I read an article today about an issue that a user had with windows popping up over the screen saver in an environment with ePHI. This is really unacceptable, as protected data could be exposed. This is a legal liability for any company that exposes it, and also critical to any customer whose data is exposed. The author concludes rightfully so that there will never be a year of Linux on the "desktop".
When I got down into the comments, I found the typical responses from the Linux zealots who attack anyone and everyone that says anything bad about Linux. The responses range from "M$ $hill" to the author being paid for the article to "WorksForME™".
What does "the year of the Linux desktop" really mean anyway? Does it mean that Linux is installed on every desktop in existence, or does it mean that it finally works 100% on a small percentage of desktops? There is no real definition. Honestly, "the year of the Linux desktop" is just silliness that is perpetuated by Linux zealots trying to make a case that everyone should use Linux. It along with the anti-non-Linux drivel spewed by these same zealots really only damages the whole open source ecosystem.
Think about it in terms of word of mouth advertising. Unfortunately as these zealots continue to do whatever it takes ethical or otherwise (FSF) to promote free software ideals, we continue to have new users coming over to Linux under the lie that it will work for them 100% of the time. Many of these users are getting burned because it doesn't work as it was advertised by said zealots. Sometimes these new Linux users post about their issues in forums or on blogs where they are then attacked by these zealots with things like WorksForME™ or M$ $hill!!!!1!. Frustrated, these potential users go back to Windows or Mac and we will never get those users back. Further, they will tell other people about how bad Linux is because it was such a terrible experience for them.
These same zealots refuse to to take accountability for their actions or admit when they are wrong, placing any blame on everything and anything else like immature children and it just harms everyone else working to make Open Source products a success.
To be successful, the community as a whole including those commenting in forums and on blogs need to grow up and start helping build a better ecosystem because as it stands they are currently just contributing to the failure of Linux on the "desktop".
When I got down into the comments, I found the typical responses from the Linux zealots who attack anyone and everyone that says anything bad about Linux. The responses range from "M$ $hill" to the author being paid for the article to "WorksForME™".
What does "the year of the Linux desktop" really mean anyway? Does it mean that Linux is installed on every desktop in existence, or does it mean that it finally works 100% on a small percentage of desktops? There is no real definition. Honestly, "the year of the Linux desktop" is just silliness that is perpetuated by Linux zealots trying to make a case that everyone should use Linux. It along with the anti-non-Linux drivel spewed by these same zealots really only damages the whole open source ecosystem.
Think about it in terms of word of mouth advertising. Unfortunately as these zealots continue to do whatever it takes ethical or otherwise (FSF) to promote free software ideals, we continue to have new users coming over to Linux under the lie that it will work for them 100% of the time. Many of these users are getting burned because it doesn't work as it was advertised by said zealots. Sometimes these new Linux users post about their issues in forums or on blogs where they are then attacked by these zealots with things like WorksForME™ or M$ $hill!!!!1!. Frustrated, these potential users go back to Windows or Mac and we will never get those users back. Further, they will tell other people about how bad Linux is because it was such a terrible experience for them.
These same zealots refuse to to take accountability for their actions or admit when they are wrong, placing any blame on everything and anything else like immature children and it just harms everyone else working to make Open Source products a success.
To be successful, the community as a whole including those commenting in forums and on blogs need to grow up and start helping build a better ecosystem because as it stands they are currently just contributing to the failure of Linux on the "desktop".
5 comments:
I'm an avid Linux user I promote Linux and have gotten most of my family to switch over to Linux however I'm not a fan of the FSF FOSS there radical Ideals keep Linux from being a true success on the Desktop on my current installation (Kubuntu 10.04) I have several proprietary softwares installed such as Flash,Acrobat,h.264,Google Chrome,Opera,etc...
There are also Linux users who would react differently. It's a sign of zealotism, when you allocate the same behavioral characteristics to a group of people because they use an operating system.
Are you sure the article in question was a honest attempt at constructive criticism? I doubt it, because it includes several dubious phrases, which rhetorically work as good bate for the kind of behaviour you criticise.
I made one comment and then withdraw since I noticed the sudden increase of heated comments. Far from all attacked the person. Several comments deal with the arguments. I do at times follow the discussions at TechRepublic and noticeable this time was that some pro-Windows folks questioned the approach to management reflected by the author. The article tells more about generally bad practises than differences between operating systems.
I don't defend bad behaviour, but this time there's no reason to defend the content of the article either.
Unbeliever! You will die upon the sword of freedom for being such a disgrace to our mighty Penguin. The inquisition is on the way to purge this heretical filth which you call your blog from the Internet and so great will justice be served that even the histories of your blog will be deleted from people's browser.
Now seriously I agree with your article but that link to the user having problems is quite dubious.
The screen she shows as proof is the desktop with firefox download opened and she complains about being a freeloader and getting catered to.
Though she has some points.
m$ $hill. :p
Seriously, whenever I've had that accusation in the past, you know what my response to it has been?
"I wish. I could really use the money." ;)
-- petrus4. Signing anonymously simply because I don't have a blogger account with this name, and you wouldn't recognise the one I do have. ;)
Post a Comment