Softpanorama (slightly skeptical) Open Source Software Educational Society

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

Softpanorama
"Linux Sucks" Classics
 Collection
(1998-2006)

Quotes

• An "open sauce company" is news to me

• Don't let a few insignificant facts distract you from waging a holy war A Slashdot post

• It's spelled Linux, but it's pronounced "Not Windows" - Usenet sig

• Richard Stallman's GPL is free like in Henry Ford's quote: "You can have any color as long as it's black."

• GNU/Please GNU/re-submit GNU/this GNU/in GNU/proper GNU/GNU GNU/speak GNU/approved by GNU/Richard GNU/Stallman.

Definitions:

Words that should be in the Jargon File but aren't (Diary for mettw [8 Sep 2000 ]):

Raymondism: The deluded belief that free software defies Brooks' law, has fewer security exploits than non-free software and that just because thousands of people have access to the source code those same thousands of people will actually examine it.

Slashdot Affect: A form of depression that occurs when seeing a perfectly sensible post at slashdot be moderated down simply because it doesn't conform to the ideology of the herd.

Stories:

'I Provide Open Source Office Solutions,' Says Pitiful Little Man -- a nice parody on doc-coms in general and open source doc-coms in particular

"VisTech is your one-stop source for Internet and Intranet open source development, as well as open source software support and collaborative development" said Smuda, adjusting the toupee he has worn since age 23. "We are an open source company that can evaluate and integrate multi-platform open source solutions, including Linux, Apache, MySql, Python and Zope"

"Remember, no job is too small for the professionals at VisTech, and high quality is guaranteed" added the spouseless, childless man, who is destined to die alone and unloved. "And no job is too big for us, either."

... ... ...

Other notable entries:

• KNOW YOUR UNIX SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
• Torvalds to develop Microsoft's next operating system
• Linus quits kernel development
• Bulletin/Humor/courses_for_programmers_wifes.shtml
• OPEN SOURCE MASSLINUX
• Interview with a hacker
• The GPL License is not Compatible with itself
• Hired Magazine interviews Good Software Group founder

See also

• Softpanorama Bulletin Russian Computer Humor Archive

Enjoy the collection !

Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov

Outsourced News ;-)

[Mar 21, 2008] Penguin Suicide Bombers/The Terrorism of Open Source

Brilliant satire

March, 2008

The open source movement is widely recognized as “an important development” in the computer industry and has been both lauded and criticized by many pundits. However, despite exhaustive analysis and discussion, the phenomenon of open source has remained singularly vexing to classify. Variously, the open source movement has been classified as socialism, communism, a “gift economy”, charity, futilism and gullibilism. It has even caused distinguished Yale professors to wave the proverbial white flag and invent remarkably catchy new phrases such as “commons-based peer production”. Rolls right of the tongue.

Because it is widely understood that for anything to have any real meaning or be properly studied that it must first be stripped of its outward trappings and pigeon-holed as narrowly as possible, I, The Objective Observer, have risen to the challenge and will now properly classify the open source movement. In three scintillating acts I will first describe what open source is, dispel certain myths and pejorative characterizations of it (what open source isn’t) and finally analyze the open source movement’s goals and tactics to properly and succinctly explain its true nature.

The layman’s definition of open source software is software that is non-proprietary or “free” and can be modified by anyone with the requisite programming knowledge without the constraints of overly restrictive licensing. Now, there are certainly those that will decry this definition as incomplete since there are apparently entire organizations, such as the Open Source Initiative, whose seemingly sole reason for existence is to maintain the exact definition of the term “open source”. Thus, it is highly unlikely that a single sentence definition for so complex a term as to require its own dedicated organization to define it; no matter how expertly crafted, will universally satisfy everyone. However, the important thing to remember here is that open source software is different than commercial software because commercial software makers incur expenses from employing software developers, charge for their software, have restrictive licenses on its use and do not release their source code. Conversely, open source software is built by a process in which one or more individuals collaborate to create software and then release that software and its source code to the public domain. These individuals are not paid to create the software and they may never make a dime from it.

As altruistic and benevolent as this all sounds, open source is not without its detractors; who have variously categorized open source as “socialism” or even “communism”. Most notably, SAP; a large European software manufacturer has criticized open source as “intellectual property socialism” and Bill Gates has even hinted that the open source movement is communism. For some perspective, remember that Bill Gates has been feuding with the “free” software movement for over three decades. These characterizations are used pejoratively and are highly inaccurate, proving yet again the age old adage that technologists know much more about bits and bytes than they do about socio-economic systems.

Socialism and communism are both economic and political ideologies typically characterized by State control of property, distribution of wealth and/or means of production. Open source has no “State” or governing body and thus it is perhaps more correctly characterized as Anarchism or Fascist socialization, which is not really as bad as it sounds; look it up. However, the problem with all of these characterizations is the same; they make certain incorrect assumptions and thus fail to capture the core essence of the movement. All of these characterizations attempt to fit the open source movement into the presupposed category of a political ideology or socio-economic system. But this is most definitely NOT what the open source movement is all about because it completely and utterly misses the mark with respect to the origin of the open source movement, its goals and its tactics. Under this ridiculously broad characterization, two neighbors who borrow sugar from one another in order to make cookies for a volunteer church function could be categorized as socialists or communists.

Another myth that must be dispelled is the analogy of a charity or non-profit organization. While there is most definitely an element of volunteerism present within the open source movement, again, there is no clear organization that masterminds or directs giving. In addition, most true volunteer efforts offer direct assistance to specific groups of individuals. For example, after a flood, the Red Cross might show up on your doorstep and give you a bucket and mop or if you are house-bound “Meals on Wheels” might show up on your doorstep with some vittles. With open source, there is no central organization and there is no direct beneficiary to benefactor relationship. Open source projects are simply posted online and it is up to potential beneficiaries to find them. This is akin to the Red Cross keeping a warehouse of mops and buckets and expecting flood victims to come get them or “Meals on Wheels” cooking mass amounts of food and hoping people show up to eat it.

• This volunteer aspect of the open source movement is frequently reinforced by such things as the “Bee Keeper” model. In this model of open source development, alternatively known as the “Profiteering and Exploitation” model or “Rape and Pillage” model, open source development volunteers are the bees and a professional services organization, such as Red Hat, are the “bee keepers”. Thus the bees volunteer their time and the professional services organizations profit from their labors. While this seems to be an accurate analogy, businesses may wish to keep in mind the phenomenon of “colony collapse disorder” and the bees may wish to keep in mind that the worker bees literally work themselves to death for the sole glory of the “queen bee”. 

• This brings us to the second biggest issue with the characterization of open source as purely volunteerism which is that it completely misses the strong narcissistic drive present within the open source movement. Many open source or free software products are named after their lead developers or else the lead developer’s name is strongly associated with the product and used as a means to gain notoriety. Linus Torvolds and Linux is perhaps the best example of the former while examples of the latter are too numerous to mention, being characterized by individuals such as Bruce Perens who regularly brags about the notoriety he has gained from his work on open source projects. That, despite the fact you have almost certainly never heard of him and he will likely never sleep with a super-model.

The biggest issue with characterizing open source as purely volunteerism, however, is the same problem as classifying it as a socio-economic system or political ideology which is that such a classification focuses on only a single aspect of the open source movement. Any characterization which focuses on a single trait instead of all traits is undoubtedly flawed.

Having debunked the typical characterizations of the open source movement, the question remains as to exactly what IS the open source movement? To answer this, the only objective thing to do is to first make a list of the open source movement’s defining characteristics and then draw some sort of analogy or conclusion. Research shows that there are five primary characteristics or traits of the open source movement.

• First and foremost, the open source movement is to some degree a rejection and opposition to the direct capitalization of software but is perhaps more specifically and correctly defined as the rejection and opposition to what is perceived to be a “unipolar, capitalistic superpower”, in this case Microsoft. This appears to be a widely accepted attitude within the open source community as there are endless quotes spanning a large number of open source projects to the effect of “the enemy is Microsoft”.

• Second, the open source movement is organized as a loose confederation in which a relatively small percentage of highly skilled and charismatic leaders exert influence over legions of faceless, and often fanatical, volunteers. Individuals such as Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond are the leaders who admittedly serve as “benevolent dictators” and nearly everyone else is, well, a faceless minion.

• Third, the open source movement by and large uses crude propaganda and hate-filled rhetoric to defame and demonize its opposition. For example, this third point can be easily demonstrated by the coarse language used by Linux proponents when debating or characterizing peers that utilize Windows-based technologies. More often than not, Linux proponents and other open source advocates go out of their way to characterize their opponents as “stupid”, “ignorant”, “retarded”, “evil” or much, much worse. If you don’t believe me, go browse any forum frequented by Linux or open source proponents. In addition to the name calling and hate speech there is even advocacy of sending Windows users to concentration camps or purposefully spamming their email with viruses.

• Fourth, a favorite tactic of the open source movement is the use of fear as a weapon. Again, this can most readily be seen by Linux, Apache and Firefox proponents that tout the perceived security of their systems while attempting to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in those that use Microsoft technologies by claiming that Microsoft systems are inherently insecure or inferior in terms of security.

• Fifth, the open source movement often skirts the boundaries of the law with its open disregard and disdain for intellectual property rights (patents), association with criminal hacking elements (whose primary motivator is also often an attempt to damage or humiliate Microsoft), open advocacy of harm to Windows users (outright support or at least turning a blind eye towards Windows virus creators) and even outright theft, such as Bruce Peren’s self-admitted “stealing time from Pixar to work on Linux”. As a side note it might be interesting to conduct a study regarding the cost in unproductive time to corporations who employ developers that also work on open source projects.

Given these five characteristics, there is one and only one inescapable conclusion. The open source movement most closely resembles a terrorist organization. Now, I do not say this to be pejorative or otherwise mean-spirited to the open source movement but the similarities are rather striking. To point…

• The main motivation and rally cry for terrorists, especially Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, is the destruction of the United States, which, as the world’s sole super-power, is perceived to be the “Great Satan”. The parallels between this and the open source movement’s attitudes towards Microsoft are inescapable.

• The organizational structure of terrorists into cells and the open source movement into projects, the loose confederacy between these cells and projects and the tendency to form “splinter cells” or “forks” is also quite strong. In addition, within both groups, the followers tend to exhibit a particular penchant for fanaticism to the cause.

• Both terrorism and the open source movement use propaganda and defamatory rhetoric to demonize the opposition. The level to which this occurs within the open source community is simply unforgiveable.

• Perhaps the most telling characteristic is the use of fear as the primary weapon of choice. This fact is inescapable and irrefutable as the “security” argument is a mainstay in the propaganda of major open source projects such as Linux and Firefox. The main goal or aim of terrorists to defeat their adversaries is to cultivate fear within their enemies. Similarly, the use of the security argument is a weapon of fear and is apparently the primary method by which open source advocates hope to defeat Microsoft.

• The criminal, or at the very least questionable, tactics and guilt by association is yet another trait that the open source movement shares with terrorism. While terrorists’ criminal activities are obviously much more violent and physically destructive, the point remains that the activities and tactics of both groups tend to skirt, or at the very least, flaunt the law.

I am not aware of any other entity, group or idea that matches these five primary characteristics of the open source movement as exactly as terrorist organizations. Even more telling, one final similarity that deserves mentioning is the complete disregard both groups have for “non-combatants”. In the terrorist world, innocent bystanders and civilians are fair game and considered acceptable collateral damage. So too are non-technical folks in the open source realm of thinking. The open source movement seeks to destroy Microsoft even though open source technologies are not as easy to use or intuitive for non-technical users. If the open source movement was to succeed, those non-technical users would be brushed aside simply as collateral damage.

I want to stress here that I am not a Microsoft apologist and bear the open source community no ill will, but facts are facts. Besides, it has been stated that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter so I am not here to judge but rather to simply provide an objective analysis. My sole purpose is to point out for academics and scholars that attempting to study the open source movement by latching onto a single trait or characteristic is a flawed endeavor. No scientific knowledge can be gained from incorrectly classifying and studying the open source movement in terms of socio-economic theory or as a charity organization. True progress can only be made by instead recognizing the open source movement for what it truly is, a form of terrorism.

[Dec 3, 2006] Layoffs and CEO Resignation At OSDL

So

(Score:1)

by warrior_s (881715) on Monday December 04, @04:44PM (#17104882)

Did they let Linus go ?

Re:So

(Score:4, Funny)

by squiggleslash (241428) * on Monday December 04, @05:16PM (#17105336)
(Last Journal: Monday December 04, @01:35PM)

Sadly yes. Word is they're tapping Theo DeRaadt to take over kernel development, but this will be a part time, unpaid, position. Overall management of the direction of Linux will be given to Avie Tevanian, late of Mac OS X fame.

Also Alan Cox has announced he's leaving voluntarily to persue other interests. No replacement has been announced, though apparently Eric Raymond, Hans Reiser, and Kevin Warwick are being named as possible successors.

Developing...

(Note to mods: I'm going for +5 Funny, not -2 I don't understand the joke)

• Merry Christmas

  (Score:2)

  by MrZaius (321037) on Monday December 04, @05:43PM (#17105756)
  (http://192.168.0.1/)

  Wonderful timing, with the layoffs.

• A perfect example

  (Score:-1, Flamebait)

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04, @05:03PM (#17105158)

  Of the nonsense that software should be free and open source will save the world crapola.

  [ Reply to This ]
•  

  OSTG is next.

  (Score:2, Funny)

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04, @05:04PM (#17105170)

  Look out, Slashdot "editors". Talk about a job that can be easily replaced with a script.

[Nov 24, 2006] Definition: Slash-idiots. 

The most gullible and easily brainwashable part of Slashdot crowd with interests limited to Microsoft bashing and Xbox games . Blissfully unaware about world events and problems. Most visible when Slashdot open some political discussion about high profile international event.

[Oct 11, 2006] Transmeta Sues Intel for Patent Infringement

It's kind of ironic that the company vaunted and praised so vigorously for employing Linus now appears to have become a 'Patent portfolio operation.'

• Re:Go figure

  (Score:0)

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, @08:24PM (#16402233)

  New clip on Onion site "Linus testifing against Intel"
  New film about Transmeta "Gone with the silicon"
  New topic on Groklaw "Transmeta as new SCO"
  New action figure at Wall-Mart "Linus Transmeta Torvalds" (with hat made from part of the actual wafer of one of defunct transmeta chip)

Jamie Zawinski - Wikiquote

jwz - Apple says fuck you to Mozilla

"unadulterated depths of uselessness that the Slashdot forums have pioneered"

Update, Jan 14: Apparently the fact that Paul Festa linked here from his CNET article is going to reduce my Livejournal to the unadulterated depths of uselessness that the Slashdot forums have pioneered, so I guess I'll just turn off comments until the newbie shitstorm blows on by.

I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in explaining to you how you've completely missed the point of my post. I just don't care.

Thank you, drive through. 

Tens annual convention of software sadomasochists.

In the decade since the first software sadomasochists conference, we can proudly report that many people who attended the first no longer with us. Other have ulcers, depression, kidney diseases, substance abuse and other health problems but still are keeping the fort.

This year, we examined how being software sadomasochism deform personality, break marriages and fill in the knowledge gap about what's possible with software sadomasochism and how to get it done. Through hundreds of sessions, tutorials, activities, and events this year's convention is dedicated to extending the dialogue between the software sadomasochism community and the "traditional" software development. 

... ... ...

[Sep 13, 2006] Sock Puppet Bites Man - New York Times

One of the joys of the Internet age is the great new lingo it is producing. To “flame wars” and “phishing” we can now add “sock puppet.” A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.

[Aug 30, 2006] internetnews.com: Open Source Windows Clone Coming Soon? The sect of open source sadomasochists ?&

Some programmers just cannot stop. They get up with the single thought: let's clone something and then do it all day long forgetting about eating, kaing a walk or sometimes even washing.   Even if their cloning project just does not make any sense. For example the ReactOS open source project has been trying to come up with an open source 'clone' of Windows for 10 years... Those guys just got into mousetrap that Microsoft created me think. If you think that Window is nice target to clone you are so deeply mistaken, but disease is disease and those people can do nothing with themselves: there is a very subtle difference between hobby and mental decease.

Unix emulation of Windows might make sense although Xen solve this problem pretty nicely. Separate clone of Windows is an uphill battle with a software giant that understands perfectly well that overcomplexity is like protective suit for commercial software vendors. I am kind of sorry for developers putting efforts into it.  To tell his son "Boy I spend my life trying to make a Windows clone to run Firefox for thin clients !" is not a heck of an achievement.

It might be better just improve Firefox on Unix be it Linux or FreeBSD or Solaris and it really needs improvement on this platform as it runs on Windows better.

[Aug 1, 2006] Open source needs sex education - ZDNet UK Comment

Open source as free like in (libre) sex -- a very interesting analogy

[Jul 25, 2006] The Linux Extremist » Blog Archive » Darth Linux

It’s very common among Linux enthusiasts to refer to Bill Gates as the “anti-Christ” or “Darth Vader”. I tried an experiment this morning by typing “Darth” and “Bill Gates” into Google. I got 432,000 results pairing the two together.

This seems unfair. First and foremost, Darth Vader is a genuinely entertaining personality and a master of the deadpan remark (e.g., “I find your lack of faith disturbing”), while Bill Gates is about as fun to listen to as an accountant on codeine reciting a poem on the virtues of watching paint dry. What is more is the Sith and Empire have much more in common with the Linux community than the Jedi and Republic.

I can already hear the howls of outrage from science fiction and Linux geeks from one end of the globe to another. “How dare you say such a thing?” they will say - “Microsoft is the evil empire, you’ve said it yourself, Groznii!” However, as a devotee of both Linux and the Dark Side, I can’t draw that conclusion.

Let’s look at the world of Star Wars prior to Episode IV, A New Hope. In Episodes I-III, the galaxy is ruled by the Old Republic, which is shown to be bloated, inefficient, and dysfunctional. Palpatine, while a Senator, says in Episode I, “The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good.” Anakin Skywalker states in Episode II that the system “doesn’t work”. No one disagrees that there is a problem. A large, bloated organisation corrupted by greed and uninterested in the common good sounds rather like Microsoft. This impression is only enhanced by the attempt of the Confederacy of Independent Systems to try to break away; Palpatine, in his role as Chancellor, reaffirms the values of the Republic by being unwilling to allow the Republic to split in two. Padme Amidala may wish to resolve the dispute through negotiations, however she too also does not express any willingness to see the Republic divide. This indicates a rather “closed source” system of governance; rather than allow systems to strike out on their own, the Republic’s politicians are determined to see that member planets adhere to a singularity, the sole question is how much force should be used to preserve it.

In trying to maintain this order, the Jedi are rather like Microsoft’s adherents; they too cannot see an alternative to the Republic. They also cannot conceive of anything outside their rigid ideological framework that might challenge their teachings; they cannot understand the potential of innovation or inspiration to catch them out. For example, Anakin Skywalker was inspired by love for Padme and married her; the Jedi had difficulty imagining that he would disobey their key tenets so blatantly, and it cost them in the end.

In contrast, Palpatine is a figure that could have come out of Bill Gates’ nightmares. He was one man, working largely alone, who had a new idea which was going to sweep everything else aside. Rather like Linux, the Sith idea developed underground. Rather like Linux, having the right apprentices (e.g., other open source projects like Gnome and Firefox) was key. Rather like the Republic’s problems paved the way for the Sith, Microsoft’s weaknesses created the opportunities which Linux has exploited. With a full OS war underway, it appears that Microsoft is losing, particularly in serving up web applications.

The comparisons run deeper. Once Palpatine won, he continued to show an Open Source sense of solving some problems. Rather than maintain control of the Galaxy through the Senate’s single bureaucracy, in Episode IV, Palpatine abolishes it, and gives regional governors direct control, thus freeing them to govern in any way they see fit. Yes, they have to adhere to an overall framework of Empire (which can possibly be construed as Open Standards), but there is no overall single blueprint for how each of these territories is to develop.

Palpatine’s farming out of clone troops to Open Source projects was less successful. Star Wars literature informs us that after the Clone Wars, Stormtroopers were drawn from a mixture of sources, clones of a number of people and non-clone individuals, as well as clones of Jango Fett. Unfortunately as Episode IV shows, new clones which couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with 50 blaster shots were made en masse; obviously bug checking wasn’t strong enough on Version 2.0 of the Clone Trooper project.

The Sith and Empire’s fate also contain a warning for the Open Source community; they were at their best when innovating to bring down a bloated rival. Once the rival had been destroyed, some level of complacency crept in. While Palpatine’s plans were masterful, he was unable to foresee how the tiniest of elements, namely teddy bears armed with sticks, could cause them to come undone. Open Source needs to maintain momentum and a certain level of comparison to other models lest it fall as well.

Overall, however, the comparison between the Dark Side and those working on Linux appears to contain more commonalities than differences. Perhaps in future people will start claiming that Bill Gates’ thinking is about as backwards as Yoda’s speech patterns, and Linus Torvalds will step up to claim his Sith name; after all, Darth Linux seems a worthy title.

[Jun 20, 2006] News about Gates forthcoming departure from Microsoft created problems for Linux top guns

"This is another evil Microsoft trick directed against free software and in no way I am stepping down from FSF" declared Richard Stallman.

"No I am a lifer and will die debugging Linux kernel" echoed his sentiments Linux Torvalds. 

Of course "Pimping Linux and Booing Bill" series got a flash continuation on Slashdot. Nothing is more persistent then black humor from zealots disconnected from reality.

[ Jun 16, 2006] Linux Today - Linux-Watch Is Gates' Retirement Linux's Chance Nice open source zealot prayer in one of the readers feedbacks ( Subject: PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE ( Jun 16, 2006, 13:59:11 ) )

Please oh please let linux take over half of Microsofts monopolized share of the pc os market.
I promise Lord that I will stop drinking, stop smoking, stop looking at porn and I promise to always use my Linux box for everything now and I will quit sneaking over to my windows box when no one is looking!!!!

....

Come on, Steven just need to feed his family. He probably does not believe in this crap of yet another chance to be missed after a hundred already missed :-).

But he needs to write about something to feed his family, you know...
 

[Jun 15, 2006] Is open source partially degenerated into the pasture of new type of graphomans "riders without head" ? (you probably saw Sleepy Hollow aka "The legend of the Rider without head" ( I love Johnny Depp)

"You know that story about the rider without head? That's who we are... because sometimes we get a lot of energy, but no brain."

Andrey Kirilenko

[June 13, 2006] Open Source Licensing and the Persistence of Evil variation of the theme suggested in DAVE ROSENBERG AND MATT ASAY column in InfoWorld 

After reading Creation and the Persistence of Evil Books  by Jon D. Levenson I had found that the reasoning of the author is completely applicable to open source. The best summary comes from a reader's review on Amazon (link above):

...Levenson makes a compelling case for the idea that the act of creation consisted (and consists!) of God's mastering preexistent forces of chaos rather than the simple, unopposed production of something out of nothing--and that these forces were not vanquished but continue to exist under restraints that are subject to fluctuations in God's vigilance. In this view, creation is neither static nor finished but is, as the subtitle suggests, a drama requiring ongoing application of divine attention and energy. And creation was, and is, a process of ordering reality by separating things, by establishing and maintaining boundaries.

In other words, things were not created ex nihilo (which is a poor translation, anyway) but rather ordered out of chaos.

I actually find earth creation as described in bible oddly familiar to the 'creation' of open source and GNU license was the act of creation the mastered preexistent forces of chaos  (copyright law) and directed them for new mission by revelation of GPL. Now I am starting to see open source everywhere and equate Richard Stallman with God, no matter of St. Ignucius jokes on this subject.  I am not sure that he used to rest on the seventh day but those are different times anyway.

Open source, of course, has not yet "conquered evil.": it did not manage to completely displace proprietary software. But we should all unite for this noble goal and work to ensure that  developers asked not  "Why open source?", but rather "Why not open source?"  The growing tide of adoption of open source religion is pretty lose to Christianization of pagan nations.

Over time, more and more developers and vendors will recognize the inherent weaknesses of proprietary software licensing, will opt for open source and recognize Richard Stallman as their Lord.

In the meantime, the best vigilance against backsliding into chaos is reading GNU license as a dinner prayer.

[Jun 12, 2006] People who love open source most passionately almost never read sources ;-)

[May 14, 2006] Template for "GPL zealot cease and desist letter" As FSF failed to provide a useful template for  "GPL zealot cease and desist letter"  we can feel the void (see also usually zealot's chewing Slashdot hey on this topic) :

Dear open source developer,

It seems that your XXX software product contains the non-GPL  YYYY drivers.  I never read GPL but I fully understand its spirit and hereby request that you cease distribution of these drivers as part of your product. 

I feel that your software goes against the open source spirit and I enjoy the phrase "cease and desist" so much that I cannot stop writing everybody about their GPL license violations. I also have a dream that one day Slashdot will notice my letter writing campaign and one of such letters will made me famous. I am convinced that rallying against the GPL violations that are really quite difficult to see or nonexistent altogether is perfectly acceptable.

While I applaud your effort to write open source software, I urge you to stop doing this under GPL license  because you definitely violate GPL in one way or another. If not today with version 2 then tomorrow with version 3. Essentially you are a serial violator of GPL and you should understand that. And not only serial violator, you are also a bait for GPL vigilantes like me who need to skip school to write yet another "cease and desist" letter, just because we cannot stop. If they will kick me out of school this summer you will be responsible. I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the GPL covered code, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by [date; give them about 2 weeks] indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.

If you already stopped using GPL and switched to BSD please accept my sincere apologies and discard the letter.

Very truly yours,

Linux Zealot

ShelleyTheRepublican.com Linux A European threat to our computers (by Tristan). Note a very strong ending: "Finally, remember to include Linux users in your prayers tonight. As individuals we may not be able to change people's minds, but the Bible teaches that God can make any sinner repent."

Like most things that are worth owning, Computers are an American invention. Look at any modern computer and you will see that the whole thing is the product of American brilliance.

For example, this rugged IBM laptop I am using was designed and built by an American company. It runs software built by Microsoft, one of America's most productive organizations. My computer does everything I could possibly want: I can do my work, submit my taxes and even search the Bible.

Like all the greatest American engineering, it's an example of innovation that makes a growing group of European and Chinese hackers jealous. They hate our lead in computing technology and will stop at nothing until they have control of all of our computers.

I'm talking about a project called 'Linux', something you may not have encountered, but might do some day.
It's a computer program that was initially developed in Finland as a means of circumventing valuable copyrights and patents owned by an American company called SCO Group.

Unlike Windows, which is a mature commercial product which is normally included with every new computer, Linux is given away. Now it may not sound like much of a problem, after all there is very little profit in merely giving a product away.

This would be certainly true were in not for the Linux project's seductive Marxist ideology and the effect that it has on 'Blue-State' liberals. Indeed, Linux is so pervasive amongst the blue states and many liberal universities that a leading computer expert Steve Balmer (from Microsoft) described Linux as cancer.

The American software industry is worth more than $7 Billion; Introducing a foreign product like Linux which is often copied for free could threaten that entire industry. A generation of computer users might get use to accepting foreign software hand-outs rather than paying for a superior American products. If only the danger were just to our economy:

These days computers control everything from TV stations to battleships; Our crucial information and defense infrastructure is built on computer technology. If we allow this cancer into our networks, there is no knowing what the effect might be on our infrastructure, but that is just what liberals are trying to do.

Imagine if the State of the Union address were hacked because the TV station decided to save money by using Linux? Imagine if a stealth-bomber crashed because it's software was written by anonymous Chinese or European hackers. It would make as much sense as inviting the French to come over and take over the White-House.

And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop?

If you guessed it was Linux you would be 100% right. Osama uses Linux because he knows designed to counterfit DVDs, curcumventing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and defraud companies like Disney.

Next time somebody asks you how Al Queda agents pay for their rifles and rocket launchers, you can tell them that foreign hackers make software called Linux which helps them steal from Americans.

This Linux problem is a growing issue, and one that conservative Americans cannot afford to ignore. Fortunately Microsoft have prepared a great deal of information to help computer users get away from this menace. But there is something you can do to help keep American #1 in the computer business:

If one of your friends is using Linux or may be tempted to try it show them this article. Explain that Linux is a genuine threat and that by using it they may be opening their computer to Chinese hackers.

If you see a company using Linux, it may be that they have not paid for this software. Report them to the Business Software Alliance who have the legal authority to inspect any company's computers for illegal programs like Linux.

Finally, remember to include Linux users in your prayers tonight. As individuals we may not be able to change people's minds, but the Bible teaches that God can make any sinner repent.

Tristan

[Apr 1, 2006] Celebration of  a decade of the publishing of  classic genre of "Linux will become dominant on the desktop the next year" articles produced a surprise new winner.

This landmark event traditionally celebrated on April 1 ( with March 31 as the deadlines for the publication) did not bring much celebrities like Linus Torvalds or Cmd Taco. This year it went almost unnoticed: only several ten thousand blogs and Website predicted eventual demise of Microsoft Windows in 2005. While this is a significant increase from 1996 when the number of such sites was below one hundred it lags general increase in the number of Web site by several orders of magnitude. The surprise winner of this year contest managed to beat such venerable competitors as ZDNet and Slashdot and produced a really slick presentation of the favorite theme:

"With Microsoft pushing the release of Vista back yet again, there is a tremendous  opportunity for a new sheriff to come to town.

We are confident that mass shift to Linux could happen this time. The math is simple: There are millions of PCs out there that are running Windows XP and are now approaching the end of their service life..."

read more

[Apr 1, 2006]  [Microsoft Press Release] Bill Gates to help open source developers.

For an undisclosed sum Microsoft bought Open Source Office and Mozilla, two leading open-source desktop projects. In personal note to open source developers involved in the projects Bill Gates noted that he "was sick and tired' of seeing very decent programmers earning nothing for the code they produce and many having health problems while Mozilla foundation officials and Sun executives are flush with money". Microsoft will established a flat salary of $50K per year for key developers and will provide discounted health insurance for those who are located in the USA. 

The projects will form a part of a growing list of Microsoft acquisitions in open source area and will operated as independent subsidiaries of Microsoft Research. In his interview to London Telegraph Bill Gates stresses that his goal is to help talented programmers to survive all over the globe and get the remuneration they and their families definitly deserve.

" I think that personal charity of Richard Stallman is bad enough and cases of inhuman exploitation of free labor and human talent should be stopped," Bill Gates said. "If Stallman really wants to be fair he should abolish this money laundering scheme and go work to McDonalds, that's his personal choice." He also noted that the initial meaning of the word "talent" was a currency unit somewhere in Mesopotamia and that the fact that such a name was used as a synonym for high human intelligence is not without the reason.

[Jan 12, 2006] WashingtonPost.com: Microsoft A la Hollywood Nice parody. I especially like the statement  "here is one segment of American society that can't be bought and will not be silenced. That is Hollywood." Is open source another Hollywood, "winner takes all" society of   "star"millionatires, who outsmarted a lot of open source statists  ? ...

"...Thank goodness there is one segment of American society that can't be bought and will not be silenced. That is Hollywood. The great cause for which "Antitrust" sacrifices the lives of brilliant young software developers is open-source code. Open-source crusaders believe that software should not be copyrighted. They believe that universal freedom to use and tinker with existing programs is the best way to promote future innovations. But more than that: They believe the very concept of intellectual property rights -- legal ownership of information in any form -- is downright immoral."

"As young Milo declares in the last line of the movie, as the music swells (and if you're in any actual doubt about how this plot comes out, stop reading here -- if you can read), "Human knowledge belongs to the world!"

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.

"Why didn't I think of this?" said a Linux groupie who waited in line to purchase a limited edition LinuXXX boxed set (with discreet brown paper bag) for $69.95. "This will be the perfect addition to my bachelor pad of doom."

The co-creator of LinuXXX, Eric Hefner, said that the inspiration for the all-porn OS came from the Ubuntu Linux distribution. "When Ubuntu revealed their original cleavage-enhanced splash screen, I knew the world was ready for a Triple-X operating system."

But LinuXXX contains much more than scandalous splash screens and desktop wallpaper...

Linux; kids without adult supervision -- contains a nice picture ;-)

Tux dictionary

• Arm-Waving: When people take fluffy, subjective information and treat it as fact, to justify a viewpoint . . . that they want to justify.

• BubbleTuxians: Individuals who believe in the perpetual youth of Linux. Usually call it upstart and revolutionaty OS 

• Bubblenews: Slashdot, Linux Today, etc.

• Linux Casino: Another name for the particular part of stock market inhabited by two and a half companis, at least for the period when the dipsters and bubbleonians were in force.

• Dead fish: Also known as cheerleaders. Sell-side analysts whose idea of research is to talk to Linux company management before issuing a "buy" rating (or to downgrade a stock to "accumulate" after it implodes).

• Red Rat -- one particular user-friendly Linux company

Bicoherent The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, by Carlo M. Cipolla Perfectly applicable to Linux crowd...

The First Law:

Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

The Second Law:

The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

The Third Law:

A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

The Forth Law:

Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

The Fifth Law:

A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

The corollary of the Law is that:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

Linux Today - Linux Journal The Penguin Driven Church Office

"Every church faces challenges. Ours is growth. Thanks to a donation of 19 computers, we now have more computers than church members. Like church members who simply keep the pews warm, some of these machines need refurbishing. Several do work rather nicely, however. So when I tell you that one of our most active church members is a friendly little penguin who manages our church's data, I'm being quite honest. We call him Saint Tux.

"Why should churches let penguins into the Pastor's study? That's a fair question. We considered our options rather carefully. Cost, choice, freedom, ease of use and ability to customize the software were our main issues..."

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

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!)

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 Gnome manual, so I came to the bar and asked Ratz at the bar to fix the documentation 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 glasses in front of me.  "I wanted a glass of Gnome docs, Ratz.  What the hell is this?"  I barked.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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".
 

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.

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 benefited by active recruitment 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...

The Bug Count Also Rises by John Browne (Imitation Hemingway Contest Winner)

In the fall of that year the rains fell as usual and washed the leaves of the dust and dripped from the leaves onto the ground. The shuttles drove through the rainy streets and took the people to meetings, then later brought them back, their tires spraying the mist into the air.

Many days he stood for a long time and watched the rain and the shuttles and drank his double-tall mochas. With the mochas he was strong.

Hernando who worked down the hall and who was large with Linux came to him and told him that the ship day was upon them but the bugs were not yet out. The bugs which were always there even when you were in Cafes late at night sipping a Redhook or a double-tall mocha and you thought you were safe but they were there and although Enrico kept the floor swept clean and the mochas were hot the bugs were there and they ate at you.

When Hernando told him this he asked how many bugs. "The RAID is huge with bugs," Hernando said. "The bugs are infinite."

"Why do you ask me? You know I cannot do this thing anymore with the bugs."

"Once you were great with the bugs," Hernando said. "No one was greater," he said again. "Even Prado."

"Prado? What of Prado? Let Prado fix the bugs."

Hernando shrugged. "Prado is finished. He spend too much time with kernel. All he does now is drink herb tea and play with his screensavers."

"Herb tea?"

"It is true, my friend." Hernando shrugged again. Later he went to his office and sat in the dark for a long time. Then he sent e-mail to Michaels.

Michaels came to him while he was sipping a mocha. They sat silently for awhile, then he asked Michaels, "I need you to triage for me."

Michaels looked down. "I don't do that anymore," he said.

"This is different. The bugs are enormous. There are an infinity of Linux bugs."

"I'm finished with that," Michaels said again. "Hell with open source. I just want to live quietly."

"Have you heard Prado is finished? He was badly gored. Now he can only drink herb tea."

"Herb tea?" Michaels said.

"It is true," he said sorrowfully.

Michaels stood up. "Then I will do it, my friend," he said formally. "I will do it for Prado, who was once great with sqaching Linux kernel bugs. I will do it for the time we filled Prado's office with bouncy balls, and for the time Prado worked all nighters for the glory of Linux. I will do it for all the pizza we ate and the bottles of Coke we drank."

Together they walked slowly back, knowing it would be good. As they walked the rain dripped softly from the leaves, and the shuttles carried the bodies back from the meeting

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.

But wait... (Score:5, Funny) by gillbates (106458) on Wednesday June 02, @05:12PM (#9319250) (http://www.angelfire.com/il/macroman | Last Journal: Thursday September 18, @01:31PM)

Wasn't this the very thing that open source was supposed to avoid? You don't like backspace key or the way the copy and paste works? Fine - you've got the source code, so just change the key codes and recompile.... right? After a few frustrating hours of digging through source code, you finally find the keybindings. You change them, do a make.... and make crashes. So then you debug the make script and realize that you _ALSO_ need the source code to an obscure set of libraries. So you Google it, download the source, and it ALSO won't compile, because you've got the wrong compiler version. So you figure, what the heck, it's time to upgrade gcc anyway. You download the sources, compile it, only to find that you also need to download the sources for the shared libraries as well. Tomorrow, you'll resume. Well the weekend is coming up, and you've finally got the compiler and all its dependent sources together, and you start the compile. It actually compiles and installs just fine... And then you try to compile those obscure libraries and the compiler crashes. Turns out there's a kernel bug which means the new version of the compiler won't work with older kernels. You think, well heck, I'll just upgrade my kernel, and you ftp the sources. So you configure your kernel and then type 'make clean; make dep; make install' and kick off the process; it dies - once again, your compiler segfaults. So now you've got an older kernel with no way to compile the new one... So next weekend you decide that you're just going back to the old compiler. You rpm -i the compiler, and start the kernel compile process again... b