rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Dec 7 16:36:59 PST 2006
Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
> > A truly glorious, epic hand-wave. Nicely played, sir.
> Outplayed you? This might be a first.
Actually, you've just been introduced to the fine art of charientism --
sort of like when an Englishman refers to someone as "clever".
(It's a peculiarly English type of insult: Foreigners are sometimes
said to be "clever", i.e., tricky and untrustworthy. A fine young
Englishman with roughly the same qualities would be described as "a
> OK, this time I don't really see what you mean.
I summarily denied your premise about the essay advising readers to
disregard non-Linux solutions.
> > Well, you know whom to contact.
> I do? So someone has written one?
Not yet. Your arm broken?
> > And I thought *I* was a little paranoid.
> It's just another example of the "sales resistance" you mentioned
But I'm not selling -- and neither is the essay. The latter is a set of
techniques one might use in business to overcome objections to a
Linux-based solution. It is not an attempt to sway random members of
the public encountering it on the Web to adopt Linux-based anything.
I imagine that Don's probably gotten a boatload of crank e-mail, over
the years, from OS-advocacy cretins making that exact error.
I've gotten a few, myself. If I'm feeling polite, I might respond to
them the way I did in my Sydney Morning Herald / The Age interview
Q: Do you think you could achieve more if your advocacy was a little
A: I'm reminded of a story about the 19th century US public speaker
and political figure Robert G. Ingersoll, who was wildly popular with
the public but inspired influential "establishment" detractors by being
publicly non-religious: Some reporters came to visit, and asked him
about the rumours that his son had gotten drunk during a wild party and
fell unconscious under the table. Ingersoll paused for effect, then
started: "Well, first of all, he didn't fall under the table. And he
wasn't actually unconscious. For that matter, he didn't fall. And there
wasn't any party, and he didn't have anything to drink.... And, by the
way, I don't have a son."
So it's not what I'd call strident, and I don't do advocacy. At least,
not in the usual sense of the term.
The usual sort of OS advocacy is what the "Team OS/2" crowd used to do:
They knew that their favourite software would live or die by the level
of corporate acceptance and release/maintenance of proprietary
shrink-wrapped OS/2 applications. They lobbied, they lost, IBM lost
interest, and now their favourite OS is effectively dead.
But Linux is fundamentally different because it and all key applications
are open source: the programmer community that maintains it is
self-supporting, and would keep it advancing and and healthy regardless
of whether the business world and general public uses it with wild
abandon, only a little, or not at all. Because of its open-source
licence terms, its raw source code is permanently available. Linux
cannot be "withdrawn from the market" at the whim of some company - as
is slowly happening to OS/2. (Ed: IBM finally pulled the plug on OS/2 on
Therefore, Linux users are not in a zero-sum competition for popularity
with proponents of other operating systems (unlike, say, OS/2,
MS-Windows, and Mac OS users). I can honestly wish Apple Computer well
with their eye-pleasing and well-made (if a bit slow and inflexible) Mac
OS X operating system: wishing them well doesn't mean wishing Linux ill.
Note that all of the identifiable "Linux companies" could blow away in
the breeze like just so much Enron stock, and the advance of Linux would
not be materially impaired, because what matters is source code and the
licensing thereof, which has rather little to do with any of those
Further, and getting back to your original point, I honestly don't care
if you or anyone else gets "converted" to Linux. I don't have to. I'm no
better off if you do; I'm no worse off if you don't.
What I do care about is giving making useful information and help
available to people using Linux or interested in it. Why? Partly to
redeem the trust shown by others when they helped me. Partly because
it's interesting. Partly because researching and then teaching things I
usually start knowing little about is the best way I know to learn. And
partly out of pure, unadulterated self-interest: people knowing your
name is at least a foot in the door, in the IT business.
As to stridency, there _is_ a well-known problem of all on-line
discussion media. Some people become emotionally invested in positions
they've taken in technical arguments, and gratuituously turn technical
disagreements into verbal brawls. And unfortunately they tend to be
drawn to people like me who attempt to state their views clearly and
forcefully. It's as if you were to say "I like herring" and thereby
summon every dedicated herring-hater within a hundred-mile radius. The
problem comes with the territory.
But that causes occasional unpleasantness and back-biting _among_ some
on-line Linux users, not an aspect of "advocacy", which isn't something
we have much use for, generally - especially where the term refers to
convincing the unwilling.
And, in conclusion, herring-haters suck ass.
More information about the conspire