PDA

View Full Version : Linux advocacy/zealotry must stop NOW!



Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 07:16 AM
Hi, anonymous coward here. /waves

The following could be consider trolling, but it's not intended as such. It's a reflection of how I feel the Linux community is holding themselves back.

I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.

If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system? The same people who hate being hassled about a religion by others, seem to be quite content on doing the same thing to others and trying to convert people into using their favorite OS. It's hypocrisy.

Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is. Zealots aren't pragmatic. Linux, just like Windows or OS X or any other operating system, is a tool and should not be a way of life. The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive. There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something. Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.

/dons a really, really enormous flame suit.

neoflight
June 6th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Hi, anonymous coward here. /waves

The following could be consider trolling, but it's not intended as such. It's a reflection of how I feel the Linux community is holding themselves back.

I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.....

some people simply do not know what they are missing...

its not preaching.. its just letting them know that there are options.
good friends help people from getting out of a pit...thats all...

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 07:22 AM
some people simply do not know what they are missing...

its not preaching.. its just letting them know that there are options.
good friends help people from getting out of a pit...thats all...
There's a rather long thread/poll somewhere around here which asks, quite plainly, how many people has the member converted to Linux? If that's not encouraging preaching I don't know what is.

wolfen69
June 6th, 2007, 07:28 AM
who are you talking to? it is you who are zealous.

jiminycricket
June 6th, 2007, 07:29 AM
GNU/Linux is an OS that is under a license that reduces cost, increases choice, reduces bugs, etc. so even in the utilitarian viewpoint, the license DOES make it a good thing. I really hope you are not an MS or PR-firm employee or being paid to do this...

ajeffreys
June 6th, 2007, 07:33 AM
I think that people are just trying to help spread the word, and it isn't being forced upon anybody.

Tux Aubrey
June 6th, 2007, 07:41 AM
I think you are painting with too broad a brush here. Intrusive preaching and zealotry are certainly counter-productive (IMO) in any endevour. But introducing someone to Linux or putting an ubuntu sticker on a laptop and answering questions from interested people is marketing - not advocacy.

I want ubuntu (and Linux) to succeed - admitedly for selfish reasons. The more users, testers and developers there are, the better it becomes and I get more satisfaction.

Examples of things I don't consider zealotry or preaching:

Simon remarks that his computer is slow and that he's thinking of upgrading his machine and using Vista. Aubrey says "Have you considered using Linux? Your machine is more than capable of running it quite fast, " and offers to show him ubuntu.

Mike asks Aubrey what anti-virus software he uses and how much it costs. Aubrey says "I use Linux and I don't have to worry abot viruses. Here, have an Ubuntu Live CD and try it if you want."

The local LUG takes a stall at a computer fair to provide information on Linux. Aubrey volunteers to spend a couple of hours and takes his ubuntu-powered laptop to demonstrate.

Is this advocacy? zealotry?

TheMono
June 6th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Zealotry in my mind is the person who pushes Ubuntu onto someone who uses their computer almost solely for games. Zealotry is making a suggestion because of blind faith in what they want, and not wanting to hear any answer except OK.

However, offering it as a serious option to someone it is suited for, and accepting it if they say no, is not zealotry in my mind, rather advocacy.

H.E. Pennypacker
June 6th, 2007, 07:46 AM
If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system?

There's a BIG difference. Religion is a highly personal matter, and most people ar e content with their religions. On the other hand, most people have no issue with experimenting with other operating systems. That leaves room for preaching and converting. I see no problem with preaching to others about FLOSS ideas, since they have nothing to lose anyway. Besides, it is not changing their lifestyles, what they grew up with, how they were raised, and their culture, as in the case of religion, for most people.

The pain about religious advocacy is that most people are already settled with one religion. I don't want to hear any preaching from other religions (anything that is not mine), because I am stubbornly convinced I already have the truth (don't want to "try" a new religion out, because that means I'd have to give up my current one). Clearly, most people don't treat their operating systems like this, and allow room for conversions/preachings. Also, switching to Linux has nothing to do with whether you can still use Windows. While switching from one religion to another means that you must give up your previous one, with operating systems, you can always dual boot. No freedom is ever lost by switching to Linux. Feel free to use your Windows.

You clearly don't see why many of us value the GPL, and FLOSS in general. I am very passionate about it, because of the freedoms that come with it. I generally don't tolerate a few other freedoms (I despise freedom of speech in many cases - I wish some people's freedom of speech was entirely eliminated). Still, I see the importance of the GPL/FLOSS/FOSS.

PS: I also hate the BSD license. Despise it.

userundefine
June 6th, 2007, 07:56 AM
I don't disagree with a lot of your points. Personally, I use Linux (meaning GNU/Linux OS) because I agree with the GNU philosophy, and also because I like the technical levels it gives me: I like to tinker with stuff, I love the software available. Linux is absolutely the best choice for me, and personally I think it could easily be the best choice for others. But, I don't really attempt to "convert" people to Linux, nor do I often talk about it unless I'm actually asked about it. I don't "hate" Microsoft, but I am completely underwhelmed by their products, and their attitudes toward GNU grate against me and do engender some disgust.

On your last point, though, I think you should reconsider: an OS at the moment is *arguably* "just a tool", but it is becoming and has become much more than that. Consider the nature of the Internet and how it has changed the lives of millions. In the 60s and 70s, an OS may have been merely a tool, but now it is a manner by which we express ourselves through mediums such as the Internet. Attempt to conceive how in another ten years computers will have evolved and how the concept of an OS itself will have evolved. As computers are more and more integrated into our daily lives, the parts of our lives we exercise and share through our computers demands an inquiry into the fundamentals of the computer. In the areas where computers are a part of one's life, could the company behind the software restrict your ability to express yourself as you see fit? Move beyond the Internet here and perhaps think about the possibility of an operating system for your car that prohibits some functionality you desire out of it. What's the potential implication if Coke could restrict my viewing outside the vehicle because my plasma windows have their ads all over them and I couldn't enjoy the view?

So, there are philosophical considerations that you should ponder before you dismiss computers as merely tools for people because they are becoming further and further integrated into a daily lives, and our daily interaction with other human beings in a lot of places. I'm not saying GNU is the solution to this kind of future, or that BSD is, but I am saying that I want the choice to decide for myself.

steeleyuk
June 6th, 2007, 08:00 AM
I also agree with some points of the original poster but I think telling us to stop telling other people to convert is a bit ironic...

adampyre
June 6th, 2007, 08:07 AM
I am fairly new to Linux (started in April) and I don't believe that everyone here is how you describe. I think alot of the people who drive Linux and it's programs can be, but that is kind of important. Especially when you are dealing with a company like Microsoft who is going to start digging their fingers into the GNU general public license and start screwing with things. Microsoft doesn't want Linux around because it can effect their bottom line and they will most likely be evil corporate bastards in the end in their attempts to mess with it. So it is good that their are people out their who have the conviction to support their favorite operating systems. I also think you are going to see alot of this here because this is an Ubuntu forum....so let it be. If you are looking for a place that is less fanatical about Ubuntu, Open Source, Being Anti Microsoft and so on, this is probably not the place to expect that, and that's ok, isn't it?

Plus after a few months of using Linux, although I still experience issues as I am learning things, I am starting to feel fanatical about Linux myself. It's lifted a veil from my eyes that Microsoft products have put there.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 08:20 AM
I really hope you are not an MS or PR-firm employee or being paid to do this...
How does me being critical of advocacy = MS shrill? Do you accuse people who genuinely have no issues with Windows XP to be MS shrills as well?


I also agree with some points of the original poster but I think telling us to stop telling other people to convert is a bit ironic....
Well it's not as if I'm telling anyone to stop using Linux. It's just a blunt observation.

I like FLOSS and the ideology as well. I just don't see it as dramatically obsessive about it as some people do. All about perspective.

hardyn
June 6th, 2007, 08:27 AM
Anonymous hun...

Mr. Balmer... is that you?...

ThinkBuntu
June 6th, 2007, 08:41 AM
Yes. We also should cease supporting out favorite football teams, American or otherwise. It's offensive zealotry. We should all act as disinterested third parties.

hanzomon4
June 6th, 2007, 08:42 AM
I don't agree..

Companies do the same thing every day on the tv, No one considers them to be zealots. Gnu/Linux is spread word of mouth for the most part. No flashy ads or intrusive emails declaring the cure for erectile dysfunction to your mother. Free software is more than a tool, it truly is a philosophy. I doubt you will find many Free Software advocates trying preach to the checkout lady about the virtues of FOSS. Most of the preaching happens amongst friends/family who kinda share an interest in computers or who needs some computer advice. You can also find preaching here but it's a computer site.

And no, people that believe in FOSS don't have to work with non-oss software and they surly don't need to work to be compatible with MS products. It's great that Distros do work to make life easier for the user but they don't have too. Also don't assume that Free Software "needs" to compromise it's philosophy to gain users, They have been doing good for almost 20 years now...

Message: Chill, it ain't going anywhere

So there I disagree.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 08:50 AM
Yes. We also should cease supporting out favorite football teams, American or otherwise. It's offensive zealotry. We should all act as disinterested third parties.
For goodness sake, are you all deliberately missing the point?

I didn't say you shouldn't SUPPORT Linux... I said you shouldn't actively ADVOCATE it (unless the opportunity presents itself). There's a difference. You can be a fan of whatever you like, just don't try to force such ideas onto others who might not even care. Be interested, but don't be zealots. Simple.


Anonymous hun...

Mr. Balmer... is that you?...
Attacking me in such a manner proves my point precisely.

Spr0k3t
June 6th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Advocacy is to do nothing more than support and inform where as zealotry is to inject and ratify.

The problem is, zealotry is on both sides of the line. It always has been and regardless of how much we try to stop it, it always will be. What makes it even worse is posting a request to stop the zealotry which will potentially increase the flaming of those who take part in it. One of the things I really enjoy about Ubuntu in general is the guidelines of "humanity to others". That alone tends to keep t7m on retainer with several churches and libraries in the area supporting their needs in the Linux distribution they have chosen. I've helped startup businesses build their infrastructure with servers and point of sale systems. If someone wants to point out "flaws" of Linux I'm happy to sit and listen so I can help educate. I've often found the pointed "flaws" are those who don't want to use Linux as it was intended and therefore want a Windows replacement.

These are all points of advocacy. Personally, I wish the zealotry would stop.

cunawarit
June 6th, 2007, 09:03 AM
As annoying as Linux zealots are, they are no different to the Mac OS X and Windows zealots of these world.

Most of those that matter in terms of making IT decisions either adopting or rejecting Linux know to ignore random nonsensical babble spouted by overly enthusiastic kids, they certainly won’t be going online to check on forums, they will be listening to consultants.

Truth be told I think some of the things said by Balmer and Microsoft in general (patents and random attacks), and Stallman, yes Stallman, are more harmful to GNU/Linux than anything said by anyone on this forum, University cafeteria, or school programming class. But this is a whole different thread.

Anyway, yes, some random Linux zealot due to wild unsubstantiated claims might harm the spread of Linux a tiny little bit, but so little that that it is an issue.

PS: There's nothing wrong with advocacy though, zealotry is on your face, unwarranted, insulting, unsubstantiated... But educated advocacy, is a good thing... On ALL sides (It's no secret I love Visual Studio ;) ).

Spr0k3t
June 6th, 2007, 09:03 AM
double posted

runningwithscissors
June 6th, 2007, 09:07 AM
...I hate zealotry and advocacy myself, precisely because I understand how annoying it can be when I am the target of it.

However,


The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software
While I do not _refuse_ to touch closed-source software, I almost always would prefer a free-software alternative even if it may not be as featureful. It's just responding to the goodwill on part of the developer and providing encouragement. Also, I am a programmer and have learnt most of what I know from using and modifying (mostly web apps at work) free software. So I would almost always prefer it over closed-source stuff.


refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows.
I do the bare minimum, i.e. know how to operate a Windows desktop at work. It's well locked down anyway, so I don't really feel the need to learn anything about it. Learning about Windows requires time, money and patience which I am not willing to afford.


Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*Clap clap indeed. It's a matter of choice. I don't care about opening Word documents (MS Word isn't free, unless you're willing to pay for my copy), nor do I find stuff on youtube entertaining (There IS flash support on Linux, but hell will freeze over before I touch it, it's just annoying)


I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive.
So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.
Agreed.

Lucifiel
June 6th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Ha! Operating systems a tool? I and my family are very wired. We use computers for many things we do. You could say that computers are a way of life for many and could even be considered an extension of one's family.

SlayerMan
June 6th, 2007, 09:13 AM
@OP: Full ACK.

Something that most FLOSS zealots don't understand is that software is not in any way better just because it is free software (free as in freedom). Although FLOSS surely is a good idea, the main purpose of software is to act as a reliable, functional tool to get your tasks done. Functionality is worth more than being "purely free" (this is where I disagree with RMS).

Why has Firefox been so successful? In fact, it is one of the most successful FLOSS projects ever. The main cause for this (from a users point of view) is not that Firefox is FLOSS, but that it has a functional advantage over its major competitor (IE).

The FLOSS community should let their software speak for them. No preaching is required. Show the world that FLOSS philosophy is not a self purpose, but an efficient and result-bringing way to develop good and useful software.

Lucifiel
June 6th, 2007, 09:26 AM
Still, I don't consider Linux zealots to be the worst. Microsoft zealots are the most annoying. They'll go on and on about how other o/ses suck and why Microsoft is entitled to the attitudes it holds. They care not about stability at times.

For them, only the Microsoft way reigns supreme. And even if Microsoft's stealing the ideas of another company? Well, Microsoft rocks so they're entitled to. How about other companies, then? "Kill the men, women and children" is a statement better suited to their thoughts.

So theirs is a passion which treads onto dangerous paths.

Chilli Bob
June 6th, 2007, 09:28 AM
I swear I am not making this up!

I was reading the thread-starter post on my XP pc at work when it crashed completely requiring a reboot. How's that for irony!!! The cause of the crash was clicking the "remove USB safely" icon to unmount the flash stick I was backing up to. Not too taxing, I would have thought. Then when it rebooted it told me that XP had recovered from a serious error. I sent off my crash report, and it sent back a 404 file not found from Microsoft.

THAT is exactly why I am Zealously converting anyone I can to Linux, and will continue to do so, with an ever-increasing religious mania.

As is says in Revelations....

"Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the Gibbon, for it is a human number, and it's number is 7.10"

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 09:37 AM
I swear I am not making this up!

I was reading the thread-starter post on my XP pc at work when it crashed completely requiring a reboot. How's that for irony!!! The cause of the crash was clicking the "remove USB safely" icon to unmount the flash stick I was backing up to. Not too taxing, I would have thought. Then when it rebooted it told me that XP had recovered from a serious error. I sent off my crash report, and it sent back a 404 file not found from Microsoft.

Ha! To be fair, my Vista box started wanting to restart explorer.exe after crashing about once every minute. After a reboot things became stable again, but damn if that wasn't annoying. I couldn't even determine what was causing Explorer to die.


THAT is exactly why I am Zealously converting anyone I can to Linux, and will continue to do so, with an ever-increasing religious mania.

As is says in Revelations....

"Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the Gibbon, for it is a human number, and it's number is 7.10"
Sounds very gutsy of you.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 09:54 AM
some people simply do not know what they are missing...

its not preaching.. its just letting them know that there are options.
good friends help people from getting out of a pit...thats all...

well, assuming they are in a pit (if they don't feel like that, they are not)

PartisanEntity
June 6th, 2007, 09:57 AM
I think you are exaggerating a little here. It is a natural human behavioural characteristic to inform those around about something that is new an impressive whether it is a new idea, a book, a vacation spot or something as mundane as a computer tool like an operating system.

When I first started using Ubuntu I was very impressed, it was all new to me and I was hyped about it. So I told my friends about it, my brother and a friend of mine tried it out. My brother has gone back to XP and my friend stuck with it although I maintain it for her.

Ubuntu is a relatively new Linux distribution and through the hype many Linux novices are trying it out, many are impressed and so they too become hyped about it. Their innocent urge to tell those around them about it and scream it out to the world should not be mistaken to be zealotry.

As far as advocacy is concerned, that is great, normal, natural and to be hoped for. Not only that, advocacy is the proper way to spread the word about anything. Advocacy means that you support something.

On a related topic, yesterday I received the 10 Ubuntu CD's I had ordered from ShipIt 3 weeks ago which I will hand out to my close friends and certain colleagues to do with as they please.

Cheers.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Yes. We also should cease supporting out favorite football teams, American or otherwise. It's offensive zealotry. We should all act as disinterested third parties.

supporting a team is something (as I'm a supporter myself) and bashing and saying that other team is a ****(fill in with what you want) is something else. I've never felt the need to attack and judge other's choices(preferences) as long as they don't question and judge mine

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 10:35 AM
We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

Yes you do gain something, it may not be something you value or aspire to have but having morals, principles and courage is not something to be despised. I think perhaps you feel insecure because you lack the ability to draw a line that you will not cross. I can and that does not make me a bad person.


Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive.

Offering an excuse for such behaviour is simply disgusting; i don't care what your motivations are, giving share holds value of money of what have you. break the basic moral of wilfully hurting others, and I won't excuse you weather that be a criminal or Microsoft.


There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something.

We'll assume for the time being your talking about me


Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

Morals are not things you pick and choose when it's convenient for you. you choose not to see what is wrong with the world so you can continue to abuse it. shame on you sir if your not the worse kind of scoundrel.

You think I'm childish because I have morals? you think I'm immature because I can stick to them even when it means loosing face or loosing productivity? I find this a sad day for our current social system that you are in any position to argue such a grotesque position. Why be a moral being and not consistent about it?

Perhaps your one of these middelist extremists; you know the folks that will pound their voices into the either about how we should ALWAYS go for the middle ground even if the middle ground is wrong or contemptuous. there is a time and a place for considering mediation and then there is a time when it is better to look at what you want to FORCE everyone else to mediate on.

Stop forcing your middelist views on everyone, it's blind and daft.

And if you need me to put forth a case for why Microsoft is an immoral company (even on the scale of immoral companies) I will be more than happy to do so by citation if needed.

steven8
June 6th, 2007, 10:52 AM
Yes you do gain something, it may not be something you value or aspire to have but having morals, principles and courage is not something to be despised. I think perhaps you feel insecure because you lack the ability to draw a line that you will not cross. I can and that does not make me a bad person.



Offering an excuse for such behaviour is simply disgusting; i don't care what your motivations are, giving share holds value of money of what have you. break the basic moral of wilfully hurting others, and I won't excuse you weather that be a criminal or Microsoft.



We'll assume for the time being your talking about me



Morals are not things you pick and choose when it's convenient for you. you choose not to see what is wrong with the world so you can continue to abuse it. shame on you sir if your not the worse kind of scoundrel.

You think I'm childish because I have morals? you think I'm immature because I can stick to them even when it means loosing face or loosing productivity? I find this a sad day for our current social system that you are in any position to argue such a grotesque position. Why be a moral being and not consistent about it?

Perhaps your one of these middelist extremists; you know the folks that will pound their voices into the either about how we should ALWAYS go for the middle ground even if the middle ground is wrong or contemptuous. there is a time and a place for considering mediation and then there is a time when it is better to look at what you want to FORCE everyone else to mediate on.

Stop forcing your middelist views on everyone, it's blind and daft.

And if you need me to put forth a case for why Microsoft is an immoral company (even on the scale of immoral companies) I will be more than happy to do so by citation if needed.

The Good Doctor is just that. Good. Now leave him alone, okay?

southernman
June 6th, 2007, 10:58 AM
:popcorn:



I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.
Is that not what you are doing?



If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system? The same people who hate being hassled about a religion by others, seem to be quite content on doing the same thing to others and trying to convert people into using their favorite OS. It's hypocrisy.It's utterly ridiculous to blame a whole mass of people, for what a small percentage do. A lot of the people (most in fact), that belong to the area LUG, are quite the opposite. They don't run around thumping their favorite distro bible. The vast majority of them (myself included), either use Windows, repair them, and support them... in the day to day business/personal lives.



Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is. Zealots aren't pragmatic. Linux, just like Windows or OS X or any other operating system, is a tool and should not be a way of life. The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.I agree with most of this. At the same time, the same thing can be said about the MS crowd that refuses to believe in FLOSS (of any degree) and what it's built on. I don't think you'll find a seasoned Linux user, that could not delve right into the middle of a Windows OS, looking like an idiot as you say. I believe the term for you thinking this way would be stupid. I call it stupid because you seem intelligent enough to know the difference. Ignorance would be a different story.



I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive. There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something. Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.It isn't that your a troll, you are just playing the part of one apparently. Do you work for Microsoft?



So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.

/dons a really, really enormous flame suit.Again with this Advocate/Zealot thing. You are aware of the difference aren't you? It's apples and oranges!

One last question. What is your OS of choice? Dare we guess?

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 11:15 AM
:popcorn:
I STEAL YOUR POPCORN!!! *munch*


Is that not what you are doing?
A fair cop. Then again, I'm not advocating anything... except for a different point of view. I'm not asking people to use any particular system, so long as they restrain themselves.


It's utterly ridiculous to blame a whole mass of people, for what a small percentage do. A lot of the people (most in fact), that belong to the area LUG, are quite the opposite. They don't run around thumping their favorite distro bible. The vast majority of them (myself included), either use Windows, repair them, and support them... in the day to day business/personal lives.
Of course, but those who shout the loudest get the most notice, and if they appear too zealotry it can ruin the image for everyone else.


I agree with most of this. At the same time, the same thing can be said about the MS crowd that refuses to believe in FLOSS (of any degree) and what it's built on. I don't think you'll find a seasoned Linux user, that could not delve right into the middle of a Windows OS, looking like an idiot as you say. I believe the term for you thinking this way would be stupid. I call it stupid because you seem intelligent enough to know the difference. Ignorance would be a different story.
Well I have read many threads here (not much of a surprise - I used to post here with a proper name :) ). People have commented, particularly in threads asking whether they'd help a Windows user fix a problem, how they've been using Linux for so long they've forgotten many of the basic things you do in Windows. It happens, and that can be a bit of a problem. Not saying they're stupid at all, it can just appear so to other users who don't understand why.


It isn't that your a troll, you are just playing the part of one apparently. Do you work for Microsoft?
That's the... *counts fingers*... third time someone's asking if I was a MS shrill. Do you work for Canonical? :p


Again with this Advocate/Zealot thing. You are aware of the difference aren't you? It's apples and oranges!
Maybe. A strong enough advocate walks dangerously close to a zealot though. There's a guy called "twitter" on Slashdot who I had a problem with. He's a full-blown zealot, saying things like how 2007's gonna be the year of Linux, spells Microsoft always with a $ sign, make no connections to reality. It's obvious he hates Microsoft, and that's fair enough, but he simply can't understand how a company of that magnitude's not going to die that easily, no matter what he says. These people are the types of mouthpieces we don't need.


One last question. What is your OS of choice? Dare we guess?
I'll give you a free hint - it's not BeOS. :KS

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 11:37 AM
this discussion degenerated....and not in a positive and respectful way
everybody is to an opinion and that opinion must be respected, even if not shared. DoctorMO, nobody is not in the position of judging someone else's morality and values. not talking about imposing. You have the right to believe anything you want, let the others have that right. understand that your claims of being on high moral grounds are as subjective and personal as others'. nothing good or bad or evil or right or wrong. just perspectives. let them remain that way, to speak in terms of absolute values is a little...pretencious and elusive

mrgnash
June 6th, 2007, 11:40 AM
I've got a better idea. Why don't I calculate how much time you just wasted.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 11:42 AM
and for Anon Coward
I understand your position and I had the same feeling sometimes (thanks god not very often). what you must understand is that not all linux users are the - "if you don't use linux&open-source software/if you use windows then you are imoral/lazy/coward/not willing to improve yourself"- type
;)
most of them are nice and kind people which put freedom of choice above everything else

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 11:43 AM
I've got a better idea. Why don't I calculate how much time you just wasted.
:)...agree
it's called a forum, so by definition 99% is wasted time

wieman01
June 6th, 2007, 11:47 AM
You seem to take the whole discussion as seriously as real Linux zealots. Congrats! With all respect but one famous Star Wars quote comes to my mind: "Who is the more foolish; the fool, or the fool who follows the fool?"

But I agree with you... PCs as well as Linux are simply tools, no more no less. But who said they are anything else?

use a name
June 6th, 2007, 11:53 AM
Maybe you see part of the response on the ongoing battle with MS (for lots and lots of reasons) as zealotry, but that's just vs MS and its fanboys. Not vs my neighbour, colleague or anyone. A real convert is made by the system itself, not by my pursuasive skills.

Oh well, go on with the bbq.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 11:54 AM
You seem to take the whole discussion as seriously as real Linux zealots. Congrats! With all respect but one famous Star Wars quote comes to my mind: "Who is the more foolish; the fool, or the fool who follows the fool?"

But I agree with you... PCs as well as Linux are simply tools, no more no less. But who said they are anything else?

amen...

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 12:00 PM
this discussion degenerated....and not in a positive and respectful way

I agree, it's not a very passive thread all round really. it's not asking for anything positive instead it'd grouping people into sub-human groups; attempting to decry the position that it doesn't matter what your position as long as it's ours and it's just not very productive at all.


everybody is to an opinion and that opinion must be respected, even if not shared.

Agreed


nobody is not in the position of judging someone else's morality and values.

I respectfully disagree, morals might be subjective to society but there are some very basic tenants which span all social systems. they're there for very good reasons. to take away a persons ability to judge someone elses actions as wrong ties the hands of sociality to see anything as wrong. you are advocating anarchy.


You have the right to believe anything you want, let the others have that right. understand that your claims of being on high moral grounds are as subjective and personal as others'. nothing good or bad or evil or right or wrong. just perspectives

There is no way to remove the subjective nature of anyone argument, try as we might. but to not understand a moral argument as important is troubling.


let them remain that way, to speak in terms of absolute values is a little...pretencious and elusive

Absolute high ideals are required as bases that guide actions. If I didn't believe there was a difference between the absolute of right and wrong I don't think I would think highly of society at all. real life may not be black and white but there are some things so far towards black that to have doubt would be silly.

the.dark.lord
June 6th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Howdy /waves

neoflight said it rightly,
"its not preaching.. its just letting them know that there are options. "

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 12:06 PM
I agree, it's not a very passive thread all round really. it's not asking for anything positive instead it'd grouping people into sub-human groups; attempting to decry the position that it doesn't matter what your position as long as it's ours and it's just not very productive at all.



Agreed



I respectfully disagree, morals might be subjective to society but there are some very basic tenants which span all social systems. they're there for very good reasons. to take away a persons ability to judge someone elses actions as wrong ties the hands of sociality to see anything as wrong. you are advocating anarchy.



There is no way to remove the subjective nature of anyone argument, try as we might. but to not understand a moral argument as important is troubling.



Absolute high ideals are required as bases that guide actions. If I didn't believe there was a difference between the absolute of right and wrong I don't think I would think highly of society at all. real life may not be black and white but there are some things so far towards black that to have doubt would be silly.

...eh...you may say I'm advocating the middle ground....:D
I somehow admire people who can stick to some imuable values, but speaking about myself, I can't do that. at least not regarding all aspects of my life and actions. but don't be fooled by my "relativism". I'm more conservative regarding right and wrong that I may sound....
anyway, anarchy is not on top of my list ;)

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 12:08 PM
I do note that by DoctorMO's logic, anyone who uses Windows is immoral, which therefore means that the extreme majority of people who use computers... are immoral? Or is he suggesting that the people who KNOW of the alternatives, and yet continue to use MS products, are the immoral ones?

As for Microsoft itself, of course it's immoral. But it's also successful, and in our capatlist societies, you have to be damn ruthless to succeed at such a high level in business. Steping over others is the way things work in the corporate world, so I can hardly fault Bill Gates for wanting his company to succeed, can you?

It's funny. The same people who criticize Sony for their business practices refuse to purchase a PS3, then go off and get a Wii or XBox 360, as if Nintendo or Microsoft are any better. All corporate business is scum, that's just how it is. Am I to be ridiculed for accepting this and not letting it affect me?

(I ain't asking for a flame war - the only reason I used DoctorMO as an example was because his opinions are, shall we say, strong. No personal attacks intended at ALL.)

Lucifiel
June 6th, 2007, 12:19 PM
Really? You need to be damn ruthless to be that successful?

I think it's actually more of the fact that up until a few years ago, most business majors/courses RARELY touched on issues like ethics. As a result, you get folks like Bill Gates and scandals like Worldcom and Enron.

Those billion-dollar(Worldcom/Enron, etc.) scandals were likely what shook up the American society. For a very long time, folks have turned a blind eye to capitalism without ethics. They were like "it's all right. A bit of greed won't hurt anyone." Well, you get what you nurture, all right.

These days, many business majors actually touch on issues like ethics, etc. Whether you choose to be ethical or ruthless is up to you all right.

saulgoode
June 6th, 2007, 12:20 PM
I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic.

"Be pragmatic" is an entirely elusive term which is best directly translated as "be like me" or "share my priorities". People make decisions based on their own values: one man might view sacrifices in the short term in hopes of an eventual benefit as worthwhile, another might prefer to make the most of the present and let the future take care of itself -- is one viewpoint any more "pragmatic" than the other?


If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live.

Did people come up to you and say "create a thread topic about your opinions"? Would you reserve exclusively for yourself the right to initiate discussion? Is it not hypocritical for you to reproach others for engaging in something that you yourself have no compunction doing?

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 12:25 PM
Really? You need to be damn ruthless to be that successful?
Do you honestly think Bill Gates is the only one who wants to make a lot of money? Of course you have to be ruthless. You have to be more willing to do the things the competition wouldn't, and that generally means how far you'll willing to stretch your ethics to get there. If morals stop you from taking advantage of a situation, then someone else will step up instead, and that guy will gain all the rewards from doing so. It's not a pleasant business, but hey, people like money.


I think it's actually more of the fact that up until a few years ago, most business majors/courses RARELY touched on issues like ethics. As a result, you get folks like Bill Gates and scandals like Worldcom and Enron.

Those billion-dollar(Worldcom/Enron, etc.) scandals were likely what shook up the American society. For a very long time, folks have turned a blind eye to capitalism without ethics. They were like "it's all right. A bit of greed won't hurt anyone." Well, you get what you nurture, all right.

These days, many business majors actually touch on issues like ethics, etc. Whether you choose to be ethical or ruthless is up to you all right.
Bah. Call be cynical, but any high-level business who talks about ethics is putting on a show to keep everyone happy. They don't give two hoots about it, they'll bend the laws as need be. They also know a few companies will spoil the industry for a wihle (eg. Worldcom/Enron), but give enough time and people will forget, and the whole cycle continues. No corporate entity cares about ethics at all, just enough to smokescreen what they really are doing.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 12:28 PM
Did people come up to you and say "create a thread topic about your opinions"? Would you reserve exclusively for yourself the right to initiate discussion? Is it not hypocritical for you to reproach others for engaging in something that you yourself have no compunction doing?
This is a forum, to be used by anyone. Did I force you to read this thread and respond?

Out of all the zealoty threads I've read, I feel a single anti-zealot thread is hardly a danger.

saulgoode
June 6th, 2007, 12:33 PM
This is a forum, to be used by anyone. Did I force you to read this thread and respond?

Out of all the zealoty threads I've read, I feel a single anti-zealot thread is hardly a danger.

You misinterpret my message. I am NOT rebuking you for initiating a discussion; I am rebuking you for suggesting that others should not.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 12:40 PM
You misinterpret my message. I am NOT rebuking you for initiating a discussion; I am rebuking you for suggesting that others should not.
People can post whatever they like here. They're preaching to the converted anyway. I'm not going to suggest people shouldn't.

My complaint is about advocacy elsewhere, particularly when it's unnecessary or unwanted. Injecting pro-linux anti-MS advocacy in a support site for Windows is a no no, for example, yet I see it now and then. They might even be right, Windows might suck in the particular issue, but that's not going to help them, particularly if switching brings its own hassles.

I suppose the biggest issue I have with zealots is that they do not see any negatives. They figure Linux is so damn good, there's no reason to bother mentioning the issues one could have with it. Advocacy in this case is totally blind - all good, no bad. That's rubbish and everyone knows it, and you'll just **** off the user if you "convert" someone without warning them of the issues of moving to a different OS.

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 12:44 PM
I do note that by DoctorMO's logic, anyone who uses Windows is immoral, which therefore means that the extreme majority of people who use computers... are immoral? Or is he suggesting that the people who KNOW of the alternatives, and yet continue to use MS products, are the immoral ones?

Most people are ignorant, and that doesn't make them bad people; it's just how companies have designed (read corrupted) the markets to deliver a product which contains several problematic moral issues. from one software vendors attempt to wreak an entire industry to environmental issues used in hardware construction and recycling. don't forget that every single time you advocate a blind eye policy your not being true to yourself. accepting the problems and attempting to mitigate helps when you know the issues exist. since FLOSS offers to anyone an absolute solution with the minimum of disruption I call it an imbalance in views to not take that offer.


As for Microsoft itself, of course it's immoral. But it's also successful, and in our capatlist societies, you have to be damn ruthless to succeed at such a high level in business. Steping over others is the way things work in the corporate world, so I can hardly fault Bill Gates for wanting his company to succeed, can you?

Yes, I can fault Bill Gates and Microsoft; it's not enough to want something, you have to go out and get it. but it's not enough to go out and get it you can to consider how your going to get it and weather having it hurts others. Do I believe that it's right for businesses to not have ethics? no, do I excuse businesses for being the way they are? no. I will NOT excuse or sanction this kind of behaviour, even if every business in the world does it. it's not right and I won't stand for it. This is exactly why morals and ethics are required; to stop society imploding from every unit doing it's utmost to harm every other unit.


It's funny. The same people who criticize Sony for their business practices refuse to purchase a PS3, then go off and get a Wii or XBox 360, as if Nintendo or Microsoft are any better. All corporate business is scum, that's just how it is. Am I to be ridiculed for accepting this and not letting it affect me?

Some are more scummy than others and some accept the blindness or mitigate. I won't be buying a console, but if I did it'd be a second hand one from a number of generations ago, at least then I'm mitigating support for corrupt businesses with support for recycling and reuse.


I suppose the biggest issue I have with zealots is that they do not see any negatives. They figure Linux is so damn good, there's no reason to bother mentioning the issues one could have with it. Advocacy in this case is totally blind - all good, no bad. That's rubbish and everyone knows it, and you'll just **** off the user if you "convert" someone without warning them of the issues of moving to a different OS.

See that is why you don't understand me; I would never lie to someone to convert them. I would tell people of all problems they may have with Linux. but in the face of any and all problems I would still consider it the better option for anyone.

sheine
June 6th, 2007, 12:51 PM
For me, the real problem right now is the way that Microsoft with the new Vista distribution makes it so hard to use linux. Almost all new computers come with Vista preinstalled. Unless you pay a lot of money, your new computer will not have the memory or processor to work as well as WindowsXP much less linux. In addition, despite all the internet posts, it is very difficult to dual boot Vista and linux. If you try to do it with Vista's partition tool, Vista insists on keeping more than half the hard drive for itself.

There are a few sites that are so Windows specific that you cannot work around them, even with wine. As far as I can see that is the only justification for using Windows at all. Right now I am buying a new moderately priced laptop. Unless the very bright linux programmers find a way to tame Vista, I intend to wipe it out and make the computer linux only. Currently with my WindowsXP desktop, I also have several linux distributions booting - it is easy to set up. One wonders if Microsoft didn't deliberately make it harder with Vista.

saulgoode
June 6th, 2007, 12:54 PM
People can post whatever they like here. They're preaching to the converted anyway. I'm not going to suggest people shouldn't.

My complaint is about advocacy elsewhere, particularly when it's unnecessary or unwanted. Injecting pro-linux anti-MS advocacy in a support site for Windows is a no no, for example, yet I see it now and then.

On the one hand, people can post pro-Windows comments on the Ubuntu forums (i.e., "whatever they like"); but on the other, they must not post pro-Linux comments on Windows forums. You don't perceive any hypocrisy in that?

BatsotO
June 6th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Many of my friends here (including me) use linux for simple reason : microsoft software cost too much, and we still deal with pirated software, so advocating linux over windows is morally makes sense. Governments all over the world advocating linux and other open source, even open file format.
The zealotry didn't start here, back in 2004, government official in brasil call microsoft marketing a drug-dealer like, and widely advocate the use of free software he stated that the future is free (and microsoft brasil wanted to sue him).

We didn't even start this zealotry.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 01:10 PM
On the one hand, people can post pro-Windows comments on the Ubuntu forums (i.e., "whatever they like"); but on the other, they must not post pro-Linux comments on Windows forums. You don't perceive any hypocrisy in that?
Posting pro-Windows comments in these forums is just as bad as pro-Linux comments in Windows forums. If I thought otherwise, then that would be definite hypocrisy yes.

Then again, how many Windows zealots are there anyway? Windows doesn't have as large a passionate community as Linux and Mac do. You don't see as much zealotry from the former as you do the latter, which is why I'm focusing on the Linux crowd.

Lucifiel
June 6th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Wait a minute, are you like some sort of self-professed crusader on a mission to rid the wired world of prejudism against Linux and Windows? Or in the case of this thread, prejudism against Windows?

Geez... I'm not too sure what to say now.

*shrugs* You know what? Why don't you just focus on what you really like, instead of trying to stir the hornet's nest?

Seriously, regardless of your opinions and comments, regardless of anti-Linux or anti-Windows or anti-Mac zealotry, life goes on. This is the wired world, dear. If you so want to see things evolve for the better in the real world, why not go become an entrepuener and make millions and donate part of your profits to some children's home or something? Or establish some drive for some anti-zealotry campaign?

forrestcupp
June 6th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Well, you've definitely come up with a topic that is sure to make a large thread.


Posting pro-Windows comments in these forums is just as bad as pro-Linux comments in Windows forums. If I thought otherwise, then that would be definite hypocrisy yes.

Then again, how many Windows zealots are there anyway? Windows doesn't have as large a passionate community as Linux and Mac do. You don't see as much zealotry from the former as you do the latter, which is why I'm focusing on the Linux crowd.

I disagree. There are more Windows zealots than there are Linux zealots; I know some. It's just that the proportion of Windows zealots to the masses of Windows users makes it seem like there aren't any. But they are definitely there. I've been ridiculed before just from mentioning that I use Linux.

About your original post. I can see most of your points. I think zealotry is ridiculous, but there is nothing wrong with advocacy. Trying to rack up converts to an OS is kind of crazy, but advocacy is more of a defensive term. While I think going on the offense is unnecessary, I don't see anything wrong with defending something that is meaningful to you.

entangled
June 6th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Only indirectly to do with Linux but, by failing to regulate the marketing of an OS,and accepting closed file formats the government has put itself over a Microsoft barrel. This is serious because our life is being run by computers, almost all with the same OS. Diversity is as necessary in computing, just as it is in life. If we accept monopoly we are all more vulnerable. Linux is just one of the essential alternatives to MSOS.

Dragonbite
June 6th, 2007, 01:49 PM
There is a thin line between advocacy and marketing.

To survive in this world, you need marketing and Linux/Open Source is not exempt.

arbulus
June 6th, 2007, 02:08 PM
You will always find radical elements in any group. The fact is the "I hate you for using Windows" element is a negligbile fraction of the Linux community.

On the other hand you have people who enjoy their computing experience with Linux and just use it everyday and don't really think about it. You also have those who are interested in making others aware that there is a choice. That right there is really the issue: most users in the world don't know that there are other OSes beside Windows. They don't know about/understand OSS, and some don't even understand what an operating system even is.

Say you have a friend who just tried to upgrade to Vista, and his computer can't handle it. He wants the goodies that Vista offers, but he can't afford to upgrade his hardware. He wants more than XP has to offer and is bothered by his perdicament. So you tell him that if he's interested, he could check out the newest verison of Ubuntu. You can install Beryl and have eve candy superior to that of Vista, comparable free alternatives to his most used software, and a secure system that doesn't have to be concerned with malware. Your friend has never heard of Linux, doesn't really know much about OSS, but is intrigued. So he takes home your Ubuntu live CD, checks it out and loves it. You've not "converted" or "forced" anything onto anyone. You've simply made someone else aware of a choice that they didn't know was there.

Conversely, he takes home your Live CD, dislikes it and can't quite wrap his head around it, saying that he'd really prefer to stick to Windows. So you rummage through your garage and find a few things that you can contibute to his yard sale so he can raise some money to buy more RAM and a new video card so Vista will work, and you go about your business.

Almost everyone here views GNU/Linux as it is: a choice. None of us would take a "with us or against us" mentality. Sure, if you spend a lot of time on digg.com, you'll see crazy zelots who will fight tooth and nail to defend their OS as a way of life, but that isn't reserved soley for Linux. And like I said, that is a vast minority.

You just have to remember that the biggest thing most of us are concerned with is education and information. People are just not aware of OSS and GNU/Linux. Educating people about their choices isn't the same as zelotry, and it's not about forcing aything on anyone. Just making them aware of alternatives.

Anon Coward
June 6th, 2007, 02:13 PM
I'm uh... not sure quite what I started here. I think I've said what I needed to say anyway. I'd accept forrestcupp's view the most - advocacy is fine in the appropriate situation, but push it too far and it becomes zealotry. Linux needs to be known, but it already has through word of mouth, and will continue. It will even have mainstream marketing situations like Indy cars (so long as they don't keep crashing).

The only thing I want to see is less... extreme advocates. Ones that take the purpose of an operating system too far, ones that believe the OS you use defines the type of person you are. Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean you should be disgusted with the moral stature of the person, can it? THAT's zealotry, and I know it means I'm focusing on a partiular forum member (needed an example, still nothing personal), but there you go. Certain people on Slashdot also fit the bill, but then again it's a haven for zealots so whether they're damaging the Linux image is debatable.

I also admit to wanting to "stir the hornet's nest" as Lucifiel stated (and I believe she went back to Windows after a while using Linux, does that make her immoral?). If it achieves at least some contemplation of the issue, the goal is achieved.

End post.

- Anon Coward (also once known as "FoolsGold", and occasionally "B. Gates" when bored). :)

megamania
June 6th, 2007, 02:19 PM
If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude.
[...]
I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live.

You're right: being preached to by someone is annoying. So why are you engaging in the storytelling yourself?

Why don't you live and let us live?

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 02:22 PM
The only thing I want to see is less... extreme advocates. Ones that take the purpose of an operating system too far, ones that believe the OS you use defines the type of person you are. Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean you should be disgusted with the moral stature of the person, can it? THAT's zealotry, and I know it means I'm focusing on a partiular forum member (needed an example, still nothing personal), but there you go. Certain people on Slashdot also fit the bill, but then again it's a haven for zealots so whether they're damaging the Linux image is debatable.

Oh thanks, pick on the moral guy who supports open source software by writing damn code. ;-)

As for your views that operating systems aren't important, they are. I've seen too much damage done, too many technologies destroyed and too many frustrated developers and web designers to think that something as important as an operating system can be left to the business greed. Imagen a hammer seller who had control of the legal system so he could dictate when you could use your hammer and what you could hit with it; to the point where you can't hit nails that aren't made by them. then you can't put the nails in wood not from the hammer makers. this is the insanity we have with Microsoft and it's people that don't see it as important that is causing a lot of the trouble. god sometimes I wish people had backbone.

No, being sorrowful at the moral stature of fellow humans is not zealotry. I reserve the right to feel sorry for who I like.

EdThaSlayer
June 6th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Just think of a world without Linux zealots. That would be far worse! Linux then would have never gotten popular and as advanced as it is today.

BatsotO
June 6th, 2007, 03:01 PM
I recall many comment in this forum in favour for windows, and other closed software. Many linux user still use windows for their own reason, I do not dare call them zealot or anything. Sure there are linux zealot all over any linux forum, but for what reason? why they became zealot?
posting "pro-windows" comment in this forum sure will ignite those zealot, but do not forget more reasonable responses that happens to be there.
Windows has never (or will) achieved large passionate community linux enjoyed. Why? oh I wonder about that myself. But there are windows Zealot out there, Balmer maybe if I can name one. And this one guy found himself in the crowd of windows zealots http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=464913
But again, word zealotry is rather not suited for microsoft, the more widely known words are predatory marketing and monopoly.

Speaking for my self, stopping zealotry is okay. But I will not stop advocating linux, I will tell as many peple I can on what can be achieved by using linux (cutting budget is the first on the list) and what they will miss if they migrate from windows (virus is on the top of the list). This is fair is it?

proalan
June 6th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Hi, anonymous coward here. /waves

The following could be consider trolling, but it's not intended as such. It's a reflection of how I feel the Linux community is holding themselves back.

I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.

If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system? The same people who hate being hassled about a religion by others, seem to be quite content on doing the same thing to others and trying to convert people into using their favorite OS. It's hypocrisy.

Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is. Zealots aren't pragmatic. Linux, just like Windows or OS X or any other operating system, is a tool and should not be a way of life. The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive. There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something. Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.

/dons a really, really enormous flame suit.

Welcome to Linux Mr Gates:p

aysiu
June 6th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I think I already wrote about this issue:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/zealots

P.S. I wrote that a long time ago. The principles remain, but the details have changed. Macs are now Intel, and I no longer dual boot for iTunes.

starcraft.man
June 6th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Geez, why did this Troll like/inflammatory post get 7 pages of responses (I didn't read more than the first page)? Does everyone have that much time to waste? Honestly, it just doesn't seem productive...

The only thing I'd like to add is that I've never been preachy in talking about Linux. I have talked about it in random conversation and people around me have chosen to try it out (when interested) and some "converted" to it. It was their choice. Simply informing people that there are alternatives to Windows not requiring one buy a Mac isn't zealotry in my book.

aysiu
June 6th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Geez, why did this Troll like/inflammatory post get 7 pages of responses (I didn't read more than the first page) Don't you know? If you want to get 7 pages of responses quickly, you post something inflammatory... or something tame expressed in an inflammatory way.

starcraft.man
June 6th, 2007, 03:44 PM
Don't you know? If you want to get 7 pages of responses quickly, you post something inflammatory... or something tame expressed in an inflammatory way.

*sigh* Right... sadly. *walks off of the thread*

Lord Illidan
June 6th, 2007, 03:45 PM
At one point, I was a fierce Zealot. I used to get in fights at school because I defended Linux so passionately, and I hated MS with the same passion. What did I earn? Nothing, except a lot of ridicule.

Take for example, the shipit cds. Zealotry would be giving them out to all and sundry...making it look like a jehovah witness sect or something (no offense intended to them, but that's what they do around here).

It's one thing to give a cd or recommend Linux to a guy/gal who really needs it, or who is looking for a choice. Like, s/he comes and tells you : Listen, I got bored of this Windows, it is crashing, and I am losing my data. You get his details of his specs, see if a particular distro would work on his computer, give him the distro, and wish him luck. That's good.

However, forcing Linux down the throat of someone who is happy with Windows is plain zealotry. And it is counter productive. Especially if he is a pro gamer, or uses software which will not work on Linux.

Then, one has to avoid looking like a dingbat. The days when Windows bluescreened every 5 seconds are thankfully gone. Also, one shouldn't advertise Linux blindly. If I know that Joe is using his computer for browsing/e-mail/docs etc, then I can tell him that Linux can do everything that Windows can do. On the other hand, I'd be a poor friend if Joe is a hard core gamer, and I tell him to wipe out Windows and install Linux because Linux is better. He might do it, and then he will probably regret it. Of course, if you convince him to do a dualboot, then that is not so bad.

There is a fine line, but I think one must stop short at regarding Linux like a religion. If anything, the "religion" would be FLOSS. I am not ridiculing FLOSS, I just think of practicality. An example is this: Are the nv drivers better than the nvidia drivers? For the guy who doesn't need 3D drivers, perhaps they are the same as the nvidia drivers. The fact that they are opensource is icing on the cake to him. On the other hand, a gamer doesn't care sh** if they are opensource or not. Software should not be advertised just on the merits of being opensource, it should be advertised on its merits as software first, then it's license.

JAPrufrock
June 6th, 2007, 03:47 PM
It absolutely amazes me the number of Linux users who don't understant anything about FOSS, the FSM, etc., and who have no idea of the danger that companies like Microsoft present to the world. Unbelievable!

Lord Illidan
June 6th, 2007, 03:52 PM
It absolutely amazes me the number of Linux users who don't understant anything about FOSS, the FSM, etc., and who have no idea of the danger that companies like Microsoft present to the world. Unbelievable!

Ok...what danger?

wieman01
June 6th, 2007, 03:53 PM
Ok...what danger?
World domination. ;-)

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Software should not be advertised on the merits of being opensource

I completely disagree, but I have removed the rest of my reply in order to not drag this out.

Adamant1988
June 6th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Hi, anonymous coward here. /waves

The following could be consider trolling, but it's not intended as such. It's a reflection of how I feel the Linux community is holding themselves back.

I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.

If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system? The same people who hate being hassled about a religion by others, seem to be quite content on doing the same thing to others and trying to convert people into using their favorite OS. It's hypocrisy.

Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is. Zealots aren't pragmatic. Linux, just like Windows or OS X or any other operating system, is a tool and should not be a way of life. The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive. There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something. Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.

/dons a really, really enormous flame suit.

While, I agree with the idea of this post, the details are wrong in a few places. There is a group of people in every industry that will refuse to use another competitors product on moral grounds. This may be because said competitor uses slave labor, harms the environment, etc. In the situation with Microsoft many users feel that Microsoft is now playing the role of 'big brother' trying to watch them, milk them for their money, and infringe on their rights as users. This is why many people choose to boycott Microsoft products.

The group you are speak of does exist, but it's unfortunately impossible to tell them from the people with a real moral dilemma right off. I certainly do understand where you're coming from, but please do understand that (most times) the developers of application, and the software we use in the open source community ARE more pragmatic and understanding. Those are the people that matter.

mangar
June 6th, 2007, 04:33 PM
quiet advertising, imho, works best.
I've just put 10 ubuntu cd's from shipit on top of my cubicle (it's more of a fourcubile, we're four people in there), people asked questions, i've answered. at the end of the day, only one cd was left.

FuturePilot
June 6th, 2007, 04:40 PM
The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

There is something to be gained by not using closed source software, or at least trying to be as free (open source) as possible. If enough people do it, things will begin to change.

az
June 6th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Geez, why did this Troll like/inflammatory post get 7 pages of responses (I didn't read more than the first page)? Does everyone have that much time to waste? Honestly, it just doesn't seem productive...


Some of it is actually a good question, though. While saying The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software is a little bit over the top(Who are you to tell me what I should run?), the fact that all this software is free of cost does bring up a lot of questions (if it's free, it's can't be any good) and so Advocacy/Education/Evangelization is necessary.

Taking the OP's pragmatic stance disregards all the advantages FLOSS offers over freeware. For example, a GPLed application will never close down and become proprietary. The same can't be said for freeware, which is basically distributed for free until they have enough users to start charging for it. This is an example of something that is not obvious to someone who is used to proprietary software.

Beyond the pragmatic aspects of the software itself, software freedom is a completely different topic in of itself. In modern countries, your culture and rights and freedoms are lived out using computers. It is pertinent to keep an eye on your rights to make sure that you do not have to sacrifice your privacy (or simply your right to chose what software your computer runs) just so that you can fill out a form for your taxes or view a document for your kids' healthcare. Anyone want to make fun of that?

NeoLithium
June 6th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Looks like I got in on this late, but oh well. He did have a few good points, like a lot of people have stated throguh the thread, however there's a lot being brought up that always has to be added to things like this.

1) Yes, there are linux zealots and even those from the Linux community who ride a tall horse, though they are few and far between. There always are a few that fly around other boards for Microsoft or OSX and run the banner of their respective operating systems sucking. This entire practice is wrong. It happens from a few select, childish people on all fronts, be it Linux, Microsoft or OSX user.

2) I, like a lot of people don't refuse Microsoft software in anyway. However I have barely, if any use at all for it, with all the open sourced alternatives to it. Zealot? I think not. I call it using my freedom of choice to do things the way I want, when I want it within legal guidelines.

3) I have approximately 4 people that I've introduced to Linux and they are (mostly) running Ubuntu, a select few still dual boot. Do I mock them for it? No. Did I run to their house and scream INSTALL THIS OR YOU'RE A CORPORATE STOOGE! No. They came to me, asking about some other alternatives because they had problems with XP and Vista, and thusly were looking for an alternative.

4) On this board, you'll see the occasional thread that people say they are giving up and moving back to Microsoft, in which case a lot of us jump in quickly and tell them to not give up so easily. It's not like some cult! It's because the person who writes that thread usually feels overwhelmed or uncomfortable asking questions, in which case we are here to completely support them and let them feel welcome in the community, giving them a good experience and some information to take in. Should they choose to go back to Microsoft or OSX after that, so be it. At least we did our jobs, to make them feel welcome and help them in any way we can.

I'd probably have some more but I haven't had enough coffee yet, and I just woke up. LOL.

Lord Illidan
June 6th, 2007, 06:15 PM
I completely disagree, but I have removed the rest of my reply in order to not drag this out.

Ok. Software should not be advertised purely on the merits of being opensource. Is that better?

the_darkside_986
June 6th, 2007, 06:16 PM
I think the ideal world is one in which the market share is 25% Windows, 25% Open-source OS (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), 25% Mac, and 25% Other (whatever I didn't think of or would exist in the future.) This would be fair for everyone because software developers would have to port their stuff to all the main 3 platforms instead of only Windows.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to run only free open source software. I've had some major problems with closed-source software so I understand why one would take such a stance. But I have to use nvidia drivers for 3D.

.t.
June 6th, 2007, 06:20 PM
I don't advocate "Linux". I advocate the attitude 'it' has towards community and development; open source software, and in a wider sense, socialism. I believe that a community driven by a love of what they do, rather than financial profits, can produce far more innovative, more usable products than that of a company, which will want to keep users within its reaches; locking them in. I advocate Ubuntu as a good choice of operating system, as I believe it to be one of the easiest to use, and it definitely has the strongest community I've come across in the free software world.

I choose not to use closed-source software, because it goes against what I "stand for", and I enjoy having an ideology I can respect and implement. I don't like when people disrespect that of me, or of my ideology; but I fail to see how, should that desire to out-do others for financial gain be removed, people could knock any open source society, which is strong because of its existence, and its own collaboration.

Lord Illidan
June 6th, 2007, 06:22 PM
I think the ideal world is one in which the market share is 25% Windows, 25% Open-source OS (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), 25% Mac, and 25% Other (whatever I didn't think of or would exist in the future.) This would be fair for everyone because software developers would have to port their stuff to all the main 3 platforms instead of only Windows.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to run only free open source software. I've had some major problems with closed-source software so I understand why one would take such a stance. But I have to use nvidia drivers for 3D.

Ideal world is just that..ideal. An utopia which may or may not exist in the future. Personally, I think the ideal is better standards, or computers and oses so advanced that they can virtualise other platforms on the fly.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with that. I think I run 98% open source software, except for some games (UT-2004 and Quake 4), and the nvidia drivers, also I play mp3s.

But there is nothing wrong with running closed source software. The software itself hasn't got anything "evil", it's the manufacturer...if you can call them evil.

JAPrufrock
June 6th, 2007, 06:27 PM
Ok...what danger?

All the bad things that monopolies bring to the world- both directly and indirectly- including degradation of the environment and global warming. DoctorMO has answered in part, as he has on numerous occasions in other threads. Let me retire from this thread also, before this turns into an ideological war and is backyarded.

forrestcupp
June 6th, 2007, 07:30 PM
All the bad things that monopolies bring to the world- both directly and indirectly- including degradation of the environment and global warming. DoctorMO has answered in part, as he has on numerous occasions in other threads. Let me retire from this thread also, before this turns into an ideological war and is backyarded.

I thought President Bush was the cause of global warming.

Adamant1988
June 6th, 2007, 07:33 PM
I thought President Bush was the cause of global warming.

No way, global warming is caused by tyrannical software companies! Everyone knows that!

az
June 6th, 2007, 07:35 PM
I think the ideal world is one in which the market share is 25% Windows, 25% Open-source OS (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), 25% Mac, and 25% Other (whatever I didn't think of or would exist in the future.) This would be fair for everyone because software developers would have to port their stuff to all the main 3 platforms instead of only Windows.

I (having been accused of being a FLOSS zealot) think the ideal world is one where market share is what it is - determined by the market. If 98 percent of people are not interested yet in running a free-libre open source OS, it's their choice. That in no way diminishes the need for software freedom, though. In other words, it's not about what you run, just don't make me rune something if I don't think I should have to.


I don't advocate "Linux". I advocate the attitude 'it' has towards community and development; open source software, and in a wider sense, socialism. I believe that a community driven by a love of what they do, rather than financial profits, can produce far more innovative, more usable products than that of a company, which will want to keep users within its reaches; locking them in.

Er... FLOSS is a multi-billion dollar industry. Something like two thirds of all FLOSS contributers are paid full-time to do so. It's just an industry that creates opportunities by *not* locking customers into closed software and closed formats.

maniacmusician
June 6th, 2007, 08:09 PM
I think you are painting with too broad a brush here. Intrusive preaching and zealotry are certainly counter-productive (IMO) in any endevour. But introducing someone to Linux or putting an ubuntu sticker on a laptop and answering questions from interested people is marketing - not advocacy.

I want ubuntu (and Linux) to succeed - admitedly for selfish reasons. The more users, testers and developers there are, the better it becomes and I get more satisfaction.

Examples of things I don't consider zealotry or preaching:

Simon remarks that his computer is slow and that he's thinking of upgrading his machine and using Vista. Aubrey says "Have you considered using Linux? Your machine is more than capable of running it quite fast, " and offers to show him ubuntu.

Mike asks Aubrey what anti-virus software he uses and how much it costs. Aubrey says "I use Linux and I don't have to worry abot viruses. Here, have an Ubuntu Live CD and try it if you want."

The local LUG takes a stall at a computer fair to provide information on Linux. Aubrey volunteers to spend a couple of hours and takes his ubuntu-powered laptop to demonstrate.

Is this advocacy? zealotry?
Bumping this post as it was probably the most sane post in this thread.

forrestcupp
June 6th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Er... FLOSS is a multi-billion dollar industry. Something like two thirds of all FLOSS contributers are paid full-time to do so. It's just an industry that creates opportunities by *not* locking customers into closed software and closed formats.

I've heard you say this a lot, but where exactly does the multi-billion dollars come from and where does it go? Who is it that is making this kind of money from FLOSS? Are you talking about people who make money from using FLOSS, or people actually making money from the software itself? I'm not trying to argue with you; I sincerely want to know this.

Mark Martin
June 6th, 2007, 08:46 PM
No way, global warming is caused by tyrannical software companies! Everyone knows that!

and the earths natural cycles of course....

az
June 6th, 2007, 08:52 PM
I've heard you say this a lot, but where exactly does the multi-billion dollars come from and where does it go? Who is it that is making this kind of money from FLOSS? Are you talking about people who make money from using FLOSS, or people actually making money from the software itself? I'm not trying to argue with you; I sincerely want to know this.

Free-libre open source is not about selling software, it's about using software. You say "making money from the software itself", but that does not only mean selling it.

Where does it come from? Quote: The information economy is a large market. Including the provision of infrastructure and services for the creation, exchange and processing of information and communication services as well as the sales of information itself, this market is now in the range of 10% of GDP in most developed countries, and accounts for more than half of their economic growth. Software is one of the key elements driving ICTs’ role in the economy, and the structure, competitiveness, performance of the ICT industry has potential to be strongly affected by Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS1).

So, just about all Infomation and Communication Technology industries rely on FLOSS. If it were not there, they would not be able to operate, or they would not be able to operate for a profit. That's why they invest in it (pay programmers)
Quote: Proprietary packaged software firms account for well below 10% of employment of software developers in the U.S., and “IT user” firms account for over 70% of software developers employed with a similar salary (and thus skill) level.


Quote:
Defined broadly, FLOSS-related services could reach a 32% share of all IT services by
2010, and the FLOSS-related share of the economy could reach 4% of European GDP by
2010. FLOSS directly supports the 29% share of software that is developed in-house in
the EU (43% in the U.S.), and provides the natural model for software development for
the secondary software sector.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf

visionaire
June 6th, 2007, 09:27 PM
i would even paid for a closed source software for Linux if is what i need/like...

DoctorMO
June 6th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Today I would seriously consider any purchase and installation of closed source software. Do you think the linux platform would have nearly as many troubles with printing if TurboPrint didn't exist or didn't sell many copies? instead users and printer makers have become complacent about offering or having support available by default. no one seems to ask why windows and mac osx get free drivers and yet linux users have to pay for official support.

Every time we hear of a section of our computer use that has been converted from closed source to open source we suddenly see a surge in innovation and improvement.

It's not wrong to run proprietory software in order to get a job done, but we should never give up on wanting to push back the level of open source; it's in our own interests to push every proprietory add-on currently into the open source world just to make our lives easier and the code better for everyone.

Those who advocate use of proprietory software without mitigation of thought are hurting that area of computer operation and cutting back on innovation and progress.

zugu
June 6th, 2007, 10:05 PM
Oh, my! You all got trolled SO hard. OP is clearly a troll. Any good troll makes some good points, in order to appear as legit, has a low number of posts and receives a high amount of replies. Even his/her nick can give you clues. On Slashdot, people engaging in trolling activities are usually posting anonimously, and the system automatically lables them as "Anonymous Coward".

Replies such as "While I agree with some of your statements, I think you're wrong when you asume..." are proof of a succesfull troll.

I bet he/she is laughing at all of you right now, closely watching the thread as you people try to prove him/her wrong. Really, where are the moderators when you need them?

jgrabham
June 6th, 2007, 10:06 PM
I think he's gone!

Spr0k3t
June 6th, 2007, 10:16 PM
My complaint is about advocacy elsewhere, particularly when it's unnecessary or unwanted. Injecting pro-linux anti-MS advocacy in a support site for Windows is a no no,

You have just confused zealotry with advocacy. Advocacy is wanted education where as zealotry is exactly what you speak of in the quoted text. Don't get them confused... again.

Zealot: Excessive zeal; fanaticism; One who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being too passionate; a fanatic.

Advocate: A person who argues the case of another, such as a lawyer in a court.

The devil's advocate never spouted without rhyme or reason, there was always an initial thought prior to the advocate provoking said thought further.

Now then... please use the terms correctly so we can all understand your grief a little better.

Now then, are you upset with those who advocate the use of Linux in general or are you miffed at those who wry out in fits of rage eschewing forth their miscreants on the likes of mergatroid?

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 10:20 PM
maybe this thread should just die....
R.I.P

scrooge_74
June 6th, 2007, 10:45 PM
maybe this thread should just die....
R.I.P

I second it

SoulinEther
June 7th, 2007, 12:00 AM
What about Windows zealots? Why don't you see any of them? Because everybody and their mother uses Windows? Get out...

If we have Linux zealots here today, just imagine the Windows zealots if Linux took over. Every commercial on tv would be for Windows.

I am being a little biased here, but that's my advocacy of Linux talking, not my zealousness.

And I'm intrigued about your analogy to religions.. do you think religions just "grabbed" ALL of their members? There's no way. Especially before the 20th and 21st centuries where information is very much available, word of mouth and missionaries were two important methods of carrying on a religion. You can't force a religion on somebody, and I'm sure most religions preach this. You can't force anything on anybody, and most everybody knows this. But you can offer new ideas, new concepts, new choices to a person, and let their current beliefs and values guide them to whichever path they end up taking.


Pardon, I just skipped 5 pages because it was all the same. :X

Adamant1988
June 7th, 2007, 12:25 AM
What about Windows zealots? Why don't you see any of them? Because everybody and their mother uses Windows? Get out...

If we have Linux zealots here today, just imagine the Windows zealots if Linux took over. Every commercial on tv would be for Windows.

I am being a little biased here, but that's my advocacy of Linux talking, not my zealousness.

And I'm intrigued about your analogy to religions.. do you think religions just "grabbed" ALL of their members? There's no way. Especially before the 20th and 21st centuries where information is very much available, word of mouth and missionaries were two important methods of carrying on a religion. You can't force a religion on somebody, and I'm sure most religions preach this. You can't force anything on anybody, and most everybody knows this. But you can offer new ideas, new concepts, new choices to a person, and let their current beliefs and values guide them to whichever path they end up taking.


Pardon, I just skipped 5 pages because it was all the same. :X

Although, I know this will end up on the back-yard. What religions did was manipulate the minds of people into believing that whatever they say is true. So... Yeah, I can see the comparison there. A lot of people treat the free software philosophy as a religion in many ways.

JAPrufrock
June 7th, 2007, 01:47 AM
I third it. Die thread die!

forrestcupp
June 7th, 2007, 02:59 AM
It's not wrong to run proprietory software in order to get a job done, but we should never give up on wanting to push back the level of open source; it's in our own interests to push every proprietory add-on currently into the open source world just to make our lives easier and the code better for everyone.


Wow, that's the closest thing I've seen you say on this topic to something I agree with.

Now you can kill the thread.

bg11
June 7th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is.

...Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive.

... Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

...So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux.


The business of operating systems and computing in general is, in many countries, a multi-billion dollar industry. Many people would rather not have to pay for proprietary software when adequate open source alternatives are available.

As an example, students may have to submit essays/reports/presentations in a proprietary format, which will cost them (or the taxpayer) a relatively large amount of money since most students have fairly low budgets.

Most people simply aren't aware of a choice and have never heard of the terms linux or open source. I don't think people would be nearly as angry at proprietary software if they weren't forced to use it and forced to pay money for it.

Would you get angry if you were forced to buy a more expensive brand instead of a cheap one? What if you found it hard to pay for it?

Baelfael
June 7th, 2007, 04:35 AM
Hi, anonymous coward here. /waves

The following could be consider trolling, but it's not intended as such. It's a reflection of how I feel the Linux community is holding themselves back.

I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.

If you're not of a particular religious faith, I'm sure you'll agree that being preached to by someone of a certain faith about how good their religion is can be annoying, frustrating and downright rude. We don't want that, so why do people think advocacy is good with regards to an operating system? The same people who hate being hassled about a religion by others, seem to be quite content on doing the same thing to others and trying to convert people into using their favorite OS. It's hypocrisy.

Another thing - some people lack perspective over just how important (or not) an operating system is. Zealots aren't pragmatic. Linux, just like Windows or OS X or any other operating system, is a tool and should not be a way of life. The worst kinds are those who refuse to touch closed-source software, refuse to deal with ANYTHING related to Microsoft, and so on. We live in a Windows world; you gain NOTHING by cutting yourself off from the rest of the world by exercising deliberate ignorance about Windows. Even if you prefer Linux, you'll look like an idiot because you can't open this document or view this page due to lack of plugins or whatever. It might even cost you a job in extreme cases, and for what? Because you managed to stick it to Microsoft by not using MS software? *Clap, clap*.

I'm not saying people shouldn't use Linux. I'm saying that you should be pragmatic. If people happen to see your OS and show interest, and come up to you to talk, THEN engage in the storytelling. Otherwise, live and let live. Also, direct your fiery energy away from a corporation like Microsoft, and towards something useful, like volunteer work or something. Being angry about a company which is simply doing what their shareholders want them to do (i.e. make them craploads of money) is hardly productive. There's a certain fellow here (name starts with M, resides in London, I think he's a programmer) who things it's "immoral" to use closed-source/Microsoft software, any anyone who does is greedy and lacking in willpower or something. Well let me tell you Mr. M, perhaps my morals are reserved for the more IMPORTANT things life than some damn operating system. Geez, grow up already.

So, my point: Computers are a tool. Operating systems are a tool. Use them as you will, but don't put so much attention to them or you'll make it seems as though you have nothing else in your life except for Linux. Advocacy/zealotry behavior MUST stop or we run the risk of pissing others off, or making them take the Linux movement far less seriously. That's how I see it.

/dons a really, really enormous flame suit.
Linux is simply cleaner and better than Windoze.

blastus
June 7th, 2007, 04:48 AM
As long as Microsoft continues to politically and publically advocate against, spread FUD and lies against, legally threaten, and be ham-fisted about anything related to the GPL, FOSS, and Linux; you can expect that those who value the benefits that the GPL and FOSS has brought millions of people around the world, will continue to advocate for the GPL, FOSS, and Linux to the same degree that Microsoft advocates against these things.

The bottom line is keeping the Internet an open platform. The GPL, FOSS, and Linux cannot exist without an open Internet. This means that open standards and open formats advocacy are absolutely critical to the success of FOSS and Linux. It is not a coincidence that the GPL is very conducive to an open Internet. IBM learned this lesson years ago and changed their business model. Microsoft doesn't yet realize that they cannot control the Internet.

Dragonbite
June 7th, 2007, 01:56 PM
What about Windows zealots? Why don't you see any of them? Hmm, is that like seeing dead people?

You DO see them.. the thing is that they don't have to work themselves up to a lather as much since they are teh "standard" so most of them you see as Fanboys and Trolls, but they are really zealots.

Mac zealots, well you see THEM all over the place. That's one thing that turned me off from Macs (that and I could get a 100% up-to-date Ubuntu on a system without shelling the $$$ for a new Mac running at 1/2 the speed of Intels (at the time).)

forrestcupp
June 7th, 2007, 02:22 PM
Free-libre open source is not about selling software, it's about using software. You say "making money from the software itself", but that does not only mean selling it.

Where does it come from? Quote: The information economy is a large market. Including the provision of infrastructure and services for the creation, exchange and processing of information and communication services as well as the sales of information itself, this market is now in the range of 10% of GDP in most developed countries, and accounts for more than half of their economic growth. Software is one of the key elements driving ICTs’ role in the economy, and the structure, competitiveness, performance of the ICT industry has potential to be strongly affected by Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS1).

So, just about all Infomation and Communication Technology industries rely on FLOSS. If it were not there, they would not be able to operate, or they would not be able to operate for a profit. That's why they invest in it (pay programmers)
Quote: Proprietary packaged software firms account for well below 10% of employment of software developers in the U.S., and “IT user” firms account for over 70% of software developers employed with a similar salary (and thus skill) level.


Quote:
Defined broadly, FLOSS-related services could reach a 32% share of all IT services by
2010, and the FLOSS-related share of the economy could reach 4% of European GDP by
2010. FLOSS directly supports the 29% share of software that is developed in-house in
the EU (43% in the U.S.), and provides the natural model for software development for
the secondary software sector.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf

So the multi-billion dollar thing is from companies that pay their in house programmers to develop specialized software for them rather than buying proprietary stuff from another company, is that right? My cousin's husband is a programmer for Captain D's restaurants similar to what you are saying. But my question is, do you really think the statistics are that high that all of these companies actually use the GPL license for their in-house software?

az
June 7th, 2007, 03:41 PM
But my question is, do you really think the statistics are that high that all of these companies actually use the GPL license for their in-house software?

You don't need to license software that you don't distribute. So the GPL does not even come into play. The point is that if all the tools, utilities and infrastructure that FLOSS provides for these people was not there, these people would not have jobs, nor would their companies be able to function as well. The way you make money through FLOSS is through services and support. You make computers do stuff.

For example, Google clusters millions of servers together. Every day, they add thousands of units to their clusters. Do you think they use a free-libre OS for each rackmounted server or one for which they need to pay licencing fees per unit? If they did not have the choice, do you think they would still be in business? Would the internet be what it is today if that were the case?

While google does not sell software, they make a lot of money by providing a service (advertising) and they are very dependent on FLOSS to do what they do. That's why they invest quite a lot into FLOSS.

Pobega
June 7th, 2007, 04:35 PM
OP, so you're saying that because I refuse to use non-free/proprietary programs that makes me a zealot? I don't remember the last time I tried to convert someone, because that never happened. I boycott Microsoft in my house because I don't agree with their business practices, I boycott Apple because of how they take advantage of their customers, and I boycott Adobe because of the price tag they put on Photoshop (No program, under no circumstances should cost more than $600.00).

So if I don't have Adobe's flash player that makes me a zealot? What if I told you I actually like the internet better without flash, and probably won't be installing Gnash ever?

Some of the points you made were very true (Mostly about the Linux zealotry and trying to convert everyone), but I don't think attacking free software is the way to try to get your point across. Some people don't eat meat because they don't believe in killing animals, in the same way that some people don't use non-free software because they don't agree with their business standards. I'm not expecting Adobe to lower their prices because of this post, or Apple to become more customer-friendly because of my views, but the way I see it is if there is one less user using their products, that is $X amount of money less for them.

And with Debian GNU/Linux being an alternative that works even better than it's proprietary competition (Both on the server and on the desktop), I can't blame the zealots for being the way they are.

burt_57
June 7th, 2007, 08:50 PM
GNU/Linux is an OS that is under a license that reduces cost, increases choice, reduces bugs, etc. so even in the utilitarian viewpoint, the license DOES make it a good thing. I really hope you are not an MS or PR-firm employee or being paid to do this...
I think he or she is :)

elcasey
June 8th, 2007, 05:57 AM
Wow, 11 pages...I'm sure others have said this, but I'm not going to read 11 pages of the stuff.

Software freedom is not about an OS. While I try to convert my tech-savvy friends to GNU/Linux, I do not try to get my Mom or my grandmother (RIP) or other "end (l)users" to convert to GNU/Linux. It's not a viable desktop OS at this time, although I think Ubuntu has made admirable and very tangible strides to that effect.

Software freedom can exist on a Win32 platform. Free software can be a Win32 platform (see ReactOS). That's exactly what we need for end users.

But free software, and all the unpopular (in a corporate, absurdly capitalist sense) opinions and ideas it entails, is nothing to be ashamed of. Should anyone be ashamed or even try to rationalize the advocacy of freedom? Of course not.

Join the FSF, support (if you want) the Ubuntu project and support GNU/Linux. But at the end of the day, it's not about GNU/Linux and certainly not about Ubuntu...it's about freedom, full stop. If you can't respect (and advocate) freedom, then I've nothing more to say to you.

woodsmoke
June 8th, 2007, 08:16 AM
Anon...coward....wrote:



I'm rather confused as to why people insist on Linux advocacy, or even worse, zealotry behavior. It's one thing to be a fan of an operating system, but it's another to start attempting to convert others to see things the way you do.


Unfortunately......you will never know until you've actually confronted Darkseid and stared into his face....felt his hot breath on your face......

and THEN.......you will know....

until then.....it is all....just .....sophistry.

woodsmoke