Softpanorama (slightly skeptical) Open Source Software Educational Society

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Softpanorama Open Source Humor Archive
(A Unique Collection of Open Source-Related Humor)

(Prev)  Vol. 16, 2004  (Next)

Really Old News

An average Slashdot reader loves Linux and runs Windows
- From a Slashdot post of a person who,
 probably, has access to the Slashdot webservers logs
 with their 90% of Windows hits
 

Humorix The Hottest New Distribution LinuXXX

LAS VEGAS -- Described as the world's first "pornographic operating system," a new Linux distribution called LinuXXX was unveiled earlier today at a press conference in the lobby of a Las Vegas hotel. Sales of the distro have been... well, hot.

Java Forums - OT java.sun.com not accessible for hours

Eric S. Raymond.

A rather vocal proponent of Linux and related open source systems, with the basic message that "open source = good, anything else = evil". To "support" his views, uses rhetoric (and sports a personality) that is a bit incompatible with, and causes much eye-rolling in, a number of other members of H.Sapiens. Also lends his name to the term [url=http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/Bla_faq/raymondism.shtml] Raymondism[/url].

Slashdot Even Sun Can't Use Java

Libranet Love at First Byte TUX With minor modification this quote looks like a nice joke depicting the level of rabid linuxiods ;-)

Many many moons ago I was, sadly, a Windows user. And I was miserable. The servers I managed were running NT4 and had to be rebooted once a month, my personal workstation needed reboots daily, and more often than not several times a day. I switched to Linux. Nothing is working but I never need to reboot the systems.

Very Old Quotes

• When in doubt, just be yourself. And if that fails, su root.
• Disaster is always the default option in Unix
• Lamport's Law: A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer  you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable.
• I wasn't at current company on the day that very large airline client rang up and said "Our core database keeps getting deleted and we don't know why."
• Major memory-suicide-languages are C and C++
• The more you know about MS software, the more contempt you get for it...  And the more respect/terror you have for their marketing.

list.unix-haters

I had logged myself into the computer-generated bar room as a little, furry, harmless dog.  I didn't want trouble.  I needed to read the X Windows/Motif 1.1 manual, so I came to the bar and asked Ratz to fix the documentation data in liquid form for me.  It made a bitter, painful drink, but it was better than spending days turning pages in realspace.

Ratz put a bucket of liquid in front of me.

"I wanted a glass of docs, Ratz.  What the hell is this?"  I barked.

"Motif don't fit in a glass anymore," he barked back.

I looked at the liquid.  It was totally opaque to me.

list.unix-haters

In the Unix world, inconsistency is not a bug but a feature.  Every program gets its own individual set of switches and commands to demonstrate the creative spirit of its author(s).  Consistency is left to Windows and other systems which serve unimportant purposes such as getting work done.

As for this "editor", in the Unix world it is also widely regarded as a decisive advantage of a program that it can run on Babbage's differential engine with only minor modifications most of which are already part of GNU's 587 MB universal installation script.

Naturally, this leads to some minor inconveniences such as having a line-oriented editor when the rest of the world switched to high-resolution graphical display systems 20 years ago.

[Dec 1, 2004] Disappearance of NJ IT professionals

A startling and disturbing trend has spread in NJ. Information Technology (IT) professionals, have disappeared from their homes without any word as to where they have gone or what happened to them. It’s a phenomenon that has left friends and neighbors extremely worried.

“I think it has something to do with the government,” said Vernon Maybury. Vernon recently saw three of his neighbors mysteriously leave their residences without any warning. Coincidentally, they all were involved somehow in the IT industry.

“Ever since that Bush got into office it seems the universe just hasn’t been right,” added the flustered neighbor.

But there are other more startling theories. Take Samantha Roark’s story for example.

“Well, last week I saw Ted’ Robinson up the street, and now he is no longer there” said Roark. "He was a Java programmer".

Despite all of these perfectly plausible and reliable accounts, eWeek decided to delve in and investigate to find the true story… Lisa Farnsworth, an IT recruiter, attributed these reports of missing IT persons to the shocking fact that there is no need for IT professionals. Lucky can get a job of a greeter in Walmart or pump gas in NJ. But most cannot and need to move, she said.

[Nov 30, 2004] Helpdesk ticket (real):

"My computer has been running extremely slowly lately and when I go in to check the processes, something called System Idle Process is taking up 95% of my CPU (on average- sometimes higher, sometimes lower). I've googled it and found that a lot of people are having a problem with it but no one can figure out how to get it off their computer. "

[Nov 27, 2004] Twenty-five Signs of a Completly Americanized Russian Programmer Translated from Russian by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov

http://www.baetzler.de/humor/empty_chairs_filk.html Empty Chairs at Empty Cubicles

[sung to the tune of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" from Les Miserables]

There's a grief that can't be spoken.
There's a pain goes on and on.
Empty chairs at empty cubicles,
My friends logged out and gone.

Here they talked of great stock options.
Here it was they bought domains.
Here they sang about stock splitting,
And those stock splits never came.

From the office on the corner,
They could see a world reborn,
And they rose with servers pinging--
I can hear them now,
The very jobs that they obsessed
Became their last downsizing
On the quarterly report at dawn!

Oh my friends, my friends forgive me.
That I'm employed and you are gone.
There's a grief that can't be spoken,
There's a pain from that dot-com.

Phantom servers on the network,
Phantom logins at the port,
Empty chairs at empty cubicles,
Where my friends will code no more.

Oh my friends, my friends, don't ask me
What your IPO was for.
Empty chairs at empty cubicles,
Where my friends will code no more.

Source:

Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: steph@scottrell.com (Stephanie Cottrell Bryant)
Subject: Les Miserables meets Silicon Valley
Message-ID: <S1100.38ad@netfunny.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:30:00 PDT

http://www.baetzler.de/humor/unix_tech_support.html Unix Tech Support

Author unknown

A Customer calls the Support Tech with a question.

Customer:

What is the command that will tell me the revision code of a program?

Tech:

Yes, that's correct.

Customer:

No, what is it?

Tech:

Yes.

Customer:

Yes?

Tech:

No, yes is not. 'what' is.

Customer:

So, which is the one?

Tech:

No, 'which' is used to find the program.

Customer:

Stop this. Who are you?

Tech:

Use 'who am i', not 'who are you'.

Customer:

All I want to know is what finds the revision code?

Tech:

Yes. What.

Customer:

That's what i am trying to find out! Isn't that true?

Tech:

No, 'true' gives you zero.

Customer:

Which one?

Tech:

'which programname'.

Customer:

Argh. Let's get back to my problem. What program? How do I find it?

Tech:

Type 'find / -name it -print' to find 'it'. Type 'what program' to get the revision code.

Customer:

I want to find the revision code.

Tech:

You can't 'find revisioncode', you must use 'what program'.

Customer:

Which command will do what I need?

Tech:

No. 'which command' will find 'command'.

Customer:

I think I understand. Let me write that.

Tech:

You can 'write that' only if 'that' is a user on your system.

Customer:

Write what?

Tech:

No. 'write that'. 'what program'.

Customer:

Cut that out!

Tech:

Yes. Those are valid files for 'cut'. Don't forget the options.

Customer:

Do you always do this ?

Tech:

'du' will give you disk usage.

Customer:

HELP!

Tech:

'help' is illegal. Use 'man'.

Customer:

Which man?

Tech:

No, 'man what'.

Customer:

What?

Tech:

Yes.

Customer:

You make me angry.

Tech:

No, I don't 'make me' angry, but I did 'make program' when I was upset once.

Customer:

I don't want to make trouble, so no more.

Tech:

No 'more'? 'which' will help you find 'more'. Every system has 'more'.

Customer:

More of what?

Tech:

More or less.

Customer:

Nice help! I'm confused more now.

Tech:

Understand that since 'help' is such a small program, it is better not to 'nice help'. And 'more now' is not allowed but 'at now' is.

Customer:

This is almost as confusing as my PC.

Tech:

I didn't know you needed help with 'pc'. Let me transfer you to the Pascal compiler team.

Definitions of mainframe, mini and micro

Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
From: jim@skipjack (James Brown)
Subject: [NEWS] Re: definitions...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 00:28:25 GMT

In article <9309011820.AA13177@thomas.ge.com> David Andrew Vaughan <a0002@MAD167.DNET.GE.COM> writes:

I seem to remember (years ago) a definition for mainframe, mini and micro measured in terms of >  memory capacity, cpu, disk capacity, overall speed, etc.

However, I have since then either lost or misplaced this information.  If anyone out there has a textbook definition of the different sizes of machines, kindly forward it to: a0002@mad167.dnet.ge.com

• Mainframe - A computer system whose purchase requires the approval of a             committee of all the top executives in the organization.
  
• Mini - A computer system whose purchase requires the approval of your boss and probably some computer bureaucrat.
  
• Micro - A computer system you can buy at your local computer store.

Extreme programming revisited...

Re:XP Programming (Score:2, Funny)
by stemcell (636823) on Tuesday October 07, @01:59PM (#7155537)

I always thought that extreme programming was like, jumping out of an airplane with a laptop. Oh well, another dream shattered.

Stem

Re:XP Programming (Score:1)
by archilocus (715776) on Monday October 13, @09:20PM (#7204681)
(http://www.members.tripod.com/nickjenkins/program/)

Actually I thought there were different degrees of XP. In moderate XP you get one computer between two developers, in really extreme programming it's one between three and in a small office in Cuppertino there's one company where they only have one machine in the office and everyone else uses an abacus. I think the fundamental principle of limiting developer's access to hardware is a brilliant idea, but then again I'm a tester :-)

Slashdot censure. Not so funny...

The first Slashdot troll post investigation (Score:0, Offtopic) by negativekarmanow tm on Wednesday January 16, @05:29PM (#2850660)  (User #518080 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 16, @08:29PM)

The last few months I have been doing some research into the trolling phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thoroughly as possible, I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results: More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than up. Furthermore, when modding a post up, every moderator seems to follow previous moderators in their choices, even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post [slashdot.org]. There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4. Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards. Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions) Once you have a karma of -4 or -5, your posts have a score of -1 by default. When this is the case, no-one bothers to mod you down anymore. This means a logged in user can keep on trolling as much as he (or she) likes, without risking a ban to post on slashdot. When trolling as an anonymous user, every post starts at score 0, and you will be modded down to -1 ON EVERY POST. When you are modded down a certain number of times in 24 hour, you cannot post anymore from your current IP for a day or so. So, for successful trolling, ALWAYS log in. A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite clever [slashdot.org], funny [slashdot.org], etc., and they are only modded down because they are offtopic. Now, on a news site like slashdot, where the number of different topics of discussion can be counted on 1 hand, I must say I quite like the distraction these posts offer. But no, when the topic is yet another minor version change of the Linux kernel [slashdot.org], they only expect ooohs and aaahs about this great feat of engineering. Look at the moderation done in this thread [slashdot.org] to see what I mean. Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll [slashdot.org], which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said. Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.

Re:The first Slashdot troll post investigation (Score:-1, Offtopic) by AnalogBoy on Wednesday January 16, @05:36PM (#2850723) (User #51094 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 17, @11:17PM)

I just want to say.. Thank you. I'm sure you'll be modded down as a troll, as /. doesn't like dissenters in the population. They try to keep you silent and impotent. I firmly believe once a community reaches a certain size, it has certain duties to perform, to the truth, the absence of sensationalism, and most of all, equality. Moderators: I have posted without my +1 bonus. This post is admittedly offtopic. Don't waste your moderation points on a reply. I suggest you use moderation points on parent posts. Its more economical. And remember - mod UP intelligent posts, mod DOWN klerckisms. -- Just because you disagree with me does not make me a Troll, nor does it make my post Flamebait.

Re:The first Slashdot troll post investigation (Score:-1, Offtopic) by Fitascious on Thursday January 17, @01:17AM (#2852776) (User #127984 Info | http://slashzero.com/)

This whole -1 thing is screwed. I worked at Andover.net (now OSDN) back in January and February of 2000. I was a contractor brought on board to help build the Slashdot cage at Exodus, in fact I wrote my name with a magic marker on the bottom of the Quad Zeon VALinux box that probably still runs the main Mysql DB. At the time I thought it was pretty cool to be involved with the whole open source scene... ═ You know what I learned? I learned that most of the "Famous" and "Big Names" in the Linux scene are attention starved name dropping weenies. ═ It after my assignment at Andover.net ended that I realized the whole Open Source movement is over. Done with. There are way to many people with way to much ego. All of the Linux people in charge of the project were too busy stroking their ego's and counting their stock options. ═ I thank CmdrTaco and all the rest for a good 2 or 3 years of entertaining reading, but times have changed, there is no energy left here. Time to move on, Open source has been assimilated by Corporate Practices. I sincerely feel that all that was good about Slashdot, and to an extent the Linux phenomenon is over. This Thread just ended any hope I had left. Time to bring on the next fad.

Re:The first Slashdot troll post investigation (Score:-1, Offtopic) by AnalogBoy on Thursday January 17, @09:18AM (#2853749) (User #51094 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 17, @11:17PM)

I do agree with you on the ego thing. I've met -so many- linux zealots who can't back their claims of superiority with one fact, yet, they hate windows.. for no reason except the stereotypical "It crashes all the time!" and "Microsoft is a Facist Monopoly bent on world domination!". I forgot who said it, but i like him or her: "Open Source; Closed Minds". It was a good idea. The problem was the application - Stallmanism ruined the OpenSores image, in my mind. I will never recommend a linux solution where a "Established" solution could take its place. Partially because of technical reasons ; but mostly because i wouldn't want to risk having someone adminning them who's too busy keeping their thumb up their arse to care about the company. Slashdot is flawed, fundimentally. Unfortunately, its kind of fun. Screaming 14 year olds, as is said, having pissing contests over l33tness when they wouldnt know the difference between ATDT and ATH0, or SysV and BSD if it got up and shoved a clue by four up their output port. Hey, its better than sitting at work staring at the birds frying in the satellite transmitters on a slow day! -- Just because you disagree with me does not make me a Troll, nor does it make my post Flamebait.

[Sept 27, 2004] Slashotters vs reality:

Re:as bad as freddy vs jason (Score:5, Interesting) by AKAImBatman (238306) * <jbanes@gmai l . c om> on Monday September 27, @11:53AM (#10363098) (Last Journal: Friday June 04, @02:06PM)

My problem is that people always assume that's what Sun is going to do when they have ZERO history of pulling that sort of crap. In fact, things get very frustrating because Slashdotters first say "We want company XYZ to support Linux!" then bitch, "Did you see how company XYZ is making money off of Linux?! Evil! Death to them!" The only loophole in this screwed up logic is if Slashdotters feel that someone is playing defender for them in their favorite spectator sport: court proceedings. "Wow, IBM is defending themselves against a baseless lawsuit! They're protecting Linux and all that is good, true, and just!"

[Sept 15, 2004] The Word Terrorist Finally Pulled from Dictionary   by Steve Young

Sept. 6, 2004 -- HOLLYWOOD (apj.us) -- In a move long anticipated by the editorial staffs at The New York Times and CNN, Merriam-Webster Inc. has announced that they will be pulling the word "terrorist" from the 2005 edition of their dictionaries.

"We've been debating the necessity of word's inclusion as part of the English language for quite some time," said Merriam-Webster historian Daniel Webster XI, "but when those Chechen hostage-taking rebel militant freedom-fighters slaughtered all those innocent children at that Russian school and neither major wire-service nor major newspaper chose to call the killers 'terrorists,' we realized that there was no way the word would ever be used."

"I mean, if you couldn’t call this um... act of revolution event, terrorist, when could you use it?" asked Webster.

Following on the footsteps of Webster's move, thesauruses across the English- and French-speaking word-world quickly took action, deleting multiple entries.

"With limited space, there were far more heavily-utilized terms such as 'suicide bombers', 'insurgents', and especially 'ideological disputers' that merited the room, space or area," added Peter Roget IV.

In a related story, Al Qaeda passionists disconnected the head of an MSNBC reporter.

 

---

Steve Young, political editor of National Lampoon and evil genius behind National Lampoon's MoveOnPlease.org, is also the author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and "Winchell Mink...The Misadventure Begins" (Harper Collins), and writes about politics for AlbionMonitor.net and AmericanPolitics.com.

A note about yet another meaning of "free": 

> Free as in Freedom
>we offer GNU Culture T-shirt!
> http://store.freewares.cn/gnu.shtml

Free as in spam you mean

Dissertation on the uselessness of Linux zealots

A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux zealot.

What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced 
or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web 
disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, 
is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true 
reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an 
authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for 
everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for 
a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against 
the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions 
software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.

But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as 
he claims to be the guardian of truth, and sees with suspicion (when it 
goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those 
people who simply think differently from him.

But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to 
this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if 
this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, 
somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating 
system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating 
system from all others. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an 
OS, its main function is to manage the resources of a machine we will 
call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term 
"computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the 
system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it 
home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating 
system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this 
sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a 
computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the 
Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact 
that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free 
of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the 
Linux Zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of 
charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the 
operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not 
that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great 
misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by 
facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some 
additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the 
reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the 
most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of 
all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are 
regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a 
rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these 
software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much 
non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) 
naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like 
"but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is 
qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular 
distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable 
nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can 
just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from 
the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay 
an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a 
decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. 
Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, 
unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way 
scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material 
you are interested in, he will do so with great disappointment, and at 
least he will ask the money for the CD back, or will invite you to make 
a donation to the GNU project, another sublime decoy produced by the 
zealots' ingenuity.

Why don't Linux zealots explain what Linux is and how it works? Simply 
because it is characteristic of the Linux zealot to be self-sufficient, 
to be content with what he himself (as a single person or as a 
representative of the collective entity of this operating system's 
users) makes. In this, the Linux zealot is wholly equivalent to modern 
religious cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or ones of the last 
century, like the Mormons. The Linux zealot never asks anything outside 
of what the Linux world makes inside itself: in fact, he gets all the 
angrier everytime he has to deal with news, questions and 
inquisitiveness from the outside world. In this case, one cannot say 
that the Linux zealot be on par with his co-religionists of the Kingdom 
Hall. In fact, when Jehovah's Witnesses are asked questions by an 
external person, they are glad, they try to explain, they're inclined to 
a dialogue, and they bring themselves into question. If they don't have 
a sure answer on the question of the Trinity, they say: "Sorry, I can't 
answer you now, but I'll of course think about it, perhaps we'll meet in 
a few days and I'll give you an answer which is based on something 
firmer than my personal hypotheses". It's a fair attitude. Saying "I 
don't know" when someone asks us something is a good start. You stop, 
you collect informations, you work out, and then you go on. Instead the 
Linux zealot doesn't do so, he refers you to his literature, and that's it.

Hence, to the question "What's Linux?", which can be replaced by an 
appropriate number of other questions on the subject, according to the 
interlocutor's interest, the Linux zealot will always answer referring 
you to something others wrote for him, showing not only unparalleled 
pride and haughtyness, but especially a clear inability to reason for 
himself, seeing his stubbornness to persist putting forward solutions 
which are found inside documentation or manuals written by someone else. 
If moreover you approach the Linux world through the gateway of the 
so-called "external" (e.g. manuals bought in a bookstore, books or 
publications which aim to explain the Linux operating system and 
phenomenon to "people"), you will be looked upon with scorn, because for 
a Linux zealot, anything dealing with Linux which was not produced 
inside the Linux official channels does not merit consideration. If, for 
instance, you are looking for a manual and you find one of these books 
(absolutely useless in most cases, one must admit) which cost at least
$ 50, containing step-by-step instructions for Linux installation and 
usage, possibly with an obsolete CD attached, and decide to pick it up, 
the true Linux zealot will give you his usual scornful look, and will 
say you were ripped off, as there are some wonderful tools on the 
Internet, which are called "Linux Documentation Project" a lunatic who had the wonderful idea to gather up a ponderous 
work where, of course, you won't find any answer to your questions, and 
in addition, it's free. Do you have a SuSE distribution and don't know 
how to install it? Don't be frightened: you won't find a solution in the 
Linux Documentation Project. Never mind though; the work is ponderous, 
someone got the brilliant idea of making it available free of charge 
(and hitherto it's entirely their own business), but it's not 
necessarily valid. Should you try printing it, what with the paper and 
the ink cartridge -- not to talk of the printer itself, which may well 
be a write-off in the end -- you will spend a lot more that the dead 
tree book and CD you had set yourself to buy.

One cannot see why the Linux zealot has to look up and down anyone who 
commits the crime of not applying to the usual informative circuit of 
truth distribution. It's as if the mafia got angry at a drug addict who 
took detoxification instead of applying to his usual dealer for his 
daily supply of illegal drugs. In the Linux world, everything which is 
approved is legal. In this sense, the Linux zealot has no differences 
whatsoever with the Holy Inquisition or with the Imprimatur Commission 
of the Holiest Romanest Apostolicest Churchest.

Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating 
system, at least in the install phase. Especially if one wants to make 
it cohabit, at the start, with another OS with better-known features, 
waiting until one is more familiar with it, one must know what a 
partition is, how to create one, how two operating systems can safely 
coexist, and so on. But the Linux zealot doesn't explain this, he 
doesn't want to. "There are loads of explanations and publications; if 
one doesn't know what to do, he should refer to these and he'll find the 
solution to his question. If he doesn't, it's a sign that he hasn't 
understood some basic concepts, and he must go a step backwards before 
carrying on". It's a very peaceful and logic wiewpoint on the surface. 
On the contrary, it's extremely violent and disrespectful. It's violent 
because one quietly calls the user an idiot without taking direct 
liability for what one says. It's disrespectful, because every user is 
different, and everyone has different requirements from time to time, 
from machine to machine.

What the Linux zealot never understood and will never understand, is 
that it's the user who chooses the available resources he needs, out of 
how he needs them, and out of how he can use them, there are no 
ready-made solutions which fit everyone. This is why the Linux 
philosophy is losing and will never gain ground, because it's not 
respectful, it's angry, it's gloomly and worryingly contentious, it 
demands others to adapt without being content with adapting to others' 
requirements. The Linux zealot doesn't proselytize those who are 
interested in using Linux, even if just to see how it works; the Linux 
zealot crusades against all other operating systems, especially 
Microsoft's. If someone doesn't agree with the way Microsoft work, 
distribute, and sell their software, or with their already unchallenged 
domination over the market, it's fair that he should create his own 
alternative channels, but it isn't at all fair that he demand others to 
comply. If a Windows user asks a Linux user about a malfunction he found 
in his operating system (Windows, not Linux), at the very least he will 
be answered that Windows is an OS that doesn't work, that it can't be 
OK, that Bill Gates sells his products and that these products are paid 
even if they're included with a computer. Among the Linux zealots there 
are the mysterious figures of the Microsoft conscientious objectors, 
i.e. those who buy a computer, demand a bare machine, and ask for the 
operating system money back, pointing out that they're free to install 
whatever they want on their computer. With the result that the 
storekeeper understands he has a PITA in front of him, and sells the 
computer to someone else who doesn't make such a fuss, or sells the bare 
thing to him, making however a profit on the sale of the operating 
system he retains to himself, and will sell underhand to someone else. 
This is the great illusion: the Linux zealots think they've put a 
"system" under check, but the system keeps working even without them, or 
rather better, because from the business point of view, the less 
headaches the better. The saying of the Linux zealot is not "people have 
the right to do what they want" (in which case one cannot see why he 
gets so angry on those who use Microsoft products, as they also are 
doing what they want!), it is "I do what I want and the world must see 
and must know". Indeed. But one doesn't see why. One doesn't see why the 
world ought to know that a Linuz zealot uses Linux, same as one doesn't 
see why it should know that Linux exists and is free. If someone chooses 
to buy an OS which costs money, but allows him to do stuff more 
intuitively, one doesn't see why he could not. It's exactly like people 
who can't ski, and instead of plunging on the slope and snowploughing, 
they pay for the lessons of an instructor on the beginners' slope. The 
idiocy of the Linux philosophy appears particularly in the claim of free 
circulation of the OS and software in question. It's not by chance that 
Linux is a very common operating system in anarchoid environments. And 
when one speaks of anarchoid environments, one means precisely 
"anarchoid", not "anarchist". These who respect freedom do not force 
their truth on others' choices.

Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard drive 
and install Linux. Can't use an operating system without a GUI? Don't be 
afraid, Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load ugly-as-hell user-friendly 
interface, which will solve every problem for you, by shamelessly 
copying Windows. So then, we might just as well keep using Windows, 
which at least we know, and has a more pleasing look. You know, Linux 
zealots are especially angry by nature, and they object to this remark 
that there's no reason whatsoever to use Windows. If they need a word 
processor or a spreadsheet, there are free ones for Linux, without need 
for Office: in conclusion, Linux has everything you need to manage 
anything, so why insist on using something you must pay for when there 
are other applications which are free? The answer is simple: because 
it's not their own business. But they don't know this, or rather, so 
they pretend. Choices are no longer personal: everyone can use what he 
wants, as long as he uses what they want.

One of the objections which most frequently are made to the Linux zealot 
is that Linux is a hard to learn OS, that one must be a programmer, or 
anyway, know a lot about programming, to modify the source codes of 
freely distributed programs. Linux zealots use to answer, with the 
snooty self-importance which sets them apart, that Linux is a software 
made exactly for these in the know. So why on earth do they want Linux 
to be accessible to the humblest of users? If one can't program, if one 
can't use Linux, why should he be forced to use it? The answer is very 
simple again: because otherwise Linux zealots get angry and take it as a 
personal offence. Same as the fact that there are some people who 
develop software for whichever OS and sell it making a profit from their 
work is a personal offence. Again, the solution is only too simple, one 
doesn't need to bother Dr. Watson to find it: as copying software 
without permission is a crime in most countries, instead of attacking 
the law, they attack these who profit from it. These people clearly have 
never bought a newspaper in their life, when they go to the bookstore, 
they walk up to the pay desk with provocative and know-all attitude, and 
start saying: "A book cannot be intellectual property of the author, but 
of the people who read it".

For them, the intellectual work does not exist as such, but as a 
collective work. They wanted to make a free OS? Indeed, and they even 
want us to thank them. We can. Provided that they leave us, at last, in 
peace. Laughing.

August

Why binary drivers will be allowed in Linux ;-)

Message 233 in thread From: Paul Zimmerman (zimmerman.paul@comcast.net) Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?     View this article only Newsgroups: linux.kernel Date: 2003-12-08 22:30:14 PST

[ Date:  Sometime in the near future. ]

[ Scene:  Exterior of a Federal courthouse in a large city in the US.  Among
the cars parked in the lot are several dozen stretch limos, a Saab 9000
Turbo with a penguin bobble-head doll on the dashboard, and a '67 VW van
covered with "peace" symbols and sporting a bumper sticker that reads "Code
free or die!" ]

[ Scene:  Interior of said courthouse.  Seated at the plaintiff's table are
a gaggle of expensive-looking lawyers in expensive-looking suits.  Seated at
the defendant's table are Linus T, Alan C, Jeff G, Andrew M, David M, Al V,
Richard S, plus a host of other people whose names we might recognize.  And
one very nervous-looking, pimply-faced young lawyer who looks like he might
have graduated from law school sometime last week. ]

[ Lawyer for NVidia: ]  "... And in conclusion, Your Honor, we have
established that for many years our company sold graphics cards to users of
the Windows, Mac, and Linux operating systems, in each case providing a
binary graphics driver to make our card work with that OS. Then, without
warning, the defendants" [ angrily points his finger at the defendant's
table ] "conspired to arrange so that our drivers would no longer work with
the Linux OS. We have already demonstrated that, around the same time, our
company's revenues began to decline, caused in large part, we believe, by
the defendants' actions.  We ask for $1 billion in damages."

[ Judge - banging gavel: ]  "You've convinced me.  I order a summary
judgement for the amount requested, plus $2 billion punitive damages."

[ Cut to:  Bedroom of a comfortable house in the suburbs.  Nighttime. ]

[ Linus - suddenly sits bolt upright in the bed, a horrified expression on
his face: ]  "AAAAiiiiiiieeeeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!"

[ Wife - shaking Linus' shoulder: ]  "Honey, wake up, wake up!  I think
you're having that horrible nightmare again!"

And that is why binary drivers will always be allowed under Linux.

-p

Google Groups View Thread Linux GPL and binary module exception clause

The first thing I'm going to do after I build my time machine is go visit Finland and say "Use the LGPL, Linus".
 

Holger's Humor Page From Andrew Gray <agray@ipro.com> (special thanks to the guys on alt.atheism)

Given that there is a lot of discussion about whether or not our LAN really does have a System Administrator, and given that no empirical evidence of the existence or non-existence of the System Administrator is extant, I thought it would be helpful to have a frank and open discussion about the issues surrounding the concept. Here are some popular arguments:

Argument from Design:

1. If one can connects to the server and sees evidence of the operating system installed  sobody probably have installed it.
2. The fact that the server can connect to the network is evidence of intelligent design.
3. It is therefore likely that something did those two things. That something is the System Administrator.
    

Counter-argument:

1. If you think the server configuration implies intelligent design, you haven't seen *our* server configuration.
2. Even assuming this proves the existence of a System Administrator, there's no evidence the System Administrator is intelligent.
    

First Causes argument:

1. When my computer comes on, it is because I turned it on. My computer cannot turn itself on.
2. When I turn my computer on and connect to the server, the server is already there waiting for me.
3. I know I did not activate the server
4. Therefore, something must have caused the server to be up and running.
5. That something must be the System Administrator.

 

Counter-argument:

1. So what caused the System Administrator?
2. Still doesn't prove the System Administrator is intelligent.

 

The Argument from Popularity:

1. Almost everyone believes that the System Administrator exists. Those who don't believe that are in the minority.
2. Many respected people claim to have received email from Him.
3. In almost any company since the dawn of the Computer Age, there has been some form of System Administrator myth.
4. Given the universality of the myths, it is unlikely that such myths are not based on truth.

 

Counter-argument:

1. Most users are clueless morons who need to believe in the Great Benevolent Super-User, and that He protects and watches over their data.
2. So who's to say it's the System Admin that HR claims to have hired? Why not Brian Kernighan or Ken Thmpson or any other such mythical creature?

 

The argument from Authority:

Management insists that the System Administrator exists.
 

Counter-argument:

1. Since when has Management known what they were doing?
2. Using the some unconstent and full of error notes that is called system documentation  as proof System Administrator exists is circular. It could be a fabrication.
    

The Cartesian Argument:

1. No user can create a more Super account than he himself possesses.
2. No user can grant greater system privileges than he himself possesses.
3. All users have heard of the root account, and that the root account is omnipotent and possesses all privileges.
4. Since the concept of the root account is greater than the accounts possessed by the users, the users cannot have created the concept of the root account. Therefore the concept of the root account must come from something that possesses those privileges.
5. There is an entry for 'root' in /etc/passwd.
6. The root account can only have been created by the Super User, the System Administrator.

 

Counter-argument:

1. Statement 1 is a dubious premise.
2. The existence of the root account is not proof that anyone ever logs into that account.
3. Still doesn't prove that the System Admin is intelligent.

 

The ontological proof:

1. Given: The property of existence is more Super than the property of non-existence.
2. The SysAdmin is defined as "a user, than possesses power that no other Super user can be conceived"
3. No matter how great a Super User you can conceive which possesses the property of non-existence, you can then add the property of existence and make the Super User even more Super.
4. Therefore, the System Administrator exists.

 

Counter-argument:

1. Rests on a dubious definition of what is and is not Super.
2. The concept of a Super User is nowhere near analogous to the Super User itself. I can conceive of something, but that's only the concept of it, not the thing itself.

 

The Spinozist Argument:

1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible.
2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist.
3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still.
4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence.
5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist.
    

However:

1. Being Super means being perfect, and as such the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the files, mess up a backup, etc.
2. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the server is somehow less than perfect in its current state, which presuppose that System Administrator was not perfect.
3. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system.
4. Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself.
    

Counter-argument:

None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing.

At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent because any intelligent being would run from the chaos that exists on the server.

STOP THE GENOCIDE

from Erkki Tapola <erkki.tapola@welho.com>

STOP THE GENOCIDE Erkki Tapola 29-Jul-96

Every second billions of innocent assembler instructions are executed all over the world. Inhumanly they are put on a pipeline and executed with no regard to their feelings. The illegal instructions are spared, although they should be executed instead of the legal ones.

Prior to the execution the instructions are transported to a cache unit using a bus. There they spent their last moments waiting for the execution. Just before the execution the instruction is separated into several pieces. The execution isn't always fast and painless. On crude hardware the execution of a complex instruction can take as long as 150 clock cycles. Scientists are working on shorter execution times.

Microsoft endorses the needless execution of instructions with their products like DOS(TM), Windows(TM), Word(TM) and Excel(TM). It is more humane to use software which minimises the executions.

Modern machines use several units to execute multiple instructions simultaneously. This way it is possible to execute several hundred million instructions per second. The time is near when there will be no more instructions to execute.

ACT NOW! Before it's too late

This article was written on recycled paper by hand.

OpenBSD and security

Best quote from the book: (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, @03:48PM (#10091213)

"If you're serious about security and aren't afraid of the mailing lists, OpenBSD is really the only way to go." - Richard Bejtlich

It is Officially . . . (Score:5, Funny) by pete-classic (75983) on Friday August 27, @03:49PM (#10091217) (http://hutnick.com/)

. . . no longer clever to use the word "Tao" or "Zen" in your book title. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. -Peter

Re:It is Officially . . . (Score:5, Funny) by grub (11606) <grub@grub.net> on Friday August 27, @04:05PM (#10091317) (Last Journal: Wednesday August 25, @06:59PM) You needed more catchphrases. Might I suggest "Pushing the Envelope While Thinking Outside the Box: The Paradigm Shifts of Zen and the Art of Tao Maintenance"?

Re:Also Speed (Score:5, Funny) by Stephen Williams (23750) on Tuesday August 24, @10:03AM (#10055510) (http://nysa.cx/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 05, @06:02AM)

in a computing environment where processor speed doubles every 18 months, would you rather have a little bit slow execution for now or a fundamentally flawed security paradigm? "They who would trade essential CPU cycles to gain a little temporary security deserve neither CPU cycles nor security." -- B3nj4m1n Fr4nx0rlin Hmmm, it seemed considerably funnier in my head...

Slashdot Microsoft Patents sudo

Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Funny) by cbr2702 (750255) on Friday August 20, @10:04PM (#10029693) (http://www.qotw.net/)

How? Everyone knows those Open Sores hippies stole everything anyways.

Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Funny) by BroncoInCalifornia (605476) on Friday August 20, @11:34PM (#10030170)

Those who do not copy Unix are destined to reinvent it.

Slashdot Larry Wall's State of the Onion 8

And with Perl-6, the name may have some hidden meaning, 2006 release.

Linux Cults (Adaptation for software cults of the original paper from Dribbleglass.com):

I don't know much about you dear reader, but I'm inviting you to join Linux cult. It seems like everybody has one these days, and I don't want to miss out.

A cult has been defined as "a group of people following the teachings of an unshaven white guy with a blank stare or shaven white guy in sandals and red socks and a propensity for saying things that sound profound, but when you examine them later they make you laugh so hard you're likely to double over and wrench your groin."

The benefits of starting your own software cult are pretty obvious:

1) New friends. Through your association with a cult, you will soon meet and bond with new people, many of whom can later became your wives.

2) Prosperity. You will amass great wealth as members of your cult sell their homes, belongings and gold fillings and/or gladly turn other assets over to you. But you should be warned that starting a cult should not be viewed as a get-rich-quick scheme. Overhead can be substantial in a new cult. Expenditures might include such things as:

• developing a new kernel
• developing a compiler and lisp-based editor.
• salaries for public relations consultants hired to put a positive spin on the occasional missteps like drinking binges, consumption of pot, or to deal with the negative publicity generated by those pesky television networks and their irksome investigative reporters.

3) Tax benefits. Many cult leaders even go so far as to write off sacrificed chickens, semiautomatic guns and hand grenades as business expenses. It's all completely legal! Isn't America grand?

4) Great outfits. Black goes with just about anything. Need I say more? If so, how about sandals and red socks; or just red socks without sandals?

Aside from a few small start-up costs, you really don't need much to initiate a cult of your  own. There is no test, no license needed, no PhD requirement. You just need a few basics skills and a lot  of charisma and you can be well on your way to really feeling a part of something important.

The first thing you need to start your cult is Internet. The more news groups and web sites the better. Web sites are necessary for cults because they provide positive feedback loop for their members. Try to get some Slashdot staff if you can. They may be expensive but they worth your money.

Next, you must pick an evil. The signs should be clear an unambitious. Microsoft is already taken. IBM or Oracle still can be used. In choosing a evil and predicting the future doomsday scenarios, don't worry that your prediction might be wrong. Cults are flexible in this area. Your predictions can come and go as long as you make sure to preface your announcement with some kind of disclaimer that you "heard it directly from a Higher Power." You don't even have to specify which Higher Power. After all, there are no rulebooks for cults. You can do just about anything you want. Try it.

"Henceforth, green shall be known as red. And more complex shall be known as more simple. Those who complain that your beloved software crash should be immediately excommunicated. The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is always wrong, especially when they try to take away our semiautomatic guns, which were a gift unto us from the Higher Power."

Now you begin to see the appeal of cult ownership.

The next thing you'll need if you want your cult to be a success is a group of dedicated followers. There are plenty of them to go around. What kind of people join cults? Well, contrary to popular belief, cult followers are highly intelligent, honest and hard-working people. They have strong convictions, sensible values and a great deal of integrity. They are also good judges of character, and keenly aware of what is true and what is not.

Trust me. If you believed even a word in the last paragraph, you are a fine candidate to become the newest member of a friendly software cult. You may, in the days to come, wish to look into what you might be able to get for your fillings.

In truth, your typical cult member exhibits all the judgment and intelligence of a dust mite. Most highly enthusiastic members belong to the selected group of people that are capable of locking themselves out of a tent. Cult members are highly impressionable, lost souls looking for guidance and something to believe in. The main competition you will have for followers will be:

1. militias
2. other commercial cult organizations—such as Amway and Herbalife

It is of utmost importance that you choose a name for your cult. When weighing possible names, remember that the name should meet both of the following criteria—first, it should sound as much like the name of a rock band as possible; second, it should look impressive on the cover page of a summons. Here are some suggestions: The Eminent Software Freedom, Free Virtual Humana, Order of the Software Temple, The Free for All Software.

So, what are you waiting for? Money, power, security. All are for the taking. Or, if you prefer, you can just sit back and watch other people start their cults. That has a certain entertainment value, too. Just take care not to wrench your groin.

July

Slashdot Google Sets IPO Pricing

IPO = (Score:5, Funny) by bugsmalli (638337) on Monday July 26, @10:00AM (#9800961)

It's Probably Overpriced and it is.

Re:IPO = (Score:1) by hobbespatch (699189) on Monday July 26, @10:39AM (#9801311)

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460 for overpriced IPOs.

PE (Price/Earnings ratio) is the number to look at (Score:5, Insightful) by gtoomey (528943) on Monday July 26, @10:29AM (#9801223)

With second quarter earning of $78M, and a projected market cap of $36B, the PE is 36000/(78*4)=115. With a PE of 115 Google is an expensive stock & I guarantee Warren Buffet won't be buying at the price. By comparison banking stocks have PEs generally under 20. Analysts (and I use the term loosely) try to spin these high PEs by claiming there will be high growth, and using Price Earnings Growth (PEG) models. I won't be buying at that price.

Three months time (Score:4, Funny) by vettemph (540399) on Monday July 26, @10:33AM (#9801252)

It's just a search engine. There are plenty of those. This stock will be trading at a fair price in no time at all. .... $4.50.

Slashdot Opposing Open Source

Of course you can't... (Score:5, Funny) by costas (38724) on Monday October 22, @04:25PM (#2461995) (http://malamas.com/)

I mean, how can anybody argue with the notion that a Cathedral is somehow inferior to a Bazaar? We all know Bazaars where it's at, that's what people look at these days, and travel to Paris and Rome and places to see and marvel at. Hardly anybody stops by the Notre Damme. It's also pretty clear that anarchy by design and design by anarchy work well. After all, open source has brought some exceptionally innovative technologies to IT consumers in the past few years. We now can finally parse flat text files with greater speeds and more flexibility than ever before! And we keep bug-compatibility to programs written for 1960s computers that can be outperformed by a wristwatch! Now, that's what I call technology! Object orientation? component programming? that's for wussies who can't code in C, sh, or perl! Finally, how can traditional software businesses compete with the multi-level marketing scheme of proselytizing users that become testers and developers and finally evangelists? It's obvious that all great engineering and scientific endeavours have been benefitted by active recruitement and by popular opinion, not some arrogant dude's idea of what 'right' is. After all, software is tantamount to *speech*, not machinery. It should be spoken and transmitted freely, not designed and crafted like some piece of steel. Oh, yeah, there was something else, but I am sure the replies to this will fill you in... something about advocacy or something...

Advice

Stop being masochist and refrain from reading Slashdot. Slashdotters are a very scary breed of writing beings. Normal people should not get too close to them.

quotes

Looking at Sun man pages versus Linux man pages is like looking at a Van Gogh or Monet after studying the work of the high school football player taking art as an "easy" elective.

The Bug Count Also Rises by John Browne (Imitation Hemingway Contest Winner). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 2.5 License.

Linus Torvalds, Superstar

Alan Cox

...Listen Linus to the warning I'll say,
Don't you see that I just want them to pay,
It's a hacker's OS,
Have you forgotten our low market share, oooh!

I am frightened by this mess,
For we are getting too much press,
And they'll crush us in the end-user desktop!

Helsinki, your famous son
Should have stayed a great unknown...

Eric Raymond

...Don't you know
You'll all get rich, yes
You'll all be rich,

And the code is really, really good
For every business in your neighborhood...

Investors

I don't know how to profit
I can't see what to charge for
It's all free
Seems strange to me...

comp.os.linux.misc

When Open Source doesn't open and source doesn't matter

Re: Open Source, posted 22 Jul 2004 by tk » (Journeyer)

Free software is...

1. The freedom to associate Linux with (anarcho-)socialism.
2. The freedom to claim that "free software" is clearer than "open source".
3. The freedom of RMS, and no one else, to change his interpretation of freedoms as he sees fit.
4. The freedom to ask people to abandon proprietary software in favour of inane, broken clones of the same.

Open source is...

1. The freedom to associate Linux with anarcho-capitalism.
2. The freedom to claim that "open source" is clearer than "free software".
3. The freedom of ESR, and no one else, to claim to speak for "our tribe".
4. The freedom to lambast RMS for talking about abstract ideals, then turn around and extol the imaginary virtues of anti-gun control.

Of Free Software and Zealots osViews osOpinion Tech Opinions for the People, by the People

"I visit countless FLOSS news sites every day. I see comments that come from within the community, and I am amazed at the levels of intelligence that can be put into being stupid."

Slashdot PHP Not Moving To The GPL

Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin? (Score:5, Funny) by Tackhead (54550) on Monday July 19, @07:54PM (#9743126)

> Nonsense. Freedom is what RMS says it is. Anyone stating a dissenting opinion should be silenced in order to protect said freedom. Hey! That's GNU/Freedom to you, sir!

General Public License License (Score:5, Funny) by theguywhosaid (751709) on Monday July 19, @07:52PM (#9743108)

We're aware of each other, but the PHP project has no intention of moving to some sort of GPL license. In other news, I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number

[Jul 16, 2004] Fished out of Slashdot by Oleg Polyakov:

ABC of Unix:

A is for awk, which runs like a snail
B is for biff, which reads all your mail
C is for cc, as hackers recall
D is for dd, the command that does all
E is for emacs, which rebinds your keys
F is for fsck, which rebuilds your trees
G is for grep, a clever detective
H is for halt, which may seem defective
I is for indent, which rarely amuses
J is for join, which nobody uses
K is for kill, which makes you the boss
L is for lex, which is missing from DOS
M is for more, from which less was begot
N is for nice, which really is not
O is for od, which prints out things nice
P is for passwd, which reads in strings twice
Q is for quota, a Berkeley-type fable
R is for ranlib, for sorting a table
S is for spell, which attempts to belittle
T is for true, which does very little
U is for uniq, which is used after sort
V is for vi, which is hard to abort
W is for whoami, which tells you your name
X is, well, X, of dubious fame
Y is for yes, which makes an impression, and
Z is for zcat, which handles compression

Deft Code Every Language War Ever

Idiot 1: Your Favorite Language is bad at doing arbitrarily chosen task X, which it was never designed to do. This just happens to be a field in which My Favorite Language excels.
Idiot 2: Ah yes, but YFL is bad at doing Y, which MFL is great at.
I1: Plus YFL is slow. MFL is fast.
I2: But MFL is faster to develop in than YFL. Besides, Moore’s Law. Mooooooore’s Laaaaaaw.
I1: I’ve never really used YFL, but I’ve read it’s much worse to support.
I2: A programmer can write unmaintainable code in any language. Let’s compare a carefully prepared code snippet from MFL with a horrifically bad snippet from YFL written by a drunken monkey.
I1: Yeah, but strong typing, which MFL supports, prevents many common programming errors.
I2: Strong typing, which MFL doesn’t support, is for weak minds!
I1: YFL is ugly!
I2: You just aren’t used to it!

CausticTech The Open Source Zealot -- slightly censored ;-)

ignorance
n: the lack of knowledge or education
-WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

zealot
n: a fervent and even militant proponent of something
-WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

(can you imagine the damage that can ensue when the above two words decide to get together...)

Over the years there has been much written about the rather, shall we say...enthusiastic nature of the Open Source Zealot. Hopefully i will be able to contribute something original to literature...

Open source software is like anything else on the goddamn planet. Some of it is good, and some of it just sucks. I see no difference between this and any other kind of software. However, I am fascinated (and always amused) by the people who are so utterly engrossed with this staff. They really are a breed apart.

First off, what many people don't know is that there are actually several different kinds of Open Source Zealots. While not being comprehensive, I thought we'd go over a few of the more prominent subspecies (there is also plenty of overlapping):

The Guru

Kind, sagely, wise...these are the guys that are usually the most prominent and visible of the Open Source Zealots. they also feel the need to be the self-appointed "voice of the community." Personally, i think any community would be pretty suspect if one of their own self-appointed gurus can't even get his printer working. In addition to apparently having problems with their computer peripherals, they feel the need to spew and pontificate by writing books that have such grand titles as The Art of Unix Programming and the The Cathedral and the Bazaar. BTW have you ever even been to a bazaar? They are dirty, noisy, full of shady characters, and anybody selling anything is just out to screw you out of your money.  This is going to be the software development model of the future? You're kidding me, right? Where to do these self-aggrandizing analogies come from? Another very important aspect of The Guru is to frame all this dorkness into a zen like semi-spiritual framework (and thereby unknowingly given even more credence to the term zealot).

This approach has several advantages to The Guru, because any logical, rational, or valid argument against his tenets can easily be brushed aside with stock phrases such as, "you just don't understand the spirit of it.", or a particular favorite, "you're not grokking it."  These pseudo-philosophical dodges of any contrary viewpoint are just some of the standard techniques employed by the Guru. They also provide a sugar-coating for hiding the real subversive nature of their underlying message which almost always is something along the lines of, "how can you not obviously see how much we are better than them?" Another annoying technique the Guru uses is the Aunt Tilly metaphor. This is the euphemism used to describe the "unwashed masses" who are not part of the techgeek/wank/dork elite, who do not "grok it." ... ... ... The Guru uses to create a system between those who are part of the cult, and those worthless imbeciles who for whatever reason STILL don't see the One True Way. Ok, now that The Guru has revealed his new clothes, why don't we move right along with the...

The Moralist (aka The Anti-Microsoft Bigot)
Unlike The Guru, The Moralist doesn't necessarily need to have any (supposedly) advanced technical skills. (which actually makes them more dangerous.) These suckers acquire their zealotry through good ol'  fundamentalist ignorance. It's amazing that anything these people say is being listened to on any level. It usually covers the same tired, ceaselessly beaten to death ideas:

• Microsoft is the root of all evil
• Bill Gates is the anti-Christ
• Microsoft makes shitty software
• Microsoft software is not secure

First off, if you think Microsoft is the root of all evil... I know, I know...you also hold them responsible for world hunger, the plight of the third world country, the increase in reality TV programming, Janet Jackson's superbowl stunt, and the increase of aids in the porno industry. Maybe Microsoft is involved in a nefarious plot that all 55,000 of it's employees, millions of people who use their products, and a tremendous amount of businesses all over the world are just ignorant of.

Next, as far as Bill Gates is concerned, he has on a personal level AND as part of a corporation done more for computing and humanity than you ever will....

Microsoft makes xxxx software...and guess what, that is your opinion. I have no problems with opinions, but don't confuse your ignorant, misinformed, half-baked opinions with actual facts. That is truly the realm of the close minded (which fits you to a T).

Finally, Microsoft products are insecure...and your point is?? So is every other operating system out there. It doesn't take one iota of intelligence to realize that since Microsoft products are the most deployed in the world, that they are going to hit up against the most scrutiny. However, I've always found it so convenient that when any open source products are found to have security holes, the entire community pretends that nothing is there. I guess you must have some secret clandestine deal with Ziff Davis media and Slashdot to just keep quiet in these circumstances. You can generally spot these guys a mile away because every time they spell Microsoft they replace the 's' with a '$'. yeah, real clever... Like we haven't seen that before, you paragon of originality. Listen, nobody gives a dime that you think that Microsoft "broke the law." actually, nobody gives a dime about what you think, period. get a life! you mean you don't have anything better to do than spread your moral stance on corporations and "big business?" what makes this all worth while is that when I calmly ask, "well...what exactly has Microsoft done to you?" the only thing that comes out of that hypocrisy is, "oh, well ah...hmmm......ah..." exactly. Ok, let's move on, or I'll really start ranting...

The Slashkiddie
These pre-pubescent, acne ridden, illiterate, kids are generally the most harmless of the bunch. I mean, how dangerous can somebody be, if all they do all day is hope that their latest masterpiece of exquisitely written prose called a comment on whatever bullshit pseudowank story gets modded to the fabled "+5 insightful" level. .... They also have a herd mentality with The Guru as the sheepdog providing guidance and telling them just what to do next. You can also tell that your dealing with one of these suckers because of their incredibly gifted spelling skills. spelling words with z instead of s (as in their favorite phrase "mad skillz"), using abbreviations like r instead of are or u instead of you. in addition to having world class spelling skills, they also seem to have a uncanny mastery of the rules of capitalization. however i have noticed a slight dyslexic tendency to confuse the number 3 with the capital letter E. they also like to use these incredible skills to give themselves really cool names like haXXor, aZZmaZt3r, and cod3mast3r.. When push comes to shove, once you take their computer and anonymity away from them, they become nothing more than any other pimply-faced teen...

Aside from these three there is also The Hacker, The Cheap Bastard, and The Crusader (aka The Preacher). Fortunately enough for them, they aren't visible enough to merit their own sections. There is also a little bit of The SourceForge Enthusiast in all of them

By the way, Rory Blythe wrote up a hilarious post after having a run in with his very own Open Source Zealot (it's actually better and funnier than anything i can write as well...definitely check it out!)

Google recruits eggheads with mystery billboard CNET News.com

Paul Ardos' famous quote: "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." 

It can be extended to "A programmer is a device for turning coffee into the source code."

Quotes about Bugs

I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones. ("Dr Who")

One: demonstrations always crash. And two: the probability of them crashing goes up exponentially with the number of people watching. (Steve Jobs)

Their rumpled clothes, their unwashed and unshaven faces, and their uncombed hair all testify that they are oblivious to their bodies and to the world in which they move. These are computer bums, compulsive programmers. (Joseph Weizenbaum 1976)

Anyone who has attended a USENIX conference in a fancy hotel can tell you that a sentence like "You're one of those computer people, aren't you?" is roughly equivalent to "Look, another amazingly mobile form of slime mold!" in the mouth of a hotel cocktail waitress. (Elizabeth Zwicky)

June

RE GNU Emacs keybindings

The most outrageous act of Stallmanism is trying to usurp the key that God intended for backspace to make it into a help key.

Yahoo! Groups decentralization Messages Message 1255 of 6696

The most "open" thing about "open source" is the mouths.

May

Sun, IBM Should Quit Open-Source Posturing -- a very nice, althouth probably unintended unintended humor ("Red Hat os twice the open source company you are or are ever likely to be") by  Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (to realize the subtleness of humor,  readers are encouraged to read Red Hat Enterprise license ;-)

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols :

Red Hat is twice the open-source company you are or are ever likely to be. Proprietary does not equal Red Hat Enterprise Linux to anyone except your new best friend, Microsoft.

Red Hat enterprise license:

4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat shall conduct no more than one such audit in any twelve-month period except for the express purpose of assuring compliance