Linux hostility
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog Jun 04, 2012 10:28 AM EDT |
I went through a brief phase this weekend where I felt that Linux users are just complainy jerks that don't deserve anything they get because they'll always find fault with it and can't appreciate it when someone tries to make an effort to play with them. This is silly, of course, since the same can likely be said of any segment of the populace. But it doesn't help that instead of being constructive and helping the new kids fit in, we bat them about the head and tell them how they're not good enough to play on our side of the playground. Fo' shame. |
| helios Jun 04, 2012 10:54 AM EDT |
I have mixed feelings about "the community" as a whole. The answer of RTFM has seemed to have died down in the past year or so but there was a time when Linux help forums could be a hostile place for a new user to go. People like Bruno Knappen went a long way to bring this into balance but as the mentioned-story alludes, we can be an elitist bunch. But in the forums, I don't know which is worse....getting flamed for asking a "stupid" question, or having a legitimate question completely ignored by a community that is supposed to be one of the most newbie-friendly groups in the community. http://tinyurl.com/6uaoabj I spend a lot of time showing our kids how to use forums to solve their problems by searching for pre-existing posts concerning the same issue and I am more than surprised at how many of these questions are ignored or abandoned, especially in the Ubuntu and Mint forums. |
| 2briancox Jun 04, 2012 12:24 PM EDT |
This protest is ridiculous. Do you want to make Linux main stream so that millions more people can have the advantages of computing freedom? Then allow there to be a stepping stone so more and more people can see the value in the software. If steps like porting games to Linux via Wine and such tools works--gets millions of more people to look at Linux as an alternative--then we will not let them down with the entrapments of proprietary lock-in once they get here. And once those people arrive at the doorsteps of FOSS computing, the debate about "non-native" will be silly. Because the numbers of people using Linux will justify everything being native. |
| gus3 Jun 04, 2012 1:52 PM EDT |
The only catch with introducing an emulation layer (or thunking layer, or what have you) is that it's one more thing to break. And when you're trying to make a good impression, you want to avoid adding one more thing to break. Someone, somewhere, has to be the first to take that dramatic step. With CD's, it was Enya who said, "No more cassettes." A great hew and cry went up (myself among them) but she stayed the course and the market followed. |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 2:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:I went through a brief phase this weekend where I felt that Linux users are just complainy jerks that don't deserve anything they get because they'll always find fault with it and can't appreciate it when someone tries to make an effort to play with them.No, it's not silly at all. It's a reasonable assessment. Quoting:I have mixed feelings about "the community" as a whole. The answer of RTFM has seemed to have died down in the past year or so but there was a time when Linux help forums could be a hostile place for a new user to go.I agree completely. Quoting:This protest is ridiculous.Again, I agree completely. It's a good way to drive those who would make LInux mainstream away entirely. Quoting:Do you want to make Linux main stream so that millions more people can have the advantages of computing freedom?As I mentioned in another thread, I am one of the few here who does not believe in or agree with the FSF/RMS notion of software freedom. For me this has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom and that isn't my reason for wanting to make Linux mainstream on the desktop. (It is already mainstream on servers and in embedded devices.) My interest is more in opening up competition, not allowing a monopolistic corporation to dictate how individual computing will develop, and generally allowing greater choice and greater innovation. Quoting: Then allow there to be a stepping stone so more and more people can see the value in the software. If steps like porting games to Linux via Wine and such tools works--gets millions of more people to look at Linux as an alternativeThis I agree with completely. |
| JaseP Jun 04, 2012 2:32 PM EDT |
What the petition should have been for should have been multi platform development tools. One set of code,... 5 release targets... BadaBoom, BadaBing. |
| jacog Jun 04, 2012 2:38 PM EDT |
Read Tim Schafer's comment that I posted elsewhere "Linux was like a party that sounded fun we were afraid to go to because we didn't think we'd know anybody there, and the HiB guys were like your socially fearless friend who says, "Don't worry, we'll go together." And when he gets to your house he says, "Is that what you're wearing?" and you say, "uh..." and he says, "Don't worry. I know a guy." And he lends you a cool leather jacket and you go to the party and when you walk in there's a needle scratch and everybody turns to look at you and your friend gives a cool nod and then everybody goes back to the party. So kind of like a John Hughes film. Hope that helps explain things. That's about as technical as I can go. I just hope I don't accidentally knock over a beer can pyramid that some tough guys are building. Oh and also, if you want to be cool at the party, stay away from wine. (haha! Linux joke!)" HiB is encouraging companies to dip their toes in the water. Let's keep it crocodile free. (I declare it metaphor-Monday) |
| jacog Jun 04, 2012 2:41 PM EDT |
JaseP: Then there will still be people complaining when those tools end up being stuff like Mono or closed solutions like Unity, and also ones that will go on complaining when the end product is not open source or does not integrate with their system, etc. |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 2:58 PM EDT |
Is Unity closed? I thought it was GPL code? Did Ubuntu take their desktop proprietary? |
| 2briancox Jun 04, 2012 3:15 PM EDT |
Caitlyn: Isn't a lack of a monopoly in the computing marketplace a degree of freedom? We may want different degrees of freedom. But there's room enough for both of our desires for freedom in the FLOSS world |
| jacog Jun 04, 2012 3:25 PM EDT |
caitlyn - Unity 3D the game development platform. :) Yeah, confusing, huh? Even worse for the poor guys who make Unity Linux ( http://unity-linux.org/ ), which actually existed before Unity the DE. http://unity3d.com/ ( the Linux port of this is currently being undertaken by Brian Fargo's company, as part of their commitment to bring a Linux version of their recently Kickstartered game. Aside from making their game work cross-platform, it also opens up a huge amount of previously unavailable content to Linuxers, and will no doubt be met with the same amount of non-appreciation ) |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 4:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:We may want different degrees of freedom.Wrong. Simply wrong. FSF/RMS ideology doesn't offer freedom. It removes choice in a different way by making proprietary software "unethical" or "immoral." RMS advocates the banning of proprietary software entirely. That isn't a different degree of freedom. It's a different sort of tyranny. |
| gus3 Jun 04, 2012 4:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:Isn't a lack of a monopoly in the computing marketplace a degree of freedom?No more than choosing your method of execution is "a degree of freedom." Would you rather die by hanging, impalement, or poison? Quoting:FSF/RMS ideology doesn't offer freedom. It removes choice in a different way by making proprietary software "unethical" or "immoral."Insofar as you're talking about the ideology, I'll agree. However, once you make the shift to the manifestation of that ideology in the GNU Public Licenses, I will disagree with your assessment. Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle (and IBM and DEC, in days past) would love nothing more than to make the computing world utterly dependent upon their permission to use hardware that we own. The GPLv3 codifies the permission to use our equipment how we want; to change the code according to our purposes; and to publish that code, subject to the one restriction that we allow others the same freedoms that we ourselves enjoy under the GPLv3. I can hardly call that "removing choice." |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 04, 2012 4:58 PM EDT |
"I can hardly call that "removing choice."" At this stage, no. Compromise has lead to an increase in variety, where no one gets to say to others what they may or may not do with their own stuff. But it is a _compromise_, very few of the participants actually wanted it this way. Maybe none. I don't mind stumbling into Liberty. |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 5:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle (and IBM and DEC, in days past) would love nothing more than to make the computing world utterly dependent upon their permission to use hardware that we own.This part I agree with. I also agree that IBM, which is now heavily dependent on FOSS, has moved away from that model in a lot of areas. They still have proprietary software but they understand that they can often make more money using Open Source tools and not trying to develop everything themselves. Of all the large proprietary software out there IBM is probably the one that "gets" FOSS (as in they understand the advatages) and works in a way that really isn't hostile. Quoting:Insofar as you're talking about the ideology, I'll agree. However, once you make the shift to the manifestation of that ideologyI don't really disagree as things stand today. However, I have real concerns about the stated ideological goals. I think we agree about that as well. Quoting:The GPLv3 codifies the permission to use our equipment how we want; to change the code according to our purposes; and to publish that code, subject to the one restriction that we allow others the same freedoms that we ourselves enjoy under the GPLv3Please see Linus Torvalds' explanation of why he won't use GPL v.3 or why he likes the Affero GPL. There are many reasons why companies are uncomfortable with GPL v.3 and choose to go with products which use less restrictive licenses (Apache, BSD, GPL v.2) which are still open/free. Of course, one of the things these companies are looking for is the ability to add proprietary components or close their code later. |
| Fettoosh Jun 04, 2012 7:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:FSF/RMS ideology doesn't offer freedom. It removes choice in a different way by making proprietary software "unethical" or "immoral." Wow! Am I reading this correctly? How could labeling something "unethical" or "immoral" take away choice? Or advocating against it going to prevent people from using it? It doesn't make sense to me. If you have said the FSF/RMS restrict some proprietary companies from taking advantage of FOSS, I would agree. But taking choice from users while in fact the GPL grants full freedom by granting users full open access to code under one condition is really hard to accept. I don't think FSF/RMS at any time twisted any arms, or held a gun to any heads. On the contrary, it always was about users freedom and choice. No one is forcing anyone to use or not use something else. Let's just remember, there is no absolute freedom, and the freedom of an individual ends when it starts intruding on the freedom of others. |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 7:10 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh: RMS/FSF advocate banning proprietary software. That indeed would take away choice. Most people don't do things and don't want to do things that are seen as immoral. Characterizing proprietary software that way is demonization. Of course it's designed to take away choice. Microsoft doesn't hold a gun to my head either and yet I can see where they negatively impact my freedom. |
| gus3 Jun 04, 2012 9:08 PM EDT |
RMS may advocate banning proprietary software, but he also recognizes that the choice isn't his to make. Microsoft et al. act as if they have no such limitation. |
| jhansonxi Jun 04, 2012 9:20 PM EDT |
When Diablo III works on Windows and not Linux, the computer users I support consider that a Linux bug. When dealing with game fanatics, freedom isn't as important as functionality. Without Wine I would have very few Linux customers. Regarding the community attitude problems - I've very rarely encountered it. I see news about arguments on the Linux mailing lists but I'm not a kernel developer so it doesn't affect me. I've been in arguments over how some things are implemented but workarounds were found and it didn't degenerate into name-calling. The only instances of attitude problems I can remember were all related to the Wine developers and associated fanatics. There have been a few oddball incidents I don't count like the occasional irate Internet user who posts to the DansGuardian mailing list about "us" installing DansGuardian on their computer and preventing them from accessing their favorite game/gambling/porn sites. It takes much work to get them to understand that it's not on their computer and that their parents/administrator/ISP installed it on an upstream proxy. |
| JA12 Jun 05, 2012 2:07 AM EDT |
Linux hostility? Are you out of your minds? It's the 5th humble bundle and Linux users (users, not Linux) has always paid the most money on average than people on the other two platforms. Conclusion there is that yes, Linux users appreciate the bundle. Now that it's the first time there's a game that uses WINE the users want to express their concern in a form of petition, saying "c'mon guys, do it right", you go "OMG what a jerks" "how dare they do that" "this is so unbelievable I'm going to throw up". It's not a protest or a boycott and they've listed their reasons of this, which is the whole point of the exercise. Mind you, I could add to that list to make one of their points more visible. If you need something to do, go to the gaming forums to overreact when Windows users complain about console ports. |
| Fettoosh Jun 05, 2012 7:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:RMS/FSF advocate banning proprietary software. ... OK, but I am not convinced that advocating against proprietary software takes away choice. There are many people who keep preaching that sex is immoral day in day out but that never took away their choice. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 05, 2012 9:34 AM EDT |
> IBM, which is now heavily dependent on FOSS, has moved away from that model in a lot of areas. IBM has always made the bulk of their money providing service contracts, trained professional services, custom work, etc. Sure their hardware was never cheap, but it was like taking your car to the dealer to get it worked on, the service was the real profit center. With F/OSS, one of THEIR costs, the writing and maintenance of the software itself, is substantially reduced, while they still get to charge customers for making things work. > Of all the large proprietary software out there IBM is probably the one that "gets" FOSS (as in they understand the advatages) and works in a way that really isn't hostile. IBM was dying. The commodity PC and clusters were killing their "Big Iron" business and the smart people saw that if something was not done, IBM was going to be a smear on the road of progress. The "We've invested a billion dollars on Linux" was no hyperbole. IBM did a huge shift not only to supporting F/OSS but to change the corporate attitude toward anything "not invented here." It was possible because of the core IBM business being support, and they always would support other people's stuff if you paid them enough to do it. Fettoosh, > but I am not convinced that advocating against proprietary software takes away choice If I advocate the taking away of cars by law because I don't like them, I am advocating the removal of people's ability to choose differently than I would choose. This is the danger of giving power to _anyone_, no matter how principled. I am very happy to have RMS and his stalwart support of F/OSS. I admire anyone who can argue their principles effectively and well. I would no more want RMS to put his preferences into law than, say, Caitlyn would want me to do so. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!