Well, I would say that I can understand the position that they take on gcc. I can understand that they can't take into consideration every possible configuration. I'll say at the very least that I am sorry if I came off as flaming. My only point is, we're going to deter alot of people from accepting Linux with attitudes like those expressed in their FAQ. Like it or not, you have to take into account base installations for no other reason than because that's what most newcomers are going to run. It just occurs to me that there's a segment of the Linux community that verbally laments MS's stranglehold on the market, but actually like being part of a "chosen few" who know all the interworkings of Linux programming. And so many times they use Q&A sessions to do nothing more than to take an opportunity to show their superiority. It's attitudes like this that hurt the over all cause. That's all I'm saying. And I see this in so many circles. I've been in IRC channels that are supposedly help channels for Linux, where newbies have been chided because they didn't update their libraries or recompile their kernel. If MPlayer is an application suited to programmers, then say so on the opening web page. "This application requires a certain understanding of programming and programming libraries to install." Then if someone who knows nothing of programming downloads it, posts a Q, then bitch. Until then, no matter how well the final product runs, it still cannot be dubbed "the best."
I don't have to RTFM. I don't give a shit about the libraries. I'm not stupid, you are. Exhibit A: You TOTALLY missed the point. Red Hat breaking some sacred vow of libraries hasn't a damned thing to do with these bozo's being pricks. A FAQ is no place for these types of rants. And the average "just migrated to Linux" newbie doesn't know about some pissing contest that this programmer is in with Red Hat. And NO he shouldn't have to RTFM. Hell, he probably doesn't know what gcc is! Listen, you can defend them, and I'll even agree and can accept that they are pissed about the gcc situation. They probably have a legitimate complaint. But you don't go about winning for your cause with behavior like this. (You being them, and not you personally.) I understand the frustration, but the FAQ is no place to air it out. They're alienating the user (granted, an often enjoyable pass-time). It's unprofessional. That's all I'm saying. Pointing out the problem with RH, while a legitimate beef, is outside the argument here.
You are correct, Dr. Tom. It's people like this that bitch because MS has such a huge market share, but are unwilling to do anything about it. So they know the inner workings of gcc blah blah blah. If you're app won't work on a base install (i.e. default) of most major distro's, it doesn't matter HOW big your brain (or dick) is, it sucks! It sucks for one simple reason, the majority of people out there will likely never use it. Don't tell me to go read "The Dali Lama's Rare Disortation on GCC" because you're too damned lazy to write decent code! That FAQ is a disgrace! It's nothing more than arrogant bantering! It reminds me of the professors in college who wouldn't answer a simple question because "I covered this in class, didn't you listen? Are you stupid? Did you come from bad genes?" Arrogance is simply a tool that those who cannot communicate efficiently use to excuse their ineptitude. I know very little about libraries. I know OS's I think pretty well. I have no desire to program. I assume if a program is damn good, it's because a damn good programmer took the time to do it right. This would be like an MS programmer saying, "Hey, go study Visual Basic 6. Don't blame me because your don't know enough about VB6 to properly install my "Cool App v.1.0!"
I respect RMS, but that by no means translates to giving an ear to every hair-brained idea he espouses. The man has given a huge contribution to the movement, but this is a technological movement, folks. This isn't something for which you pick and choose sides based on whether your going to condemn your Eternal Soul. Let his arguments stand on their merits, not on the shoulders of "all the wonderful flowers he's planted along the Open Source highway."
We seem to all agree that Richard Stallman as an icon lies somewhere between a complete fanatic and a "basically cool guy with good ideas but perhaps abit outside." I think the Press in general, particularly Open Source resources, place far too much emphasis on him. They've made him an icon, and perhaps attributed far too much to him. I, quite frankly, don't sit down and ask myself what Richard Stallman thinks, is going to think, might be offended by, or is going to say about anything I do or don't do with regards to Open Source advocacy. For me he would be a complete non-issue if it weren't for the fact that I might have to apologize for some idiotic comment he might make that is read by a would-be convert from the closed-source / proprietary side of the arena. He, in many respects, has become the Ross Perot or Billy Carter of Open Source.
Slashdot Mirror
DOH! Which was your conclusion......sorry
Uh..how is a lawsuit by a French company an indication of how litigious Americans are? Idiot...
Well, I would say that I can understand the position that they take on gcc. I can understand that they can't take into consideration every possible configuration. I'll say at the very least that I am sorry if I came off as flaming. My only point is, we're going to deter alot of people from accepting Linux with attitudes like those expressed in their FAQ. Like it or not, you have to take into account base installations for no other reason than because that's what most newcomers are going to run. It just occurs to me that there's a segment of the Linux community that verbally laments MS's stranglehold on the market, but actually like being part of a "chosen few" who know all the interworkings of Linux programming. And so many times they use Q&A sessions to do nothing more than to take an opportunity to show their superiority. It's attitudes like this that hurt the over all cause. That's all I'm saying. And I see this in so many circles. I've been in IRC channels that are supposedly help channels for Linux, where newbies have been chided because they didn't update their libraries or recompile their kernel. If MPlayer is an application suited to programmers, then say so on the opening web page. "This application requires a certain understanding of programming and programming libraries to install." Then if someone who knows nothing of programming downloads it, posts a Q, then bitch. Until then, no matter how well the final product runs, it still cannot be dubbed "the best."
I don't have to RTFM. I don't give a shit about the libraries. I'm not stupid, you are. Exhibit A: You TOTALLY missed the point. Red Hat breaking some sacred vow of libraries hasn't a damned thing to do with these bozo's being pricks. A FAQ is no place for these types of rants. And the average "just migrated to Linux" newbie doesn't know about some pissing contest that this programmer is in with Red Hat. And NO he shouldn't have to RTFM. Hell, he probably doesn't know what gcc is! Listen, you can defend them, and I'll even agree and can accept that they are pissed about the gcc situation. They probably have a legitimate complaint. But you don't go about winning for your cause with behavior like this. (You being them, and not you personally.) I understand the frustration, but the FAQ is no place to air it out. They're alienating the user (granted, an often enjoyable pass-time). It's unprofessional. That's all I'm saying. Pointing out the problem with RH, while a legitimate beef, is outside the argument here.
You are correct, Dr. Tom. It's people like this that bitch because MS has such a huge market share, but are unwilling to do anything about it. So they know the inner workings of gcc blah blah blah. If you're app won't work on a base install (i.e. default) of most major distro's, it doesn't matter HOW big your brain (or dick) is, it sucks! It sucks for one simple reason, the majority of people out there will likely never use it. Don't tell me to go read "The Dali Lama's Rare Disortation on GCC" because you're too damned lazy to write decent code! That FAQ is a disgrace! It's nothing more than arrogant bantering! It reminds me of the professors in college who wouldn't answer a simple question because "I covered this in class, didn't you listen? Are you stupid? Did you come from bad genes?" Arrogance is simply a tool that those who cannot communicate efficiently use to excuse their ineptitude. I know very little about libraries. I know OS's I think pretty well. I have no desire to program. I assume if a program is damn good, it's because a damn good programmer took the time to do it right. This would be like an MS programmer saying, "Hey, go study Visual Basic 6. Don't blame me because your don't know enough about VB6 to properly install my "Cool App v.1.0!"
I respect RMS, but that by no means translates to giving an ear to every hair-brained idea he espouses. The man has given a huge contribution to the movement, but this is a technological movement, folks. This isn't something for which you pick and choose sides based on whether your going to condemn your Eternal Soul. Let his arguments stand on their merits, not on the shoulders of "all the wonderful flowers he's planted along the Open Source highway."
We seem to all agree that Richard Stallman as an icon lies somewhere between a complete fanatic and a "basically cool guy with good ideas but perhaps abit outside." I think the Press in general, particularly Open Source resources, place far too much emphasis on him. They've made him an icon, and perhaps attributed far too much to him. I, quite frankly, don't sit down and ask myself what Richard Stallman thinks, is going to think, might be offended by, or is going to say about anything I do or don't do with regards to Open Source advocacy. For me he would be a complete non-issue if it weren't for the fact that I might have to apologize for some idiotic comment he might make that is read by a would-be convert from the closed-source / proprietary side of the arena. He, in many respects, has become the Ross Perot or Billy Carter of Open Source.