[conspire] linuxmanship

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):

> This may sound odd, but I actually had the very text quoted below in mind
> as a model for forming objections to Don's essay. It seemed to me that the
> sheer volume of pleas for help with Windows that filter into everything
> under the sun negated, to some degree, the lack of "a zero-sum competition
> for popularity" as a force driving the advancement of Linux, because let's
> face it: When somebody uses Windows, everybody suffers.

The context of my remark was in answer to demands that I prove to people
that they should use Linux rather than [something else, usually
MS-Windows].  My answer is:  Why?  I gain nothing worth mentioning if 
you use Linux.  I lose nothing worth mentioning if you use MS-Windows.

Sure, it's true that society at large loses somewhat from various
MS-Windows woes.   -- e.g., all the SMTP servers I administer, which are
hurting badly from the spam problem.  However, *I* don't lose, except in
a society-sucks sort of way.  I don't stand to gain or lose anything
(substantial) _personally_ from such a choice -- and in particular have
no stake whatsoever in choices made by the flaming asshole in front of
me attempting to troll me into OS-advocacy.


> This is where Don's original intention has more meaning today. 

Huh?  I don't follow you.



> At the same time, the approach the essay describes seeks to address
> sales resistance in the form of objections to a Linux-based solution
> by fighting fire with fire, and seems to just laugh off the idea that
> occasionally, water may also come in handy.

I'm afraid that abstraction ladder's too high for me.  (I don't know
what the frell you're saying.)


> I see the sales resistance and the expectation of being disingenuous
> as two pointer variables referring to the same memory location.

That one, too.


> Feeding into an expectation of being disingenuous is what leads
> to the rather sad results Edmund described. 

Huh?  I don't follow you.  I can't parse the phrase "Feeding into an
expectation of being disingenous", for starters:  My semantic parser
comes up null.  I'm saving up for a more-advanced model of parser, since
this colonial-British model I've been working with for some decades is
sometimes a little hinky.


> To counter that, I think that expectation needs to be confronted
> head-on in some way.

I haven't a friggin' clue what you're saying, Daniel.