Michael, Fellator Maximus!
on
Apollo 1
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Valuable information about the FreeSoftware/OpenSource/Linux movements
and their excellent, superior software can be found
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
Examples of the excellent community spirit within that movement
that will help us bring down the evil, illegal Microsoft monopoly:
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
Support Free Software! Buy a mug or t-shirt today! This is how open source morons earn their money, you know! By being beggars!
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.
I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she
graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house.
But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into
fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her
job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day
crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She
rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them.
But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was
thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had
as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for
it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she
mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't.
How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of
bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point
is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer
from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You
can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will
hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then
came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by
Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for
amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find
it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what
they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His
web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would
find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at
the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that
they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two
extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a
conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your
opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your
mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will
be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The
documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in
which people love each other and share everything. They create a world
in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open
Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new
software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or
homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no
rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the
concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes
having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction,
loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends
are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to
be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life.
When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad
posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities,
and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow
Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid
responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and
lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents.
There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they
sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates
see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not
the real world.
Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have
been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock
fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes,
or they may involve only people outside of the open source community.
However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source
people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from
her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie
detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and
she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from
a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about
acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may
fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may
tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of
people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that
Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of
claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to
become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to
the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open
source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into
installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived
Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of
money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still
pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take
responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They
have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source
people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I
think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than
normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill
Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server
Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that
criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a
comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her
lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given
some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about
the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her
sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were
something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was
amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the
odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read
the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I
assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came
over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the
sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world
in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to
her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into
reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part
of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that
behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with
intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by
running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many
Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy
when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of
these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with
attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you
should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system...
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it
necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an
attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people
need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's
who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which
readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and
troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org
site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they
describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for
"Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman
creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as
trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this
happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors
makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other
engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you
improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source
people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to
identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and
Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as
being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar
groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another
case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I
cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and
comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering
from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of
trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous
geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an
anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One
of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is
because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and
that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the
non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that
trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It
never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent
reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who
also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the
non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that
they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the
people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only
published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed
to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites
right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their
sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux,
ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in
Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want
to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also
fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they
killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I
be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to
rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism,
just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group
and watch the reaction! The link to use is:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my
document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are
troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to
slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast
incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered
this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids.
However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in
which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior
operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They
treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in
a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person
in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something
else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux
fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux
people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or
if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic
system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear
magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality
software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because
the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He
started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman
is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he
provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was
missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to
make a complete operating system, but together they had something.
(Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued
other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in
which he was described as different from other people. For example,
here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001
which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at
Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo
shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in
socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem
and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his
luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the
British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with
hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize
that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes
to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person
who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people
are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that
Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard
was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around
him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is
merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for
software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea
of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout
in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a
sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man
should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without
shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft
and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber
on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being
different, then we could say that this particular reporter is
incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a
bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks
about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves
role playing games. See his document about role playing:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html
I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school.
Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different
personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder
which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example,
some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others
are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of
intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games,
how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are
suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents
for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it
describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know
about.)
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly
interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to
reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person
very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill
more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash
my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens
of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a
car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized
that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's
remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I
realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill
several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they
lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal
who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over
the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey.
Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a
gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the
ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to
create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is
this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what
about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What
would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag
could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there
is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you
could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill.
What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are,
but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the
people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have
more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun
reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal?
What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the
following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the
beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the
individual asserts both his social power and his participation in
politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened,
self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of
that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be
gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a
polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans
who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from
purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed
European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations
are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people
who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning
guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life.
I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are
oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a
free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history
books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is
appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast,
guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a
deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and
sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
they have no desire to use it? Are they speaking for people such as
me, who develop software? They imagine that they are freedom
fighters, but who are they fighting for?
Why should the world listen to these open source people when they
promote concepts that they themselves do not want to follow? Are these
people truly leading us in the right direction? Or are they suffering
from mental disorders?
What sort of community is Linux?
Another odd characteristic of the Linux movement is that many of the
Linux users refer to themselves as a community. But what sort of a
community is it when there is no cooperation, no leadership, and no
coordination?
Linux is not a community at all. The Linux community is actually just
a bunch of independent people scattered around the world. Each of them
is doing and saying whatever they please with no regard to what other
people are doing or saying.
I think the reason they refer to themselves as a community is because
they are lonely and want to imagine that they are part of a social
group. I suppose most Linux fanatics are social misfits. They want to
imagine that they are part of a community and that they have friends.
So they fabricated this fantasy of a Linux community.
Is Open Source different from Free Software?
Just as there is amazing disagreement on whether Linux is suppose to
be a replacement to Windows, so is there amazing disagreement on what
Open Source is and how it differs from Free Software. Richard Stallman
was quoted in an interview at slashdot.org as saying:
Although I will not join the Open Source Movement,..
Stallman considers himself to be an advocate of free software, and he
says there is a significant difference between free software and open
source software. But everybody you ask will give you a slightly
different answer on this issue. As with Linux, there is no leader to
make decisions. The chaos of the Linux movement is so extreme that I
suspect it is a sign that the Linux and open source fanatics are
suffering from mental problems.
Linux is similar to a religion
Consider the similarity between Linux and religion:
* A common remark among Linux people when somebody complains about
open source is that we must read about open source until we get
it. This is similar to the religions in which a person becomes
born-again, or discovers Jesus Christ. Religious people cannot
explain the process of being born again or discovering Jesus.
Rather, we must simply get it.
* The Linux people ask for donations, as do churches.
* Linux fanatics routinely publish feel-good articles about how
wonderful Linux and open source is. They never discuss issues
seriously, nor do they tolerate criticism. Churches also routinely
bombard their congregation with biased sermons. The sermons never
discuss issues seriously, nor do churches tolerate criticism.
* Religions have a god, and the worshipers often have symbolic items
that they wear as jewelry or collect in their homes. For example,
the Christians collect crosses and images of Jesus. Many Linux
people treat Torvalds as a god, and the penguin seems analogous to
a statue of Jesus.
To some Linux users the penguin may be nothing more than a corporate
logo that identifies the Linux software. However, compare Linux to
other software applications. Are you aware of any other software in
which the users or the developers have such an attraction to the
software or its logo? And if you can find such a product, do you
consider those people to be healthy?
Some Macintosh users are described as having an extreme attraction to
the Macintosh, but even they do not seem to have the same level of
attraction to the Apple logo or to Steve Jobs as the Linux people do
to the Linux penguin and Torvalds. Steve Jobs was even tossed out of
the Apple for a while; ie, he was treated as just another human being.
Would Linux people consider dumping Torvalds and getting a different
leader? I say Torvalds is performing worse as a leader than Steve Jobs
ever did, but I have yet to hear a Linux fanatic say something
critical of him.
void HelloMouse (void)
When software designed for MS Windows needs access to the computer's
clock, it has to ask Windows to set up a timer. Microsoft programmers
decided to call the request for a timer SetTimer, and when finished
with the timer, the request is KillTimer. Windows also has several
Destroy functions, such as DestroyMenu and DestroyIcon.
Microsoft programmers could have selected any name for these
functions. For example, instead of KillTimer they could have called
the function FinishedWithTimer or CloseTimer. The function that
removes a menu could have been referred to as FinishedWithMenu or
ClearMenu rather than DestroyMenu.
If computer programmers were happy, healthy people, their happy
attitudes would certainly be reflected in the way they develop
software. For example, a function that initializes a modem might be
referred to as HelloModem.A function that terminates what is
referred to as a child process might be called GoodByeChild or, if you
want to be cute rather than informative, LoveYou.
I can only barely remember COBOL, but if I remember it correctly, a
frequent statement in a COBOL program is something such as GO TO END.
The programmer would use this statement mainly for documentation
purposes to identify the end of a block in the program. The person
writing the COBOL program could decide what to label these sections in
order to be more descriptive. For example, he could write GO TO CLOSE
FILES if a particular routine was finished processing files.
One of the teachers who taught me the basics about computer
programming mentioned to us that in a previous group of students was a
guy who was not very happy or cheerful. This guy would swear a lot in
his normal conversations, and his COBOL programs reflected his
unpleasant attitude. Specifically, he decided to always label his
ending statement HELL, which meant that his COBOL programs were full
of statements that stated GO TO HELL. He used a few other unpleasant
phrases in his programs, but the teacher did not want to mention
them.
The hints of violence, death, and destruction that we find in computer
software could simply be a reflection of the violent nature of human
beings rather than a sign that many computer programmers are
defective. After all, most movies, TV shows, games, and other
activities that we refer to as entertainment are destructive. The soap
operas on television do not have much violence but they are full of
emotional torture and suffering. Human beings are violent creatures,
and it shows in our expressions, our daydreams, and our software.
If Linux programmers were happier than Microsoft programmers, we
should find evidence of this in their software, in addition to finding
evidence of this in their behavior. While I have not performed a
serious analysis of either Microsoft or Linux programmers, what little
I've seen suggests that neither group seems better than the other. My
own software has more pleasant function names than both Windows and
Linux.
Eazel has given up
On 19 April 2001 an article was posted about the financial troubles of
Andy Hertzfeld's company (Eazel). Dell Computer and other companies
invested and/or donated millions of dollars in his company, but by
April Eazel needed more money. In May of 2001 they gave up.
Should you invest in former Apple employees?
Andy worked at Apple for a while. But before considering the
significance of that, consider that occasionally a natural disaster
will create a temporary shortage of fresh water. Each of us reacts
slightly differently to these disasters. Some people whine about how
cruel life is, while other people find ways to deal with the
situation, and still other people look for ways to profit from the
misery of others.
For example, several years ago a hurricane in Florida created a
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.
I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she
graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house.
But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into
fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her
job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day
crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She
rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them.
But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was
thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had
as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for
it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she
mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't.
How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of
bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point
is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer
from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You
can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will
hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then
came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by
Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for
amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find
it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what
they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His
web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would
find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at
the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that
they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two
extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a
conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your
opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your
mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will
be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The
documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in
which people love each other and share everything. They create a world
in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open
Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new
software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or
homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no
rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the
concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes
having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction,
loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends
are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to
be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life.
When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad
posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities,
and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow
Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid
responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and
lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents.
There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they
sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates
see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not
the real world.
Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have
been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock
fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes,
or they may involve only people outside of the open source community.
However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source
people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from
her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie
detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and
she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from
a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about
acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may
fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may
tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of
people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that
Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of
claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to
become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to
the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open
source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into
installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived
Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of
money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still
pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take
responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They
have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source
people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I
think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than
normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill
Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server
Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that
criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a
comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her
lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given
some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about
the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her
sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were
something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was
amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the
odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read
the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I
assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came
over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the
sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world
in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to
her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into
reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part
of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that
behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with
intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by
running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many
Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy
when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of
these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with
attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you
should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system...
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it
necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an
attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people
need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's
who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which
readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and
troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org
site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they
describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for
"Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman
creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as
trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this
happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors
makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other
engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you
improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source
people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to
identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and
Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as
being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar
groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another
case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I
cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and
comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering
from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of
trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous
geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an
anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One
of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is
because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and
that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the
non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that
trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It
never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent
reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who
also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the
non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that
they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the
people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only
published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed
to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites
right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their
sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux,
ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in
Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want
to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also
fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they
killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I
be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to
rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism,
just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group
and watch the reaction! The link to use is:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my
document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are
troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to
slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast
incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered
this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids.
However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in
which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior
operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They
treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in
a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person
in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something
else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux
fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux
people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or
if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic
system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear
magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality
software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because
the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He
started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman
is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he
provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was
missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to
make a complete operating system, but together they had something.
(Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued
other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in
which he was described as different from other people. For example,
here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001
which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at
Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo
shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in
socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem
and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his
luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the
British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with
hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize
that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes
to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person
who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people
are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that
Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard
was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around
him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is
merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for
software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea
of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout
in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a
sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man
should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without
shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft
and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber
on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being
different, then we could say that this particular reporter is
incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a
bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks
about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves
role playing games. See his document about role playing:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html
I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school.
Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different
personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder
which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example,
some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others
are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of
intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games,
how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are
suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents
for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it
describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know
about.)
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly
interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to
reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person
very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill
more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash
my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens
of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a
car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized
that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's
remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I
realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill
several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they
lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal
who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over
the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey.
Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a
gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the
ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to
create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is
this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what
about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What
would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag
could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there
is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you
could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill.
What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are,
but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the
people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have
more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun
reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal?
What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the
following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the
beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the
individual asserts both his social power and his participation in
politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened,
self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of
that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be
gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a
polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans
who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from
purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed
European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations
are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people
who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning
guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life.
I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are
oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a
free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history
books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is
appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast,
guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a
deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and
sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
temporary shortage of clean water in a small area. Some people cried;
others worked to fix the problem; and some people decided to sell
fresh water for $20 per gallon. There was no reason to sell water for
$20 per gallon; rather, these people were simply looking for ways to
exploit the situation.
Now consider how this applies to computers.
During the 1980's consumers had two primary choices: Apple computers
or Windows-based computers. There was an enormous demand for Apple
computers. At least some Apple executives decided to exploit the
situation by setting prices to very high levels so that they could
become extremely wealthy. They hurt the Apple company in the process,
and they helped Microsoft grow. But very few, if any, Apple employees
complained that prices should be lowered and that salaries should be
reduced.
Did the Apple executives or employees show the sort of qualities the
world needs? I say no. They were not people who were trying to make a
better world. Rather, they look for ways to exploit situations and
take advantage of people.
Today a few former Apple employees are involved in the Linux movement.
Some of them are extremely wealthy, but they are proposing that the
rest of us work for free. It is acceptable that they be wealthy, but
it is unacceptable for the rest of us to even make a normal living.
Are these the sort of people we should be investing money in?
When former Apple executives start a new company and look for
investors, I suggest you wonder if they will behave in the same manner
that they behaved when they were working at Apple. Specifically, I
would be worried that they would take enormous amounts of money for
themselves while setting prices to such high levels that they drive
their business into bankruptcy.
Consider Andy's company. According to Dennis Powell's article, Eazel
spent at least $13 million, but never completed their project. Many
conventional software projects got more accomplished with less money.
What did Eazel spend the $13 million on? Executive bonuses?
Prostitutes? Drugs?
Andy's dream was to make one small software program, and then collect
a monthly fee from every user. Was his goal to make a better world for
us all? Or was he simply looking for a way to become even wealthier
than he already is? If Eazel could get a monthly fee for their
software, how much of it would go to Andy's personal bank account?
Ideally, investors would analyze the personalities of the people they
are investing in. They should not invest in people who show signs of
exploiting situations or taking advantage of other people's misery.
They should not invest in people who want to be kings or queens and
who want the rest of us to become their servants.
I do not know Andy, and I never did an analysis of him, so I cannot
say whether he is somebody we should invest in, but I suggest that
investors analyze people better before they give money to them.
Should you invest in Linux companies?
Some of the people who manage Linux companies do not show signs of
greed. Actually, they often show a complete lack of concern for money.
While this may seem to be a good quality, there is a point at which it
becomes absurd. A company must make enough money to pay their bills
and provide their employees with food.
The Apple executives are at one extreme in which greed is uncontrolled
and people are exploited. Some of the Linux people are at the other
extreme in which they collect so little money that they can barely
feed themselves and end up begging for donations and pity. I would say
the both of these groups of people have undesirable mental qualities.
Ideally the world would invest in people who are between these
extremes.
War of the Computer Retards
The Linux community tells us that Microsoft is an evil empire and that
the Linux people are the good people who fight for freedom and poor
people. But now I see the situation as a fight between two different
types of mental disorders. Microsoft seems to be dominated by people
who have a type of disorder that creates intense and endless cravings
for money and happiness, while the open source people seem to be
suffering from a type of disorder that causes people to withdraw into
a fantasy.
Rather than being a fight between good and evil, I see a fight between
two different groups of retards. No matter which of these two groups
wins, the normal people in the world will lose. Neither of these two
groups is offering the world a practical solution to our software
problems.Microsoft is merely trying to dominate the software
business, and the Linux people are trying to bring back some form of
Marxism.
We need healthy, happy people in control of the world
The only way the world will become a better place is if the people who
dominate it are happy and healthy rather than insane, angry, or
struggling for happiness. This requires voters select better
government leaders, consumers make better decisions on which companies
to support, and stockholders make better decisions on which executives
need to be removed from their position.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the voters,
consumers, or stockholders will improve their behavior. Therefore, I
do not expect any improvements in the foreseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
Valuable information about the FreeSoftware/OpenSource/Linux movements and their excellent, superior software can be found here, here, here, here and here.
Examples of the excellent community spirit within that movement that will help us bring down the evil, illegal Microsoft monopoly: here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Support Free Software! Buy a mug or t-shirt today! This is how open source morons earn their money, you know! By being beggars!
Michael Sims is a liar and void of ethics.
Are the Open Source advocates mentally healthy?
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house. But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them. But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't. How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in which people love each other and share everything. They create a world in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction, loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life. When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities, and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents. There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not the real world. Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes, or they may involve only people outside of the open source community. However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux, ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism, just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group and watch the reaction! The link to use is: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids. However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to make a complete operating system, but together they had something. (Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in which he was described as different from other people. For example, here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001 which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being different, then we could say that this particular reporter is incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves role playing games. See his document about role playing: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school. Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example, some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games, how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know about.)
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/personal.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/rig.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/ipscc1.htm
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey. Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill. What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are, but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal? What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened, self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life. I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast, guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
they have no desire to use it? Are they speaking for people such as me, who develop software? They imagine that they are freedom fighters, but who are they fighting for?
Why should the world listen to these open source people when they promote concepts that they themselves do not want to follow? Are these people truly leading us in the right direction? Or are they suffering from mental disorders?
What sort of community is Linux?
Another odd characteristic of the Linux movement is that many of the Linux users refer to themselves as a community. But what sort of a community is it when there is no cooperation, no leadership, and no coordination?
Linux is not a community at all. The Linux community is actually just a bunch of independent people scattered around the world. Each of them is doing and saying whatever they please with no regard to what other people are doing or saying.
I think the reason they refer to themselves as a community is because they are lonely and want to imagine that they are part of a social group. I suppose most Linux fanatics are social misfits. They want to imagine that they are part of a community and that they have friends. So they fabricated this fantasy of a Linux community.
Is Open Source different from Free Software?
Just as there is amazing disagreement on whether Linux is suppose to be a replacement to Windows, so is there amazing disagreement on what Open Source is and how it differs from Free Software. Richard Stallman was quoted in an interview at slashdot.org as saying:
Although I will not join the Open Source Movement,..
Stallman considers himself to be an advocate of free software, and he says there is a significant difference between free software and open source software. But everybody you ask will give you a slightly different answer on this issue. As with Linux, there is no leader to make decisions. The chaos of the Linux movement is so extreme that I suspect it is a sign that the Linux and open source fanatics are suffering from mental problems.
Linux is similar to a religion
Consider the similarity between Linux and religion: * A common remark among Linux people when somebody complains about open source is that we must read about open source until we get it. This is similar to the religions in which a person becomes born-again, or discovers Jesus Christ. Religious people cannot explain the process of being born again or discovering Jesus. Rather, we must simply get it.
* The Linux people ask for donations, as do churches.
* Linux fanatics routinely publish feel-good articles about how wonderful Linux and open source is. They never discuss issues seriously, nor do they tolerate criticism. Churches also routinely bombard their congregation with biased sermons. The sermons never discuss issues seriously, nor do churches tolerate criticism.
* Religions have a god, and the worshipers often have symbolic items that they wear as jewelry or collect in their homes. For example, the Christians collect crosses and images of Jesus. Many Linux people treat Torvalds as a god, and the penguin seems analogous to a statue of Jesus.
To some Linux users the penguin may be nothing more than a corporate logo that identifies the Linux software. However, compare Linux to other software applications. Are you aware of any other software in which the users or the developers have such an attraction to the software or its logo? And if you can find such a product, do you consider those people to be healthy?
Some Macintosh users are described as having an extreme attraction to the Macintosh, but even they do not seem to have the same level of attraction to the Apple logo or to Steve Jobs as the Linux people do to the Linux penguin and Torvalds. Steve Jobs was even tossed out of the Apple for a while; ie, he was treated as just another human being. Would Linux people consider dumping Torvalds and getting a different leader? I say Torvalds is performing worse as a leader than Steve Jobs ever did, but I have yet to hear a Linux fanatic say something critical of him.
void HelloMouse (void)
When software designed for MS Windows needs access to the computer's clock, it has to ask Windows to set up a timer. Microsoft programmers decided to call the request for a timer SetTimer, and when finished with the timer, the request is KillTimer. Windows also has several Destroy functions, such as DestroyMenu and DestroyIcon.
Microsoft programmers could have selected any name for these functions. For example, instead of KillTimer they could have called the function FinishedWithTimer or CloseTimer. The function that removes a menu could have been referred to as FinishedWithMenu or ClearMenu rather than DestroyMenu.
If computer programmers were happy, healthy people, their happy attitudes would certainly be reflected in the way they develop software. For example, a function that initializes a modem might be referred to as HelloModem.A function that terminates what is referred to as a child process might be called GoodByeChild or, if you want to be cute rather than informative, LoveYou.
I can only barely remember COBOL, but if I remember it correctly, a frequent statement in a COBOL program is something such as GO TO END. The programmer would use this statement mainly for documentation purposes to identify the end of a block in the program. The person writing the COBOL program could decide what to label these sections in order to be more descriptive. For example, he could write GO TO CLOSE FILES if a particular routine was finished processing files.
One of the teachers who taught me the basics about computer programming mentioned to us that in a previous group of students was a guy who was not very happy or cheerful. This guy would swear a lot in his normal conversations, and his COBOL programs reflected his unpleasant attitude. Specifically, he decided to always label his ending statement HELL, which meant that his COBOL programs were full of statements that stated GO TO HELL. He used a few other unpleasant phrases in his programs, but the teacher did not want to mention them.
The hints of violence, death, and destruction that we find in computer software could simply be a reflection of the violent nature of human beings rather than a sign that many computer programmers are defective. After all, most movies, TV shows, games, and other activities that we refer to as entertainment are destructive. The soap operas on television do not have much violence but they are full of emotional torture and suffering. Human beings are violent creatures, and it shows in our expressions, our daydreams, and our software.
If Linux programmers were happier than Microsoft programmers, we should find evidence of this in their software, in addition to finding evidence of this in their behavior. While I have not performed a serious analysis of either Microsoft or Linux programmers, what little I've seen suggests that neither group seems better than the other. My own software has more pleasant function names than both Windows and Linux.
Eazel has given up
On 19 April 2001 an article was posted about the financial troubles of Andy Hertzfeld's company (Eazel). Dell Computer and other companies invested and/or donated millions of dollars in his company, but by April Eazel needed more money. In May of 2001 they gave up.
Should you invest in former Apple employees?
Andy worked at Apple for a while. But before considering the significance of that, consider that occasionally a natural disaster will create a temporary shortage of fresh water. Each of us reacts slightly differently to these disasters. Some people whine about how cruel life is, while other people find ways to deal with the situation, and still other people look for ways to profit from the misery of others.
For example, several years ago a hurricane in Florida created a
Are the Open Source advocates mentally healthy?
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house. But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them. But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't. How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in which people love each other and share everything. They create a world in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction, loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life. When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities, and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents. There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not the real world. Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes, or they may involve only people outside of the open source community. However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux, ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism, just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group and watch the reaction! The link to use is: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids. However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to make a complete operating system, but together they had something. (Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in which he was described as different from other people. For example, here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001 which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being different, then we could say that this particular reporter is incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves role playing games. See his document about role playing: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school. Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example, some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games, how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know about.)
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/personal.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/rig.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/ipscc1.htm
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey. Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill. What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are, but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal? What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened, self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life. I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast, guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
temporary shortage of clean water in a small area. Some people cried; others worked to fix the problem; and some people decided to sell fresh water for $20 per gallon. There was no reason to sell water for $20 per gallon; rather, these people were simply looking for ways to exploit the situation.
Now consider how this applies to computers.
During the 1980's consumers had two primary choices: Apple computers or Windows-based computers. There was an enormous demand for Apple computers. At least some Apple executives decided to exploit the situation by setting prices to very high levels so that they could become extremely wealthy. They hurt the Apple company in the process, and they helped Microsoft grow. But very few, if any, Apple employees complained that prices should be lowered and that salaries should be reduced.
Did the Apple executives or employees show the sort of qualities the world needs? I say no. They were not people who were trying to make a better world. Rather, they look for ways to exploit situations and take advantage of people.
Today a few former Apple employees are involved in the Linux movement. Some of them are extremely wealthy, but they are proposing that the rest of us work for free. It is acceptable that they be wealthy, but it is unacceptable for the rest of us to even make a normal living. Are these the sort of people we should be investing money in?
When former Apple executives start a new company and look for investors, I suggest you wonder if they will behave in the same manner that they behaved when they were working at Apple. Specifically, I would be worried that they would take enormous amounts of money for themselves while setting prices to such high levels that they drive their business into bankruptcy.
Consider Andy's company. According to Dennis Powell's article, Eazel spent at least $13 million, but never completed their project. Many conventional software projects got more accomplished with less money. What did Eazel spend the $13 million on? Executive bonuses? Prostitutes? Drugs?
Andy's dream was to make one small software program, and then collect a monthly fee from every user. Was his goal to make a better world for us all? Or was he simply looking for a way to become even wealthier than he already is? If Eazel could get a monthly fee for their software, how much of it would go to Andy's personal bank account?
Ideally, investors would analyze the personalities of the people they are investing in. They should not invest in people who show signs of exploiting situations or taking advantage of other people's misery. They should not invest in people who want to be kings or queens and who want the rest of us to become their servants.
I do not know Andy, and I never did an analysis of him, so I cannot say whether he is somebody we should invest in, but I suggest that investors analyze people better before they give money to them.
Should you invest in Linux companies?
Some of the people who manage Linux companies do not show signs of greed. Actually, they often show a complete lack of concern for money. While this may seem to be a good quality, there is a point at which it becomes absurd. A company must make enough money to pay their bills and provide their employees with food.
The Apple executives are at one extreme in which greed is uncontrolled and people are exploited. Some of the Linux people are at the other extreme in which they collect so little money that they can barely feed themselves and end up begging for donations and pity. I would say the both of these groups of people have undesirable mental qualities. Ideally the world would invest in people who are between these extremes.
War of the Computer Retards
The Linux community tells us that Microsoft is an evil empire and that the Linux people are the good people who fight for freedom and poor people. But now I see the situation as a fight between two different types of mental disorders. Microsoft seems to be dominated by people who have a type of disorder that creates intense and endless cravings for money and happiness, while the open source people seem to be suffering from a type of disorder that causes people to withdraw into a fantasy.
Rather than being a fight between good and evil, I see a fight between two different groups of retards. No matter which of these two groups wins, the normal people in the world will lose. Neither of these two groups is offering the world a practical solution to our software problems.Microsoft is merely trying to dominate the software business, and the Linux people are trying to bring back some form of Marxism.
We need healthy, happy people in control of the world
The only way the world will become a better place is if the people who dominate it are happy and healthy rather than insane, angry, or struggling for happiness. This requires voters select better government leaders, consumers make better decisions on which companies to support, and stockholders make better decisions on which executives need to be removed from their position.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the voters, consumers, or stockholders will improve their behavior. Therefore, I do not expect any improvements in the foreseeable future.