NT beat linux (or whatever) - but that's not the point
in short, a few months of in-roads has been wasted, presumably by the "religious" side of our community