rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Dec 7 18:05:36 PST 2006
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.
More information about the conspire