Slashdot Mirror
The Metcalfe-Peterely Fun Continues
A reader sent us the latest installment in the Metcalfe and Peterely debate that started roughly one week ago with doubts about Linux from Metcalfe, and a response from Peterly. In this round, Metcalfe repents a bit, and also brings up the current hot topic: How the Linux community reacts to questions. Short, but interesting reading, and again raises the point: Read the Linux Advocacy How-To if you have any questions.
So if Metcalfe had to be placed in one of his "thirds" which do you think he'd fall into? Those who pointed out the shortcoming, those who pointed out the advantages, or those who flamed?
;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.
I'd put my money on "FLAME." Metcalfe is posting immature columns, and getting upset when others respond in the same manner. If his columns had ANY substance (other than the one he smokes
My point? Ignore the man. Unless he comes out with a column that points out anything specific, then don't bother with him. "Mine's better than yours" he cries, well let him cry. Just don't cry back. If he points out any flaw or weakness, then we can address that.. until then, ignore the fool. There's no point in arguing over nothing.
I challange Metcalfe: Post a column that says something. Why should we choose an OS? Technical merit, application availibility, ease of use... Pick an issue. Discuss. When you post a real column, you will get real responses.
And remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. ;)
The number of Linux users is largely irrelevant at this point. There is a sufficient userbase for many companies to port their software to Linux, so whether there are in fact 5 million, 10 million or 25 million Linux users is unimportant.
What matters is whether Linux will do what you need it to do. In many cases, it will; in some, it won't. That's how you decide whether to use it; not on the basis of "who's winning."
--
"Also during 1998 [...] Windows 98 was 17.2 percent, up 39 percent over 1997."
Perhaps this is a trivial complaint, but Windows 98 came out in 1998. So how could its shipments possibly go up 39 percent from 1997 to 1998?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't think that is a bad score, it is always the ones who feel strongly on a subject who replies.
Here is a picture of a NT ATM. Not a place where I would place my money and conduct transactions.
How can anyone claim to be surprised by any of this? Bob Metcalfe wrote a column which was a puerile, ad-hominem flame of the the Linux community (known for its emotional flamers). He received a bunch of puerile, ad-hominem flames back.
Of course.
Go back and look at the original column. He starts with a terrible analogy in which compares the open source movement to various Communists. Then, halfway through the column, he admits it's a bad analogy and proposes one that's even more inappropriate. That back-to-the-earth metaphor lasts about a paragraph before he changes strategies again: He starts calling Open Source "Open Sores."
Now, most of us stopped making jokes about people's names sometime back in grade school. Those that didn't write puerile, ad-hominem flames. Or bad columns.
Is Bob Metcalfe surprised he got flamed? No. He set out to be flamed so he could talk about how irresponsible the Linux community flamers were.
I'm only surprised anyone was foolish enough to rise to his bait.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
After the origional article came out, I wrote a pretty hot, but non-flammable e-mail to Mr. Metcalf and the online editor at Infoworld, in which I predicted that he would use the flames he received as fodder for his next article. I even have the sendmail logs to prove it.
HA!
I'll post the e-mail later, when I get home from work (overtime sucks...).
There are three types of lies..
1) Lies
2) Damned Lies
3) Statistics
- M. Twain
It seems that it is actually Mark Twain (mis)quoting Benjamin Disraeli. The origional is slightly different. Wierd....
s ubindex and search for "Twain" in your browser's search function.
Look at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/1_2.html#
jf
Well, this is sad but this guy sound like one of those '50 american guys looking for communists under carpets and ashtrays...
A technology has no political content, is just a way to do things. Metcalfe tries to bind microsoft success to the notion of "pro-american" and linux for contraposition to "anti-american"...well, I'm American, South American in fact, and I gladly perceive Linux as a "World" thing, not just one country thing, and there's were the magic lies at the end.
Then again, anti-social...well, I made MANY social contact with other linux users in the last years, and happily avoided contact with corporate "User Support" employes who are always 2nd years students that don't have a clue about what they are supporting anyway.
Anti-capitalism? Well, people who is actually porting apps to Linux must be happy for having another reason to get new contract time, more work os more services to sell.
Many companies are implementing Servers under Linux and I readed a Price Waterhouse Coopers manual for Linux, and if this guys are getting their employees used to linux, they must have a good reason...(And if PWC is not a good example of capitalism, I'm really lost)
I do not think that linux is anti microsoft, is just plain better if you got a clue, but if you are old and slow to learn, well, that up to you Bobo...I'm in command of my destiny and I choose the OS that will take me there...Is it clear? Right to Choose, that's not american, not capitalistic, not communist, not socialist, not social is UNIVERSAL)
Who cares how many users? Thanks god there's DIFFERENT CHOICES and people uses them, imagine a world where everybody dress the same, eat the same, drives the same and installs the same, PLAIN BOARING!
What' s the point with those numbers if at the end Bob accepts that nobody knows real numbers anyway?
What's the point of this article??!!
My Advise to Bob is to perform brain surgery on himself, it's clear he has nothing to loose anyway...
Wasn't it Disraeli who said that one?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I'm curious: out of all of the OSS operating system users out there, how many actually do fix bugs or add features to their kernel? I'm not talking about applying someone else's patch, either! This is constantly used as an argument for using Linux, but I think it's misleading.
Before all the flamers come after me, think about it for just a bit. I realize that it's nice to have this capability and I'm not trying to slam any advocates. It just seems a bit silly since very few of us ever try to do this in the first place. It's like saying DOOM was better than Wolfenstein just because id published information on how to make add-ons. A nice feature, yeah, but that's not the reason most people played the game.
It seems to me that perhaps we should be concentrating on the reasons Linux runs better than Windows that typical users would understand.
Metcalfe is saying nothing coherent at this point. His one weak attempt at lucidity -- his claim of the third reason why Linux is doomed, that being its flameful advocacy -- was implicitly contradicted just a couple of paragraphs above, when Metcalfe, in answering the 'first third' who claimed that more coding and less talking will allow Linux to push ahead, answered that he does not believe that will happen.
Which one? Is too much talking and not enough coding the reason why Linux is behind, or is it irrelevant to Microsoft's market penetration lead?
All in all, this article looked to me like Metcalfe's attempt, after having realized that he put both of his feet and his left hand into his mouth, to salvage what little is left of his face -- by kinda agreeing with his previous column, but without being either too aggressive or too comittal in stating his point (or so detailed and coherent as to have accidentally put the abovementioned appendages into his mouth once again).
Yet another under-informed over-opinionated person trying to back out of the corner they painted themselves into. Film at 11...
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
That was an article?
Really?
You're quite sure now.?
Hmmm... He should have cut out all the rambling,
and put the 3 sentances of _actual_ content as a
caption under a picture or something.
I'll wait for better stuff before I waste another
10 seconds reading that tripe.
As for all the flamers? Sheesh... grow up.. wouldja?!
Here are some tips for flaming...
1) Think carefully about your response
2) Refer back to the origional post you are flaming
frequently to make sure you aren't going off
topic.
3) Write your response.
4) USE YOUR SPELL-CHECKER!
5) WATCH YOUR GRAMMER!
6) Re-write, repeating steps 1-5 until it has you
chortling in self satisfaction for hours.
7) (and this is the most important one) DELETE IT!
8) Pat yourself on the back for being human and
resisting immaturity.
Save your flames for warming your loved ones on a
cold winter's eve.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
What was that quote? Something like there are more cockroaches on the planet than people, so does quantity really mean that much?
Bob Metcalfe (metcalfe@idg.net) is one of very few people who've ever successfully recompiled an operating system. But not recently, not Linux, not Windows, nor his trusty Macintosh. Neither has he performed brain surgery on himself.
Exactly what point is he trying to convey here? Is he trying to say that it's nearly impossible to compile a kernel? Or is he trying to imply that the majority of computer users will not have to compile a kernel, and that should be left up to the programmers?
If you're using Linux in a server environment, and you're the sysadmin, chances are you will have the need to compile yourself a kernel. He is arguing that Linux will never make it in the server market right?
I hope he's not trying to imply that compiling a kernel is hard. If so, he's obviouly either stupid (which I highly doubt since he created ethernet), or he has never tried it. The configuration and compiling of the kernel has been extremely simple ever since you could do a 'make menuconfig' or a 'make xconfig'. And even if you don't know what certain options do, just click on the help button and it will basically tell you if you need it or not.
I guess I just don't get what his point is. I recompile, and know many others who recompile their kernels to apply patches, get rid of features they don't need, add features, and to speed up their OS on a regular basis. I can honestly say that is probably the best features about Linux/*BSD. After you untar the source tree and read the first 20 lines of the README file, you should know how to recompile it. I have *NEVER* had a kernel compile fail on me, EVER.
Maybe he just can't get over the fact that you can get something good for free.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Why do I think Linux won't kill Windows? Two reasons. The Open Source Movement's ideology is utopian balderdash. And Linux is 30-year-old technology. And he's contrasting this to Windows 2000? Ummmm....waitaminit...W2K is just NT5.
Windows NT was originally written by a bunch of guys from DEC who wrote VMS. Hence, NT can be said to have derived much from VMS, which is well over 20 years old. What does that mean for NT?
Clearly, that age doesn't mean a damn thing. Newer does not necessarily mean better. I'd rather have an OS that has evolved from decades of trial and error than something just out of Redmond, and I'm sure many others would as well.
I've been running Linux intermittently for several years (and exclusively for the last 6 months). I've also run windows 95/98, and NT4, and a beta of W2K when it was still NT5. NT5 is a pretty cool OS -- the relative (to win98) reliability and security of NT, and directx for games--yay.
This seems to be where everything is headed currently -- what used to be solely server/workstation operating systems are now becoming gaming platforms. NT is adopting directx6; Unix is getting XFree86 4.0 with all sorts of cool additions. This is A Good Thing (tm), which you should acknowledge even if you hate NT.
Curiously, the same reason that I used Windows is the reason I switched from Windows to Linux. Linux support for hardware used to suck. My TV card didn't work, there was no 3d acceleration (for my TNT), the games sucked. So, I used Windows and put up with the occasional reboot. Eventually, I got fed up with Windows. I hated having to run Exceed to be able to access some of the programs I needed for classes (Matlab, Maple, LaTeX, etc.). So I installed Linux and dealt with the lack of good hardware and game support.
I can get my TV card working with a 2.2 series kernel (which I still haven't gotten to work without breaking AFS, which kind of defeats the whole purpose), and now with NVidia releasing open source drivers, I don't have to worry about 3D acceleration. I really don't have a single qualm about not running Windows...the only games I play are Q/Q2/Q3 anyhow.
Simply put, I have no need for Windows. I haven't booted up Windows in months (I'm pretty sure mucking around with VMWare killed it anyhow), and if I do need it for anything (say, if I buy a digital camera and need to get the pictures off it), I can use VMWare (damn that's an impressive program).
Windows is not going to disappear any time soon. Neither will Linux. Both OSes have built up way too much steam to just roll over and die. Deal with it. Use whichever suits you best. Believe it or not, Linux is not the best OS for some (gasp! blasphemy!) -- my mom still has problems copying and pasting -- I don't think she's ready to be configuring XFree86 (which, while RedHat 5.2 has made some significant changes to make configuring XFree easier, still requires some knowledge about your computer's hardware, which most people haven't a clue about [horizontal refresh frequency? dot clock?]). If you want to use Linux, use it. But don't unnecessarily evangelize an OS that is not ready to replace Windows yet.
Better yet, use Linux conspicuously. Answer questions about Linux. Let them come to you -- don't force it down their throats. Then prove the esteemed Mr. Metcalfe wrong.
Columnists who are groping for a topic for the weekly grind are getting way too much mileage out of slamming Linux one week, then writing about getting flamed for what they said the next. There is nothing a "journalist" loves more than the feeling they are defending free speech. They can write a lazy column requiring no research or work at all on their part, then get all indignant and huffy about the flaming. It is really getting boring. The splenetic flaming by Linux users is getting cliched and boring. Especially when it is so obvious that that is exactly what the writer of the column wanted!
>I don't think anyone here is suggesting developing commercial desktop applications for
Linux *instead of* Windows
Right. My point was that the *incremental* cost of porting an app to Linux probably cannot be easily justified (in most cases, I would guess) by increased revenue. The point about getting sales because an app *is* cross-platform is certainly valid, although that may be even harder to predict than just the size of a potential Linux commercial software market.
Corel is a different example because they do already have an established product, with dwindling win32 market share, that obviously was ported to other platforms. In their case it may have been an easier decision since the windows word-processor market is obviously dominated by the competition, so making a Linux port was probably an easy business case.
I guess all I'm saying is that it must be problematic for companies to justify development of Linux software in tandem with Win32 projects because of the uncertain market for commercial Linux products in general. I'm not sure that's the kiss of death, just an observation to go along with the point that the number of Linux users is not easily measured.
Now I have a third reason that Linux will not beat W2K, which is the obsessively anti-Windows, toxically anti- Microsoft, sometimes anti-capitalism, often anti-American, and always antisocial flaming that passes for discourse around the Open Source Initiative.
Is this Bob MetCalfe or Senator Bob McCarthy?
Didn't the word anti-American die out in the late
50's.
Part of being American is being anti-American.
There can be no evolution without revolution.
Maybe Linux and OSS is a revolution of some sorts?
A revolution that some people find threatening because it forces them to reevaluate how they
view capitilism and the marketplace.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
I went ahead and skimmed the page mentioned above. I have come to the conclusion that it's a joke. I hope it is cause I can't stop laughing.
On the Linux=communism note:
I cannot completely disagree with the idea that Linux promotes some degree of communism. Let us take a look at the word:
communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
The areas that Linux falls under are the ones that touch on possession and wealth.
In the Linux community (notice the similarities between community and communism? I knew you could!) the code is open to all, everyone has an equal chance of utilising the code to suit their best interests. For those of you challenged ones, this is the abolation of the inequalities in the possession of [intellectual] property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
It's not a bad thing! Really. The communism of this century was not real communism. There was no equality. The communism that has been shoved down our throats is more of a beurocracy. Communism is a social system with one class, the USSR had two classes.
I am a communist. I dream of a world where everyone is seen as equal, not the backwards heirarchy we see today. Linux, to me, is a step in the direction of world-wide utopia!
From my [X]window, Linux is everything that is good about communism!
I thought his column seemed fairly level-headed. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I didn't interpret his writings as being inflammatory. It was an interesting read.
Then I read all the slashdot followups and, aside from being called "rambling" and "out of touch," every sentence is taken out of context and nit-picked to death. That hair-trigger defensiveness is what has been associated with "advocacy" since the Amiga days.
Oh boy I explains how to that the Linus long-hairs are all commie pinko red commies at http://www.freeyellow.com/members7 /geraldholmes Its real enlitenin and will tell you good stuff.
He has long battled entrenched monopolies--telcos of all stripes, and Microsoft, of most note. This latest "flame against Linux" was an attempt to challenge the Linux community to correct what Mr. Metcalfe sees as its worst shortcomings. It's similar to, but less clumsy than, when your father said "Bet you can't clean up your room in ten minutes flat." Except Mr. Metcalfe has your number pretty well, and judging by the vehemence of responses he reported, the Linux community never saw him coming. Stop and re-interpret his comments as if Mr. Torvalds or Mr. Stallman had made them instead. What could possibly cause them to say such a thing? Ah, now you are getting into the proper mindset!
What, you're still here browsing the web, instead of chasing bugs, cutting code, or writing docs? Why, exactly?
Okay, boys, coffee break's over--back on your heads!