Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
On polite Linux advocacy
Back in September, 1998, the
LWN front page carried an article asking our readers to take a calm and
respectful approach to those who criticize Linux. There were some magazine
writers - long since disappeared from the scene - who had great fun with
the inflammatory and childish responses they got from a few people when
they ran critical articles. LWN pointed out that going on the attack
against Linux critics rarely changed their mind, and, more often, just gave
them material to use in portraying the Linux community as a group of unruly
fanatics.
The better part of seven years later, little has changed. Laura DiDio is now having a field day talking about the Linux "nut jobs" who send her threatening mail and call her at home. This kind of press does not help us. Since the beginning, Linux has had its opponents in the press and the "analyst" industry. Sometimes their criticisms have been fair and well founded; other times they have been silly or overtly biased. Linux was just a toy, you could lose your job by using it, it is not as secure, its total cost of ownership is higher, it has intellectual property problems, it's too complicated for mere mortals to use, it's going to fragment into a thousand incompatible pieces, etc. All of these hostile articles and analyst studies have one thing in common: not a single one of them has slowed the development or uptake of Linux in any significant way. Even the more accurate and justified criticisms have served mostly as "to do" lists for near-term development; the rest has simply vanished without a trace. When a writer or "analyst" comes out with something silly, by all means send in a polite, well-written correction. Then get on with life. These people are not worth getting worked up over, and they certainly are not worth flaming or harassing. The current crop of nay-sayers is unlikely to have any more real effect than its predecessors. But we'll still be here; let's try to behave in a way that we'll be proud of in the future. (Log in to post comments)
Who is "we"??? Posted Apr 14, 2005 4:16 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] Why does the author hold the "linux community" responsible for people making harassing calls to a journalist? When did I join this club? The fact that this was even published presumes this is a joint effort. Laura DiDio can call the police on them, along with the kids who cut across her lawn and that lady who dinged her car at Safeway.
Who is "we"??? Posted Apr 14, 2005 4:22 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The only "we" in the article is the line saying "we'll still be here". I didn't intend to hold anybody responsible other than the people actually behaving that way. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Who is "we"??? Posted Apr 14, 2005 15:03 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] I kinda have to agree with the parent poster... You also say, "let's try tobehave in a way that we'll be proud of in the future", which sort of implies that "we" are NOT currently behaving in such a way... This sort of language buys into the same silly nonsense which allows such people to paint the whole "Linux community" (whoever that is, exactly) as childish and immature, just due the actions of a few loud-mouths... There is no "we"... There is no group-mind... "We" are all individuals... And, some of "us" are just plain obnoxious... ;-) There's nothing anyone can ever do to change that, I don't think... But, the point is that a few loud-mouths should NOT be allowed to represent the "Linux community" as a whole, anymore than the crazy loud-mouth shouting at people downtown should be allowed to represent your entire city... Do we have crazy loud-mouths in our "community"? Sure, what community DOESN'T?? But, that in no way implies they speak for us all... And, that's exactly what people like Laura Didio want people to believe... And, I'm sorry to say, the language like in the above story only serves to help such people's causes, because you are essentially taking responsibility for the actions, and implicitly associating them with the "community" as a whole... I'm not saying what you wrote was wrong or bad advice in any way; it's simply utterly unnecessary stuff to tell most of us, because we already know better than to do such things... The fact that you take the time to tell us all such stuff, which only childish loud-mouths should need to be told, sort of implicitly paints us all as childish loud-mouths, which is exactly what they want... ;-(
Who is "we"??? Posted Apr 14, 2005 15:22 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] Recall Niven's Law -- actually, Larry Niven has published a whole bunch of laws, but this is the one that Jerry Pournelle is fond of quoting in similar contexts -- "there is no cause so noble that it will not attract fugheads".
On the other hand, I don't think it really hurts to issue a general reminder in case there are newbies out there who don't realize they are being fugheads. (What's the expression that means something like "there's no zealot like the recent convert"?)
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 14, 2005 4:21 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] Revolution has never been "polite." I'm just surprised no one has been killed yet.
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 21, 2005 7:28 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And I'm sorry, but paid mercenaries like MO'Gster and dIdiot deserve everything they get. (Actually, I'm probably being unfair on DiDio - she is showing signs of turning into Ms dClue, but moaning about people who are trying to give her a clue probably doesn't help.)
Yes, I know making it personal in the real (as opposed to virtual) world is certainly reprehensible, probably illegal, and quite likely frightening to the victim, but I'm sorry. If they're a mercenary, they asked for it!
Cheers,
Community ? Posted Apr 14, 2005 9:51 UTC (Thu) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link] There has never been such a thing as "Linux Community". This is a plain myth to please newspapers and zealots. There are developpers who do more or less work under a "free" (whatever that means) licence and there are users of free software at varying degrees for various reasons.
You have probably already used Windows at least once. Ask yourself then, are you part of the "Windows community" ?
As always, the problem is that the most vocal guys are mistaken for the people they say they represent.
Community ? Posted Apr 14, 2005 16:04 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Sure there is. For some of us it's even among the top reasons why we use Free Software.No, it's not a community in the sense that everyone thinks, acts or does the same, but no community is like that anyway. A community is *always* composed of a group of people who has something in common, and a lot of other stuff *not* in common. There *migth* be such a thing as a windows-community, but it's much weaker. To me it's kinda paradoxical that llthogh Windows is used atleast 10 times as often as Linux and the other Freenixen, it's still *harder* not easier to get proper answers to Windows-questions. Personally I think that's because providing free support for Windows feels a lot like adding to the coffers of one of the richest men in the world, while providing free support for Linux is the norm, you where once the person who needed help too. If I see a question around Linux, and I know the answer to it, I'll answer. I even feel that's the least I could do, seeing that others (sometimes a lot more qualified than me) has done the same for me. Linus personally cares when Linux crashes on some obscure hardware of mine. The Kimdaba author personally provides hints when the latest CVS-snapshot doesn't seem to want to compile at first try under Mandriva. Alan Cox comes by to feed penguins and answer stupid questions if you ask him too, doesn't demand you pay him a million for it either. You don't *get* that with windows. You bet we have a community. No, we don't all agree on everything. But that's ok. I wouldn't want it any other way.
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 14, 2005 13:31 UTC (Thu) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] I think that by now that best answer to:
"Linux was just a toy, you could lose your job by using it, it is not as secure, its total cost of ownership is higher, it has intellectual property problems, it's too complicated for mere mortals to use, it's going to fragment into a thousand incompatible pieces, etc."
is:
"Dear analyst / reporter / M$ rep,
All those predictions were made 10 years ago but never happened. In the meantime Linux is technically better, more popular, more secure and has more features than ever.
If you think that now you have better insight than those who failed to predict the demise of Linux, please present new and proven arguments.
Recycling old notions that are proven false, tells more about you than about Linux.
Have a nice day,
Aunt Tilly."
EZ.
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 14, 2005 19:21 UTC (Thu) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link]
Well said. Precise and to the point, and still reasonably professional. Makes a good template for people who feel they just have to respond but are too emotionally charged to make a good point.
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 15, 2005 13:54 UTC (Fri) by wruppert (subscriber, #3041) [Link] Perhaps "those who failed to predict the demise of Linux" should be something like "those who wrongly predicted the demise of Linux".
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 14, 2005 15:01 UTC (Thu) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link] There will always be new youthful advocates who are brash in their response to criticism, founded or unfounded. If the community as a whole were to simply ignore all unfounded claims, the landscape would change dramatically for the "analysts" trying to create FUD. Hopefully some younger advocates will read this article and resist their initial urge to quickly flame the hell out of anyone making stupid remarks about Linux. If we simply cannot resist the urge to reply, (happens to the best of us), take the high ground, reply in a polite, unemotional, logical manner.
Who ARE we? Posted Apr 14, 2005 16:44 UTC (Thu) by twiens (guest, #12274) [Link] I think we in this context is fairly obvious; people who use FOSS and care about its health. Associated with this is also people who are concerned with freedom and how it is slowly being legislated away in the digital realm and elsewhere. Analysts who mouth off ignorantly about this or that problem with GNU/Linux or FOSS in general are made to appear reasonable with ad hominem flaming from the over zealous. As much as most of the readership of LWN would like to feel that we are all mature and don't need this kind of pep talk, I think the recent display associated with the Bitkeeper story on LWN shows that this is a necessary reminder. Thanks Jonathan
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 14, 2005 19:33 UTC (Thu) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link] I am sorry, Ms DiDio is a dishonest paid shill and deserves _no_ respect whatever; only in politically correct America, where everyone is now a victim, would someone who has worked so hard to create and publicise a bought tissue of lies, in public and the media, complain when people vehmently object to her rubbish:
She has a mumber of choices:
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 15, 2005 12:58 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Hey hey, we Europeans invented dishonest shilling! We just aren't making so much money with it, at least, not out in the open. ;-)
On polite Linux advocacy Posted Apr 15, 2005 1:06 UTC (Fri) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]
|
|||||||||||||