PDA

View Full Version : Linux evangelists are like Ron Paul supporters



Washer
February 18th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Both of them are pushing something nobody cares about. Look, I use linux exclusively. My own brother lived with a virus in his XP laptop for half a year because (his words) "all it did was display the occasional popup". Yes, even alt-tabbing him while he was gaming. You think anybody using facebook cares about privacy? It's the same principle.

The sad part is you don't even gain anything from converting anybody to linux. At least ron paul supporters get more votes. You get users who suck up canonical's bandwidth without paying a cent then inevitably come here to spam "how to play mp3??" That neighbor of yours who you introduced to linux -- you think he's ever going to write a line of code in his life?

I think we should look more carefully at who we are, what we're doing & what we really want. First of all, this is charity work. There's no direct benefit to increasing the userbase. You personally don't get anything (unless canonical employs you?), OOo doesn't get anything, & Stallman doesn't get anything. It's admirable because it is charity work, but when you find yourself caring more about the mud huts than the natives do, you gotta figure something's wrong.

Secondly, many indirect benefits can be had by pushing people onto macs instead. Most noobs would be much happier there anyway. If you want IE to stop messing with web standards, increased safari usage has much the same effect as increased firefox usage. Malware starts to lose its efficacy fast when only 1/3 or 1/4 of attempts hit the right browser

Third, perhaps linux is perfectly fine with <1% maket share. Yahoo gets more users than google (http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500), but much less money because yahoo users are poor (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/16/poor-people-use-yahoo-those-better-off-use-google/). We've done a fine job marketting FOSS to devs & we have lots of world class tech to show for it. A large userbase feels nice & all but it's not the point, is it?

Scheater5
February 18th, 2008, 10:57 PM
I love these arguments about OS loyalty. I'm honestly curious, what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm not saying that what you have to say isn't valid or even true, but all these arguments have been laid out hundreds of times before. You make a lovely point - you're just not the first. Unfortunately, you won't be the last.

imT
February 18th, 2008, 10:58 PM
i find linux about a year ago because xp was getting frustrating to reinstall, lagg and all the win related craps.
i tested several distro's, i downloaded a bunch of ebooks with linux related content and a few months ago i "permanently" switched to linux, so i'm a kind of a n00b/newbie (i confuse these two :) ) and it had been a lot easyer to me if someone had pointed me that exists other operating systems than win and mac earlyer;
so i don't think that spreading the word is a useless thing, people must know that exist an alternative to their os even thou they decide to stick with their old one...

johndc
February 18th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Amen, brother.

I also feel that the vast majority of vocal (read: loudmouth) Linux/FOSS evangelists are vocal simply for the sake of being vocal. They need to rebel against something, and Microsoft is the big bad wolf du jour, so they embrace FOSS as some sort of radical cause. I feel very few of them truly embrace the idea of the whole thing.

I applaud your post, as it expresses something I personally have felt for a long time.

And no, it's not the first time someone has said what Washer has said (though I think he was rather spot-on here with his analogy and wording). But it is something worth repeating now and again.

julian67
February 18th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Who is Ron Paul and what does he do? Should I care? I'm assuming you're from USA and that you're assuming something too.....that the rest of the world should all know/care what you're talking about :lolflag:

mivo
February 18th, 2008, 11:04 PM
I don't actually try to shove Linux on people, but I do mention it when people complain about Windows issues they have, or when they mention how slow their computer runs. Many people do care, they just don't know that there are alternatives. The stigma that Linux is only for severs is deeply rooted.

And, of course, there is something to gain: A larger market share means better hardware support and more commercial software. I'd not mind to be able to just buy any laptop or any brand-new game and know that it will work with Linux.

But an OS is a tool for me, not a religion. I enjoyed the Atari/Amiga wars twenty years ago, but I no longer have the time or interest for OS missionary work. ;)

Scheater5
February 18th, 2008, 11:06 PM
n00b/newbie.
Ehh...traditionally newbie just means someone new, and noob means someone making stupid mistakes who's new. But at the heart of the matter, it's slang and difficult to put dictionary-style definitions on either of them.

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2008, 11:06 PM
What are you trying to accomplish with this flamebait of a post?

JordanII
February 18th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Since I'm both I guess it's a good thing that they're alike. :D

But a lot of people care about Ron Paul (or at least would if they heard about him), the reason he doesn't have much visible support is because the mainstream media is COMPLETELY ignoring him. For instance, when he got 2nd in the Nevada primaries Fox showed 1th, 3th, 4th, and 5th place, but NOT 2nd! In the county that I did a good amount of door to door campaigning for Dr Paul he did fairly well, while in the majority of the rest of the state (MI) he did pretty badly.

If people actually heard about him he would spread like wildfire. The problem is, a lot of Americans are made to think he dropped out because of the mainstream media.

jrusso2
February 18th, 2008, 11:10 PM
Personally I would love to see Linux spread and grow but to do this will require both a combination of Open Source and Closed source software and drivers that a vocal group of linux supporters seem to disdain.

They use words like restricted, ugly, non free in their descriptions yet just about all of them use it except the extreme purists like RMS who won't even listen to an mp3

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2008, 11:17 PM
Personally I would love to see Linux spread and grow but to do this will require both a combination of Open Source and Closed source software and drivers that a vocal group of linux supporters seem to disdain.

They use words like restricted, ugly, non free in their descriptions yet just about all of them use it except the extreme purists like RMS who won't even listen to an mp3

Closed source drivers are both extremely dangerous security and stability issue in Linux, and possibly illegal under the GPL. For instance, if there is a huge security hole in a properitary driver (and it has happened before!), the Linux and Ubuntu developers literally can't do ANYTHING about it. It's basically like handing the security and stability of your OS to a 3rd party. :mad:

It's a big enough issue that even Linux Mint with their stance on proprietary software and codecs don't bundle use any proprietary drivers by default.

Washer
February 18th, 2008, 11:18 PM
I love these arguments about OS loyalty. I'm honestly curious, what do you hope to accomplish? I don't know. This is a forum for ideas, isn't it? I've seen more pointless posts around.

az
February 18th, 2008, 11:20 PM
Both of them are pushing something nobody cares about.

I disagree on all counts. Software Freedom is about the right to know what your computer is doing. It's about not having to choose to give up your freedoms so that you can run some software.

Lots of people said the same thing you are saying about segregation generations ago. People laughed at them, then. Everything has its time.

One doesn't have to give back to the community. There is no leeching. The fact is that if someone wants to contribute code (or documentation, artwork or advocacy, for that matter - it's not just about programming) they can. If they don't, no one is less better off.


First of all, this is charity work.

Completely false. I generate income from FLOSS. Lot of other people do. Again, doing that doesn't take anything away from any other part of the community. Check your facts.




. Yahoo gets more users than google, .

I think you should research what you are talking about before we continue this conversation.


Amen, brother.

I also feel that the vast majority of vocal (read: loudmouth) Linux/FOSS evangelists are vocal simply for the sake of being vocal. They need to rebel against something, and Microsoft is the big bad wolf du jour, so they embrace FOSS as some sort of radical cause.

If you poll the forums, or any other part of the community, I think you will find that a lot of people are dissatisfied with proprietary software, but the minority are Microsoft-haters for the sake of hating Microsoft.

I have never read/met a F/LOSS evangelist who was vocal for the sake of being vocal. You either care about your rights or you don't.

jrusso2
February 18th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Closed source drivers are both extremely dangerous security and stability issue in Linux, and possibly illegal under the GPL. For instance, if there is a huge security hole in a properitary driver (and it has happened before!), the Linux and Ubuntu developers literally can't do ANYTHING about it. It's basically like handing the security and stability of your OS to a 3rd party. :mad:

It's a big enough issue that even Linux Mint with their stance on proprietary software and codecs don't bundle use any proprietary drivers by default.

They are not illegal under the GPL or else you wouldn't see large companies like Open Suse and Mandriva being able to include them.

Proprietary drivers are needed and just about all of us use them, along with codecs, flash and other needed firmware unless you want you $500 video card to work like a s3 Virge or have to use ethernet because your wireless won't work.

So whats the big deal here? Its just stubborness more then anything

FuturePilot
February 18th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Personally I would love to see Linux spread and grow but to do this will require both a combination of Open Source and Closed source software and drivers that a vocal group of linux supporters seem to disdain.

They use words like restricted, ugly, non free in their descriptions yet just about all of them use it except the extreme purists like RMS who won't even listen to an mp3

In a way I feel and have thought the same.

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2008, 11:30 PM
They are not illegal under the GPL or else you wouldn't see large companies like Open Suse and Mandriva being able to include them.

Proprietary drivers are needed and just about all of us use them, along with codecs, flash and other needed firmware unless you want you $500 video card to work like a s3 Virge or have to use ethernet because your wireless won't work.

So whats the big deal here? Its just stubborness more then anything

The Linux kernel is licenced under the General Public Licence with a linking exception to libc only. Any software which interfaces to the kernel without standard syscalls (eg: a driver) must be licensed on a GPL-compatible license or you may be violating the copyright of the Linux kernel.

Of course, this is a hotly debated issue. The Linux kernel mailing list sometimes erupts in flame wars between Linux developers about this issue. But unless there is a full consensus on this issue (_all_ Linux developers agreeing that binary drivers OK.. i.e. never gonna happen), you could theoretically be sued for copyright infringement by one of the Linux developers, since the various parts of the Linux kernel is copyright of the individual developers.

Ubuntu and other distros get around this legal problem by NOT linking the Linux kernel to proprietary drivers (at ones that don't fully use libc), instead, making the user do the actual linking. Since the GPL only covers distribution, this is thought to be a legal way around the issue.

You can read more about this here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/214150/

akiratheoni
February 18th, 2008, 11:31 PM
Both of them are pushing something nobody cares about.

Lol... last I checked, both are fighting for freedom. We don't care about our freedom?


First of all, this is charity work.

I don't think it's just charity work... (http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9865533-16.html)

If this topic isn't flame bait, then I don't know what is.

Washer
February 18th, 2008, 11:35 PM
I disagree on all counts. Software Freedom is about the right to know what your computer is doing. It's about not having to choose to give up your freedoms so that you can run some software.

Lots of people said the same thing you are saying about segregation generations ago. People laughed at them, then. Everything has its time. 1) I'm glad you're not disputing my point that nobody cares now & 2) I don't see how you'll ever prove software freedom will follow the same steps. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.


One doesn't have to give back to the community. There is no leeching. The fact is that if someone wants to contribute code (or documentation, artwork or advocacy, for that matter - it's not just about programming) they can. If they don't, no one is less better off. Nobody loses anything except for bandwidth, and support-time bandwidth. My point exactly.



Completely false. I generate income from FLOSS. Lot of other people do. Again, doing that doesn't take anything away from any other part of the community. Check your facts. How much more income do you generate when you add one extra user?


I think you should research what you are talking about before we continue this conversation.I was thinking the exact same thing. Look up traffic estimates anywhere. Alexa's a good place to start.

jrusso2
February 18th, 2008, 11:36 PM
The Linux kernel is licenced under the General Public Licence with a linking exception to libc only. Any software which interfaces to the kernel without standard syscalls (eg: a driver) must be licensed on a GPL-compatible license or you may be violating the copyright of the Linux kernel.

Of course, this is a hotly debated issue. The Linux kernel mailing list sometimes erupts in flame wars between Linux developers about this issue. But unless there is a full consensus on this issue (_all_ Linux developers agreeing that binary drivers OK.. i.e. never gonna happen), you could theoretically be sued for copyright infringement by one of the Linux developers, since the various parts of the Linux kernel is copyright of the individual developers.

Ubuntu and other distros get around this legal problem by NOT linking the Linux kernel to proprietary drivers (at ones that don't fully use libc), instead, making the user do the actual linking. Since the GPL only covers distribution, this is thought to be a legal way around the issue.

You can read more about this here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/214150/

Linus has talked about this many times and does not feel its a violation thats why the kernel even includes hooks for non free drivers.

Pandemic187
February 18th, 2008, 11:37 PM
...First of all, this is charity work. There's no direct benefit to increasing the userbase.
I think there is something you need to get straight. If you refer to Linux as "charity work," then I don't care how long you've used it, or even how long you've used it exclusively - if that is honestly what you think about Linux, then to be entirely honest, I couldn't give a damn about the rest of your argument. I'll admit, you present valid points, but until you understand what Linux is really about, they really don't concern me. I live in the U.S. and come from a much more priveleged background than do many people in this world. Can I afford Microsoft products? Certainly I can, but their philosophy and agenda drives what I consider to be far from the best approach to designing the end-user's desktop experience. In my opinion, Linux comes much closer.

I am not like this "Linux evangelist" that you describe. And perhaps those who are go far over the top in attempting to "convert" Windows users to Linux users. But a simple explanation for this Linux evangelization is that those who use it, perhaps with good reason, believe it to be the operating system with the best philosophy of any currently available. They are indeed wrong to push their views on others, and perhaps it is with good reason that Linux still has less than one percent of the market share in operating systems. But regardless, at least they have a good argument.

People are naturally resistant to change, or at least change in the short run. That can certainly be blamed for this resistance by PC users to make the switch to Linux, and if a Linux user tells a Windows user about Linux and that user seems completely disinterested, then yes, it may be wrong for the Linux user to persistently try to push his or her views on the Windows user. This wastes both party's time, and is probably an argument that will never be won by the Linux user. For that reason you have a good argument, but I still think you need to better understand the Linux philosophy.

k2t0f12d
February 18th, 2008, 11:40 PM
Personally I would love to see Linux spread and grow but to do this will require both a combination of Open Source and Closed source software and drivers that a vocal group of linux supporters seem to disdain.

I think anything to do with computers, including the distribution GNU/Linux, will require more drivers and software. We do not, however, need non-free anything, we need more software licensed under free terms.


They use words like restricted, ugly, non free in their descriptions yet just about all of them use it except the extreme purists like RMS who won't even listen to an mp3

Proof? rms has stated that he doesnt avoid using non-free software on computers he doesn't own, simply that he won't install it on his hardware. He does not want his literature and media distributed in non-free formats, but I have never once read or heard him state that he would not listen to mp3.

I've never heard non-free software described as ugly by nature of the terms of its license. The only purpose for non-free terms in software licenses is to restrict what the users may or may not do with it, so terms used by free software advocates, like restriction, are completely accurate.

EDIT: Who is Ron Paul

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2008, 11:40 PM
Linus has talked about this many times and does not feel its a violation thats why the kernel even includes hooks for non free drivers.

Great, that is Linus's opinion. However Linus doesn't actually own the copyright of the majority of the Linux kernel, unless he can get every single Linux developer to agree with him (which he can't), his talk is just that, talk.

Washer
February 18th, 2008, 11:42 PM
I don't think it's just charity work... (http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9865533-16.html) I was speaking to individuals rather than to companies. Of course there's a lot of FOSS in business, but some guy wondering how to get his neighbor to use linux is doing charity & unwanted charity at that.

Wiebelhaus
February 18th, 2008, 11:42 PM
I think there is something you need to get straight. If you refer to Linux as "charity work," then I don't care how long you've used it, or even how long you've used it exclusively - if that is honestly what you think about Linux, then to be entirely honest, I couldn't give a damn about the rest of your argument. I'll admit, you present valid points, but until you understand what Linux is really about, they really don't concern me. I live in the U.S. and come from a much more priveleged background than do many people in this world. Can I afford Microsoft products? Certainly I can, but their philosophy and agenda drives what I consider to be far from the best approach to designing the end-user's desktop experience. In my opinion, Linux comes much closer.

I am not like this "Linux evangelist" that you describe. And perhaps those who are go far over the top in attempting to "convert" Windows users to Linux users. But a simple explanation for this Linux evangelization is that those who use it, perhaps with good reason, believe it to be the operating system with the best philosophy of any currently available. They are indeed wrong to push their views on others, and perhaps it is with good reason that Linux still has less than one percent of the market share in operating systems. But regardless, at least they have a good argument.

People are naturally resistant to change, or at least change in the short run. That can certainly be blamed for this resistance by PC users to make the switch to Linux, and if a Linux user tells a Windows user about Linux and that user seems completely disinterested, then yes, it may be wrong for the Linux user to persistently try to push his or her views on the Windows user. This wastes both party's time, and is probably an argument that will never be won by the Linux user. For that reason you have a good argument, but I still think you need to better understand the Linux philosophy.

Just to reiterate what this user has said , right on.

Washer
February 18th, 2008, 11:44 PM
EDIT: Who is Ron Paul Apologies to the non-US people & non-digg users. It seemed for a while that you couldn't hear about any other candidate online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Internet_popu larity

jrusso2
February 18th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I think anything to do with computers, including the distribution GNU/Linux, will require more drivers and software. We do not, however, need non-free anything, we need more software licensed under free terms.



Proof? rms has stated that he doesnt avoid using non-free software on computers he doesn't own, simply that he won't install it on his hardware. He does not want his literature and media distributed in non-free formats, but I have never once read or heard him state that he would not listen to mp3.

I've never heard non-free software described as ugly by nature of the terms of its license. The only purpose for non-free terms in software licenses is to restrict what the users may or may not do with it, so terms used by free software advocates, like restriction, are completely accurate.

EDIT: Who is Ron Paul

I got he ugly from one of the ubuntu repos.

RMS has no way to even play an MP3 on his computer.
He will not even allow his interviews to be distributed on MP3.

How much non free software is on your PC?

I am willing to be I can find some. I would be interested to see those who have no non free software on their computer post here.

This includes drivers, firmware, and formats which are not open and of course any not open source software.

I have yet to meet anyone expect RMS who I have corresponded with

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2008, 11:53 PM
I got he ugly from one of the ubuntu repos.

RMS has no way to even play an MP3 on his computer.
He will not even allow his interviews to be distributed on MP3.

How much non free software is on your PC?

I am willing to be I can find some. I would be interested to see those who have no non free software on their computer post here.

This includes drivers, firmware, and formats which are not open and of course any not open source software.

I have yet to meet anyone expect RMS who I have corresponded with

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=335094

You'll notice some people have no proprietary software at all on their computer. And a majority have less then 1% of their software as proprietary. Even on people who pretty much have no clue what differences between open source and proprietary software or don't care you'll see their systems are in majority open source. It's really not that hard to have 100% open source and functional system. Just don't buy a system with Broadcom wifi and use Intel graphics and your probably flying on 100% open source.

There is absolutely no reason to pander to hardware manufacturers that release binary drivers. I can understand proprietary applications (hey, making a living can be a problem sometimes) - but there is no business sense at all for hardware manufacturers to release binary drivers. Hell, it makes negative business sense, since the stupid OEMs have to fix their drivers nearly every time a Linux kernel comes out. These shenanigans are new, most hardware used to come with full specs and open source drivers before Windows became popular. Thankfully many hardware manufactures have come to their senses lately.

k2t0f12d
February 18th, 2008, 11:54 PM
Linus has talked about this many times and does not feel its a violation thats why the kernel even includes hooks for non free drivers.

The only thing I have read about this is that Linus has refused to guarantee a stable ABI to the developers of binary drivers. Because it is free software, it is easy for anyone who has the code to find out how to connect the kernel with their proprietary driver, but there is no support for that at all. Linus and the kernel developers have specifically and clearly stated that binary drivers are not their problem, are guaranteed to break at any point in kernel development, and are the onus of the developer and the user. This is why most binary drivers for Linux stink to high heaven. There simply have not been many alternatives to be had.

Linuxratty
February 19th, 2008, 12:05 AM
If people actually heard about him he would spread like wildfire.

Not necessarily...He's just another conservative who thinks evolution never happened and is opposed to women's reproductive rights. ..(AKA a flat Earther) .I'd put him in the "scary Christian" camp with Huckabee,or whatever the nutcases's name is.

I also don't push Linux in people's faces..I'll mention it now and again though.
The point you are missing here is the behavior you resent Linux users engaging in is exacally the behavior you are engaging in with your Ron Paul.


Apologies to the non-US people & non-digg users. It seemed for a while that you couldn't hear about any other candidate online.


I don't know where you got that idea...I've heard plenty about all of them and personally, I for one,could not care less about the man.

akiratheoni
February 19th, 2008, 12:09 AM
Nobody loses anything except for bandwidth, and support-time bandwidth. My point exactly.

The negative connotation of the word 'losing' is completely off-putting and inaccurate. I run my own forum, and everything on it is free. Do I feel as though I'm 'losing' bandwidth and 'wasting' it on my users? No, of course not. I'm offering my service of a forum for free because I want to. I'm sure the developers of Ubuntu don't feel that they're 'wasting' or 'losing' bandwidth. In fact they're happy to be using the bandwidth to help someone. Sure, they're not making any money off of it (or not as much as you think) but I think the prospect of genuinely helping someone without a paycheck behind your motives is very appealing to many Linux users.

bobbybobington
February 19th, 2008, 12:20 AM
All that matters is solving bug #1. Nobody likes an evangelist because they are annoying, it's simply a matter of bad marketing. Most people don't care about software freedom (probably don't even know about it) they just want a better tool. If you try to sell the philosophy most people will ignore it, a few will agree with it fervently. You could see this with apple. They had their zealous following, but they really broke through when they made the best tool for listening to music. Something with broader appeal. We need to meet everyday user's needs, not just the typical linux user's needs.

forrestcupp
February 19th, 2008, 12:20 AM
First of all, this is charity work. There's no direct benefit to increasing the userbase.
I can see some of your points, but this one was just made in ignorance. Tell Mozilla that Firefox is charity. They get a lot of backing by parties who are very interested in this "charity."

As an individual, the benefits are that now AMD is starting to take notice and put a little more effort in their drivers. Think what they would do if we had 20% market share. Maybe game creators would start focusing more on cross-compatibility. Maybe companies like Adobe would give us versions of their high-end software instead of just Flash player.

I don't like people being obnoxious any more than you do, but to say it's just a charity with no benefits is just wrong.



I've never heard non-free software described as ugly by nature of the terms of its license.
gstreamer-plugins-ugly
gstreamer-plugins-bad

phrostbyte
February 19th, 2008, 12:40 AM
gstreamer-plugins-ugly
gstreamer-plugins-bad

That's a pun of the movie The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good%2C_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly)

k2t0f12d
February 19th, 2008, 12:44 AM
gstreamer-plugins-ugly
gstreamer-plugins-bad

:lolflag: That was the best. Thanks for the correction.

JordanII
February 19th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Not necessarily...He's just another conservative who thinks evolution never happened and is opposed to women's reproductive rights. ..(AKA a flat Earther) .I'd put him in the "scary Christian" camp with Huckabee,or whatever the nutcases's name is.

I also don't push Linux in people's faces..I'll mention it now and again though.
The point you are missing here is the behavior you resent Linux users engaging in is exacally the behavior you are engaging in with your Ron Paul.



I don't know where you got that idea...I've heard plenty about all of them and personally, I for one,could not care less about the man.

What do you mean by "just another conservative"? Is McCain a conservative? How about Huckabee? If you seriously consider what it means to be conservative Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running. McCain and Huckabee can say they are conservative, but they can't fool me, they aren't.

Since when would a conservative stay in a COMPLETELY unnecessary war for "as long as it takes to win."

Or how about trying to "Help poor people by replacing the IRS with a 30% sales tax." The same money is being spent (possibly even more for poor people who don't have much income), how does that help poor people like it is supposed to?

Could you please name one of the "other" conservatives you speak of?

K.Mandla
February 19th, 2008, 01:16 AM
Temporarily closed for staff review.