I'm going to warn you now - this editorial is as much rant as anything else, you have been warned! One of the things that really bugs me in the comments often found in articles is the "my OS can do this better/bst" type stuff, it's not just Windows or Linux Users, it comes from a lot of camps. And puts me in mind of Usenet at times it gets so bad.
Post a Comment
This has been referenced a million times or so, and its a bit dated now, (written in 99 or so), but Neal Stephenson wrote long essay (novella maybe) called In the Beginning was the Command Line. You can read it online for free here:
http://www.spack.org/index.cgi/CommandLine
Its a great piece that goes into a lot of the sociological/cultural/psychological backgrounds of users of different operating systems, focusing on MacOS, Windows, BeOs, and Linux/Unix. It definitely has a pro-Unix style os bent to it, but I would consider it essential reading for those looking into cultural and social issues surrounding OS usage/adoption/etc.
This was a very nice short opinion piece, iterating what we've all empiracally witnessed.
We all know it is so true :-)
It's tragic the way Linux is being marketed to the masses ("you should run Linux instead of Windows"), but when the masses seek help from their peers, they're told, "if you can't figure it out, you shouldn't be running Linux." So who are we supposed to believe?
Sometimes one's greatest enemy is found within.
While it is my *opinion* only, I think BSD is the king of servers. 
Not only are the free BSDs excellent in terms of security, performance, and stability, many of the 'big iron' os's owe a bit of their existance to the original BSD.
Anyways, I totally agree with the poster. Especially with regard to Linux. Linux desperatly tries to beat windows. So much so that many users simply make false statements as to Linux's superiority. It's a very frusterating phenomenom to say the least.
One of the most interesting aspects of OS zealotry is the GPL advocates. For some reason open source and the GPL in particular are viewed to be *morally* correct. This is most strange, since in truth they are mearly different development and in some cases distribution methods. Many open source advocates don't care if company X supports Linux, they want company X to be 'open source' (GPL usually). Not to mention, non-open source drivers are ALWAYS the first thing open source advocates point to when an error occurs.
I had the Redhat installer crash on me (version 8), while it was probably due to a faulty motherboard, an open source advocate freind of mine immediatly pointed to my binary highpoint raid drivers. The ironic thing was that the drivers were released not only open source, but under the BSD license! Let me also point out that the crash had nothing to do with accessing the hard drive. A script broke when I hit the back button on a configuration panel. This just goes to show the extent to which some open source advocates, and very smart ones at that, will go to badmouth non-open source development models.
What turns people off the most, is that open source advocates try to force their opinions on others by verbal arguments rather than example. I know that's what turns me off. I don't see the moral aspect of open source.
I can see benifiets as an os hobbiest and computer science major, but not moral rights and wrongs. This post is turning into quite the rant, so I'll call it a night.
NeXT!
hehe
Surely NeXT deserves a place in there. After using GNUstep for a few days on and off, I can see that MacOS X is not the same thing NeXT had.
Go get GNUstep! Install the beasty, help the developers. We need your help! Gnome and KDE aren't the only brotherhood around!
They use the evil C++ or plain C. But God Gave Us Objective C for a reason my brothers!
Come on! Join us around irc.freenode.net #gnustep http://www.gnustep.org
Want something beyond GNUstep? Help design the next (pun?) operating system designed around Linux, LinuxStep! Using a sanely designed file system, help shape the future of it. LinuxStep is not a Linux distro. http://www.linuxstep.org/ #linuxstep
</end rant>
"I had the Redhat installer crash on me (version 8), while it was probably due to a faulty motherboard, an open source advocate freind of mine immediatly pointed to my binary highpoint raid drivers. The ironic thing was that the drivers were released not only open source, but under the BSD license!"
That would be because the highpoint drivers have been a little unstable in the past... 
And it is worth mentioning, to counter your comment, if I may, that in many areas, Linux does exceed Windows and other OSs. This is why I have three machines, two of which are for work (both Linux) and one for being able to access Windows binaries and file formats (winXP).
Also, it is worth mentioning that in all my time sat in IRC, reading forums and on mailing lists, I've never seen an RTFM comment. I've seen many hundreds of people being helped to install things, change features, compile code, get their networks working, getting apps doing things, etc. I've seen many, many bug reports and problems from users which have been met with "Oh... Yes, that's a bug. If you do X, that'll fix it for the moment, I'll write the code to fix it properly for you tonight".
People on this site and others do go on about RTFM comments, but they really don't occur in reality (I'm sure there are a couple of projects that are different, but none I have ever seen). I do wish, however, that the people working in their free time to do this stuff, and the same applies for the Free BeOS developers and *BSD ones, would get a few moments of credit for what they do. Almost all of them act in a wonderful manner, gracious and hard-working to the benefit of users. They don't have any hidden agendas; they just want to write good code.
The GPL and the BSD license are, as you put it, *morally* correct. That's somewhat the point. Ultimately, they come down to sharing of code for the common good. Sharing is a good thing. We encourage children to share, and yet we refuse to do so ourselves. "It's not a legitimate business model". So both licenses and the software written under them are to the benefit of the world at large, and it is hard to suggest that they are morally poor in this regard.
I respect the BSD license, but I personally use the GPL. At the end of the day, I'd love to be able to write code and just release it to the commons. The GPL, however, ensures that it stays in the commons, and that the commons benefits from all modifications. I don't think I would sleep well, knowing that I wrote some code, which was then repackaged and sold by MS or Apple, or anyone else, to the public, when they simply could have downloaded a free copy, but didn't know it existed, for example.
So there is my rant in response
Wow, that's a pretty cool article. I recommend it, it's very well written.
Hehe. Fair enough rant.
The highpoint drivers could well be buggy. My only point was that it had nothing to do with them being binary as they in fact have source along with them. My friend only pointed to them because he thought they were not open source.
While I don't dispute that sharing is good, morel dilema is a little different I suppose. I get the impression that a lot of open source folk seem to think that proprietary programs are somehow 'evil'. While the model may be greedy, it is by no means 'evil'.
I firmly believe that the base operating system an libraries should be open. However, realisticly I can't see a world in which everything is free. People need to make money and they should have the right to try.
The best way to lead is by example, not force. A lot of open source software tries to force people into open source. The Linux kernel is a great example. While not being anti-closed source, the Linux kernel certainly makes it awfuly difficult for proprietary solutions in some cases. Binary drivers are a perfect example. I don't think it is unreasonable for the Linux ABI to be stable at least for say major revision (2.4.x for instance). I know the argument for changing it every couple months is to make sure the desgin is good, but many binary drivers need absolutely no changes to be compiled with newer kernels. There is no reason they should have to provide source. It would be nice if they did perhaps, but they shouldn't be forced. In this regard Linux makes it difficult for non-open source companies.
Personally, I'd love to see an open operating system that is easy to work with regardless of the development model. People should be free to be greedy, just as they should be free to be kind. The best way to change someone is to lead by example, not by force.
I was completely driven away from Linux by people trying to force me to see proprietry sofware as evil, buggy, and ineffient. As with open source, proprietry software has it's faults, but also strengths. Sometimes it may be necessary to be proprietary (many niche science applications come to mind).
Much of my disdain for the GPL comes form a personal experience. Ironically, even though I prefer the BSD license, I've only ever released GPL code. I released it GPL not out of kindness, but out of greed. I didn't want anyone to make money off my software if I didn't. This is the reason I tend to get offended by the moral highground of the GPL.
Of course, I'm of the minority. Thankfully we have different licenses so we can all choose the one which suites us. I just wish people would practise moderation in their preaching.
OPENSTEP/Mach is the One True. I'm even considering writing a feature article for OSNews on it
-fellow NeXTian sister
Thanks Alan, that was interesting.
I would have liked to read some excerpts of your on-line dialogs for examples of OS zealotry. And your opinion on operating systems doesn't really belong to the article.
I enjoyed the reading still :-)
Well, I'm an everything-but-Linux zealot. More specifically, I respect the respective virtues of Windows, MacOS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris.
I had respect for Linux, at one time. Unfortunately these days I'm put off by the overly zealous attitude of users ranting about Linux's supposed (yet typically non-existant) technical superiority, specifically those advocating features of the vaporware version over some existing implementation (e.g. "FreeBSD VM sucks. Linux 2.6's will be 1000x better")
That being said, I have a few things to say in response to this article:
About Linux, A great many people are scared of linux's complexity, and in some cases this isnt' helped by users who's only reply to straightforward questions is RTFM, especially when a lot of these manuals are written for and by very linux savy people. Come on guys, you want to knock Microsoft off its thrown yes? Well you got to make your OS more accessable to beginners.
This seems more written from a desktop Linux slant. All Unices have a sharp learning curve, and typically if you're running the server side you'll have a certain degree of technical knowledge.
I know that many Linux users don't advocate desktop Linux, and would rather keep it on the servers. Unfortunately, the large and vocal majority seem to have a dream of displacing Windows off the desktop.
This article seems to suggest that there hasn't been a considerable investment made by programmers into simplifying Linux from a desktop perspective, when there certainly has, by both the KDE and Gnome teams. While there's a considerable amount of UI cleanup left for them to do, it can't be argued that they haven't made enormous progress.
About Mac(OS), Great hardware with a nice OS thats easy to pick up and use, most first time computer users wouldn't go far wrong with one of these, shame about the price though.... Linux take note, this is a good case for Linux/BSD for the masses, it proves it can work.
OS X works for the following reasons:
* A single unified design and development platform, one borrowed NeXT, which was one of the greatest development environments ever conceived.
* Unified systemwide APIs for all functions including things like streaming media.
* A unified installer system with a packaging system integrated into the file manager.
These aren't possible in Linux due to the diversity of distributions. The majority of BSD advocates simply don't care about garnering widespread desktop market share, they just prefer it be on the servers in the back room.
Bottom line: Linux's failure on the desktop isn't a technical issue. It's an inherent problem with the fact that the term Linux (while technically applying to the kernel of course) is a collective name for dozens upon dozens of distributions which can't agree on a unified way of doing things. Without standardization, widespread deployment becomes an administrative nightmare.
Yes brother Drake, preach it brother,
say I believe!
I believe...
I believe in the GNUUUUstep.
BeOS is good too.
...and at the end there will be the GNU.
You people who are put off by Linux zealots: grow some thicker skin! There are all sorts of zealots everywhere. Do you refuse to use Windows because of Steve Ballmer ("developers developers developers!!!")?
In the end, I don't give a flying fig what you do -- I use the best tool for the job, regardless of what some nutcase or other has to say. If I let him or her scare me off what is otherwise the best tool for the job, it's MY loss.
PS. Great article btw =)
...and at the end there will be the GNU.
So are you saying that GNU will be the end of computers...?!
And usually they are pretty good, but in recent months I've noticed a large group of people within the windows comunity that simply turn and say "get windows 2000/XP and that'll sort it all out" which is fine provided that the people who are having these problems are planning to upgrade their hardware in the majority of cases.
What hardware are these people using ? 486s ?
Out of sheer curiousity (and to prove a point against a Mac zealot , about a week ago I dug out one of my older machines[0] - a dual *Pentium* 200 with 256MB of *FPM* RAM - and installed first Win2k and then XP on it.
Now, whilst in its day this machine would have undoubtedly been an absolute screamer, today you can buy roughly the same amount of horsepower (P2/266ish) for less than US$100 off eBay.
I'm not going to make any ridiculous claims - the machine isn't what I'd called blazingly fast. However, it's certainly fast enough to use for normal day to day activities like web browsing, email and writing documents[1].
It's about as responsive to use as my old Powerbook 667 was running OS X [2](although that's more of an indictment of OS X than anything else). Albeit uner XP this was with most of the eye candy turned off (ie: it looked mostly like Win2k).
To put it bluntly, yes if you have a really old machine Win2k or XP might not be an option - but for under US$100 you can pick up an _entire machine_ that certainly *is* an option.
[0] I was originally going to use the Pentium 100 (o/ced) to 110Mhz) with 64MB of RAM that carried me through the first two years of Uni (running NT4) to make the point - alas, when I tried to fire it up it wouldn't play ball, and I couldn't get it to work.
[1] It can play some of my movies (the MPEG ones), but the stuff with more compute-intensive codecs like DivX are unwatchable. Probably incapable of deal with the average user's pr0n collection.
[2] Note that I am talking about *responsiveness*, not speed. On anything speed related like MP3 encoding the Powerbook would spank the Dual P200. However, in terms of GUI responsiveness they're both about equal.
Someone made the interesting point that Linux/BSD etc. are, at present, targetted more at the server, and therefore can expect some more tech-savvy users.
I'd like people to consider that the big growth area in servers is and is going to be the SOHO / mid-market area. People are going to be running servers as part of their digital home or small office. These people want server functionality, need it located in their own home at this time (outsourcing the services being bandwidth limited for time to come).
But, they don't have any admin skills. It is the responsibility and opportunity of the IT industry to commodotize servers. At one time, getting a computer to do anything at all was a specialist skill. Consumer pressure drove that through the early home-computer phase, to the ubiquitous, commodotized world we live in today. The same thing needs to happen to the rest of the IT infrastructure. And it will mean tbe nature of SysAdmin jobs continuing to change, too.
;)
yes.
Someone mentioned using the best tool for the job.
I was so impressed with the Zeta presentation at CeBit where they ran many videos at the same time, that now I want to buy it. Even though I will only ever really play one movie at a time.
I decided to test this, I ran 4 Divx.
On a K6-2 450Mhz with 4MB PCI VGA and 384MB RAM.
BeOS PE (the original free version that Max is based on)
- System was still responsive.
- All 4 movies played fine.
Windows 2000
- System was still responsive.
- Play back extremely choppy.
Linux (using Mplayer).
- Ha ha ha
- ha ha ha
Therefore use a specific OS for specific task and be happy.
Windows has its market(Desktop), and that market will change (Server).
Linux has it market (Supreme Server), and that market will change(Desktop: Some distro maker will finally make it).
The above will happen because Developers have the drive to see it happen.
Zeta (Multimedia Desktop), and I sure hope they stay that way. "I didn't know my computer could do that!"
Use the right tool for the job.
If for the Linux Devices market you can create an easy to use linux, I don't see why this can't be scaled up to a x86 desktop OS.
I know Gentoo is not regarded as a linux distro for newbies! but if you are serious and willing to read the excellent manuals that guide you to the install and configuration of your setup, after your installation you will be more knowledgable about the OS and abling to tackle problems then someone who is using Redhat/SUSE or Mandrake will be in years!
Is this offtopic? No! Why? The user group and forums of Gentoo. They are beyond everything I've seen before. The moderators keep them clean and there are a lot of people willing to help.
Don't believe me? Go and take a look in forums.gentoo.org....
I wonder if OS will become more and more irrelevant as the years go on. I my own world, I move from Windows to OSX and back daily without problems. I haven't spent much time in Linux, mostly because Mandrake 9.1 is the first thing that would install on my laptop without jumping through some serious hoops (or at least as far as I was concerned, I should be able to just pop in a CD and have it work). I will probably spend more time exploring Linux in the future. I run stuff like VMWare and Virtual PC for those times when I need a seperate platform. I use remote desktop for those times when I'm on my Mac and need to get to the PC laptop or server. In almost all cases, no matter where I am, I can run the applications I want to run regardless of the base OS I'm using. I spend much more time in the applications than I do playing with the OS anyways. I think now the only direction I'm missing is a good PPC emulator for the PC.
The zealot doesn't say
Pray to my GOD!
He says
Pray to MY god!
It doesn't really matter what the zealot is raving about, he wants to have an ego push. And then there's the 'Amiga Persecution Complex', of course (http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/a/amigapersecutioncomplex.htm...).
And, please, from one non-native English speaker to another, use a spell checker next time:
comunity, dismisive, matter.., speciallist, peice, funily, Ex users, its a trait etc.
It's a troll..but Eugenia didn't post it. This is highly irregular.
Hey there Alan. It's clear that you put a lot of work into researching all of this, being that you used a big word like "psychology" in the title and included a disclaimer. Have you actually checked any of the web boards for various distributions? You know, rather than the newsgroups, which are either full of spam or trolls like yourself? Take a look at the Gentoo user forum. Tons of friendly people there. Sure, there's some that aren't too nice either, but I'll be the first to break the sad news to you..the only difference between an asshole and an asshole on the Internet is..the Internet connection! There's morons everywhere you go, and if you think you're going to magically avoid them because you're on the Internet, you need to sprinkle a few less paint chips on your cereal in the morning.
Of course I could go on to talk about the many inconsistencies and spelling mistakes in your article ("viscious" isn't a word, "isnt'" is obviously wrong, "linux's" rather than Linux, "feable" isn't a word, et. al.), but there's just so much more wrong with it to talk about. As an example, Windows does everything pretty well.
Really? Hmm. That's odd. Last I checked Windows XP didn't include an SSH daemon. I haven't used 2000 Server or Advanced Server, so I wouldn't know about those..but hey, those weren't the ones you were referring to anyway. You were referring to the desktop incarnation of Windows, and that version doesn't have an SSH daemon. That's one thing it doesn't do.
Last I checked, I could use distcc to compile a program across a number of different workstations, distributing the work between each. No distcc for Windows. I can type "apt-get install licq" in RedHat 8 and get..an ICQ client. Imagine that. And keep imagining it in Windows, because you can't do it currently. There's a whole -lot- of things that Windows doesn't do at -all-, let alone well. And there's a lot of things it -can- do well, but to claim it does "everything" is the kind of ridiculousness that permeates your entire article.
Oh, by the way.."Linux/BSD" doesn't even make any fucking sense, Alan. Two different operating systems. Two different design principles.
Is this all that OSNews is ever going to be from now on? A bastion for trolls and ignorant, lazy new posters that don't even bother to check their spelling before they go about flaming the community that supports them?
On the bright side, we have people disagreeing healthily about these issues. Whatever the psychological origins of their choice, people at least endeavour to give rational reasons for their OS preferences. There is choice of opinion, and it is freely presented. That has to be a good and healthy thing. It certainly is much more than you can expect from the political arena, or from the TV media, these days.
At least someone points out that there are zealots all around here. Now I expect 200+ zealot responses. I already see a few
"Perfection. Excellence. What a passionate lover. But once having tasted the lips of excellence, once having given oneself to its perfection, how dreary and burdensome and filled with anomie are the remainder of one's waking hours trapped in the shackled lock-step of the merely ordinary, the barely acceptable, the just okay and not a stroke better." Harlan Ellison
I think people take unreasonable critisism of more open OSs more personally because the people who develop it are accessable and known, rather than mysterious figures behind a company name.
The developers may be people whose comments you have read on a mailing list, exchanged emails with, or even the person replying to your message on this forum.
Open OSs are about technical excellence, ethics, community and friendship, whereas a closed one can only be defended on it's technical merits. So, often people defend an open OS out of pride in their community, sometimes to the point of ignoring the technical aspect, at which point the charge of zealotry is perhaps justified.
The attitude of many closed OS users to this is a stunned incomprehension about why anyone would care at all about the people involved with writing the software they use. Well, this is an understandable attitude, but also shows a lack of understanding about why people may actually enjoy using computers, or interacting with others in their community.
//Last I checked Windows XP didn't include an SSH daemon. I haven't used 2000 Server or Advanced Server, so I wouldn't know about those..//
AFAIK, no version of W2K or XP has ssh daemon.
'Course, there's no need for ssh with built-in WTS over a VPN. But that probably sucks, right? I mean, only 70-80% of the Fortune 500 use MS W2K Advanced and Datacenter server for remote access.
But what do they know. I'm sure you're much smarter than they.
After you, like I, have all kinds of time to waste posting to silly message boards.
This is a good attempt, but if you are to state that the article is about the Psychology of the zealot, it may have been useful for you to research group identity. If you had, you would have found years of research about attitudes and prejudices with respect to in-groups and out-group perception.
In the in-groups people tend to over attribute positive traits and minimize shortcomings. The opposite is true about attitudes with respect to out-groups. Therefore, a Linux zealot will most likely be excessively positive about Linux, minimizing shortcomings that are pointed out by the “other” groups. After all, they are in the inferior group to theirs, so what do they know? People begin to depend on their group inclusion as a significant portion of their self identity. When an attack is levied against their group, it is also an attack against their self, as well. It becomes a personal attack.
This holds true with just about any inclusive group that people identify themselves with (race, social class, nationality, sports teams, etc.). This is not unique to geeks - it is global in scope.
Actually the title wasn't my idea, I don't know anything about psychology. I'm guessing that the title was the feverish invention of the editor, but then again the original title was pretty lame
and to antialanfisher well then, if you feel that I and all other posters to this board are sooooo ignorant, then write something yourself! I didn't force you to read this, and if you hated it so much then why did you bother to finish reading it?
I wrote it about what I saw from places like this and on usenet on the various spats that occur over and over again. Is this work flawed? Yes, but it was the best I could do with the resources I had, could I do better? Certainly and perhaps in future I will do another article that covers some of the points these comments have made.
Regards,
Alan Fisher
my older machines[0] - a dual *Pentium* 200 with 256MB of *FPM* RAM - and installed first Win2k and then XP on it.
absolutely, for a long time I had Win2k installed on my wifes computer (until i recently finally got her a new one) which was an old Pentium 233 with 64 MB of RAM...and it was VERY usable.
she even played mp3's on it (until the sound card died), while she worked on her research papers.
The sad part is that when I tried to install Linux on it (several different distro's) it was hardly usable at all using KDE, and only a little more so with IceWM (which is a joke really...why should you have to sacrifice features when Win2k works well on it)
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on my computers, but anyone who says Linux is more responsive then Windows is lying (on almost any hardware)
Do you refuse to use Windows because of Steve Ballmer ("developers developers developers!!!")?
Why yes, I do. Dance monkey boy - Dance!
If I had as much money as Ballmer I'd dance however I wanted too!
If I had as much money as Ballmer I'd dance however I wanted too!
If I had as much money as ballmer I'd get myself some dance lessons so I could better swoon the ladies...
So long as you don't have to open the hood, it doesn't matter what you have, so long as it works. Then it really does matter...
It's also good if you don't have to buy a new engine every 10,000km instead of just changing the oil.
I have to agree with a couple of posters here.
Linux is growing by leaps and bounds in terms of usability but it is not there yet. Considering the closed nature of some of the popular multimedia formats and even worse the encryption included on most DVDs the multimedia question for many users will remain. The experienced can hack there way through this but the rest of the world is stuck.
I can understand that.
People truly have to look at what is truly the best tool for their own personal needs. I do Software Configuration Management for apps that run on Solaris and linux servers. I do System Administration and Implementation projects in a Unix world. The best desktop for me and my needs is linux. This is just me. I do not personally like the Windows way of doing things and the unix on NT tools feel like hollow hacks to me. That is just me. It is about what is the best tool for the job at hand and what you like.
If you use and like and get your work done in a XP/2000 OS world then don't let the naysayers occupy one iota of your time. Same for the Mac. You like your Mac and it is the bomb for you then who cares what other people say. This same arguement goes for the Amiga, BeOS and other crowds. It ain't dead for you then have fun and use the OS you want. What do people have to go hate rampages when it comes to something like a computer OS. Geez, war is raging, people are dying and I like so many of you are wasting time in a pissing match over which OS has the biggest stick. At least, my profession revolves around the issue. But still .. so much noise...come on.
Extremists suck. They suck when it comes to politics, religion and technical issues.
The zealots need to give it a rest.
Here are a few characteristics of a zealot that you can easily spot. For the purpose of this explanation, we'll use a Windows 3.1 zealot for this example, as hopefully not to offend anyone:
1. Responds to just about any article posted to either bash another OS or promote Windows 3.1. This is true whether or not the article has anything to do with Windows 3.1 or another OS for that matter. If there's an article posted about BeOS or Linux, he's going to slam it, no matter what the particular topic is.
2. Refuses to recognize the technical merits of any other OS, and will proclaim the technical superiority of Windows 3.1, even when he knows it isn't technically superior. For example, he'll come up with some reason why 8.3 filenames are better than long filenames ... Basically, to the Win3.1 zealot, Win3.1 has no weaknesses and is the best OS for any type of task immaginable.
3. Closely related to #2 above, he/she will insist that everyone use Windows 3.1, no matter what their needs are. It doesn't matter if someone needs an app that will only run on Macs - it still must be Windows 3.1 all the way - maybe he can find a Mac emulator and run the app that way.
4. As a general rule, he/she has no idea of the meaning "best tool for hte job."
And there are, of course, all different kinds of zealots - like the guy who once tried to convince me that C++ was better suited for text processing than perl.
We zealots need to:
- Go for a bike ride.
- Go camping. (without laptops and battery packs)
- Read a book (not technical)
- Join the local swim club. Or if it is summer go to the beach.
etc,etc,etc... take a break from your computer and have some good solid human interaction.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with using a particular OS/tool exclusivly for any reason you see fit, whether it be political or otherwise.
However, I also think it is important to respect the rights of other people to use whatever tool/OS they want, without trying to cram your preferences/ideals down their throat or insulting them (either individually or as a group) simply because they may disagree with you.
Now, I will grant you that many times I have asked questions that could easily have been answered if I had checked the man pages better or gone to a piece of software's website and done a little RTFMing. However, I haven't once seen a response like that, even to my most ridiculous questions. For the most part I have recieved a good answer that got me where I needed to be and (in the case of a stupid question) a link to the manual or a suggestion of a man page to read.
I can't say it is this way for everyone, but this is how the gentoo forums, the ogle listserv, and the ivtv listserv, have been for me. I have heard that the slackware and debian userbases are both equally supportive.
My feeling is that people who claim Linux users only say "RTFM" either aren't linux users, or have never politely asked anyone for help.
"Here are a few characteristics of a zealot that you can easily spot. For the purpose of this explanation, we'll use a Windows 3.1 zealot for this example, as hopefully not to offend anyone:
1. Responds to just about any article posted to either bash another OS or promote Windows 3.1. This is true whether or not the article has anything to do with Windows 3.1 or another OS for that matter. If there's an article posted about BeOS or Linux, he's going to slam it, no matter what the particular topic is. "
Answer: There's no logical connection between being consistent and being wrong (or right). Paul Wolfowitz has been saying for years and years we need to get rid of Saddam. Whether he's right or wrong is a matter of fact and argument - SUBSTANCE. Just pointing out somebody consistently takes a position does not advance the debate or help figure out the answer. It's just a smear tactic, trying to imply somebody is not levelheaded and open, without engaging in substance.
"2. Refuses to recognize the technical merits of any other OS, and will proclaim the technical superiority of Windows 3.1, even when he knows it isn't technically superior. For example, he'll come up with some reason why 8.3 filenames are better than long filenames ... Basically, to the Win3.1 zealot, Win3.1 has no weaknesses and is the best OS for any type of task immaginable. "
Answer: The problem is that loads of people get labeled zealots even though they will admit things. For example lots of people say I'm a zealot, but I will admit that the wintel platform is (1) cheaper, (2) faster (currently), and (3) has more "compatibility" (every program written for it, every website works, etc). Also, I would add more (4) hardware options (including build your own). In all other respects, and on an overall basis, the mac platform is vastly superior. Of course for some users the pluses on the wintel side make it a better choice (eg, gamers).
"3. Closely related to #2 above, he/she will insist that everyone use Windows 3.1, no matter what their needs are. It doesn't matter if someone needs an app that will only run on Macs - it still must be Windows 3.1 all the way - maybe he can find a Mac emulator and run the app that way."
Answer: Same as above, you can admit something is better for some users, but still be labeled a zealot.
"4. As a general rule, he/she has no idea of the meaning "best tool for hte job.""
Answer: There is such a thing, but there's also something called "best overall." The people that won't or can't admit that have their own brand of "zealotry" if you will. For them, nothing's "better" , in fact there is simply no such concept, it's all "equivalent" and "opinion". No objective facts, just perception.
In this regard Linux makes it difficult for non-open source companies.
nVidia isn't having any trouble.
The only times I've ever come across anything remotely esembling this are on certain forums, were the same questions are asked over and over ad nauseum. And even then, the least helpful response is generally along the lines of 'this has been asked before ad nauseum, please do a search on this forum'. The most helpful response will be 'this has been asked before ad nauseum, please read this thread <link>'.
I think that people just expect to be told to RTFM, even if they never have been. I also suspect that people have a misguided notion that anyone who uses Linux is very proficient technically when this isn't necessarily the case. People always expect those more knowledgeable than them about something to be impatient.
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on my computers, but anyone who says Linux is more responsive then Windows is lying (on almost any hardware)
What you are saying here is that X is being unresponsive, not Linux. I have a sneaking suspicion that linux itself was running fine.
This problem is currently (hopefully) being dealt with in the 2.6 kernel. Hopefully when the kernel starts treating X nicely things will smooth out on that end.
For the most part I agree with your "how to spot a zealot" guide. It makes me wonder why you accuse so many people of being a zealot who obviously aren't?
Even when the hated RTFM has been uttered on a certain forum the writer goes to great lengths to apologize and link the newbie to the respective FAQ that covers the question or the forum discussion link in question.
RTFM is in my experience one of the oddest myths. It remains despite the fact that in my experience with the SuSE-en lists, nautilus lists, Redhat-lists and gnome desktop forums I have yet to see someone actually use it unless in jest with links to the answer to the person's question.
However, I will dispell a prominant pro-linux myth. Do not bother with IRC. The people on many of those lists are distro-hopping never lived on linux for a full day newbs with bad attitudes. I think maybe this where the myth comes from. Never had a good experience trying to get help from IRC but maybe I am going to the wrong ones.
Is one that works. Usually this means one that someone else sets up. The trouble is finding an integrator who actually USES any given OS to the exclusion of all others: Such people always have a sane set of software they use for good reasons.
I don't mean OEMs who install a bunch of crud from restore discs; I mean people like you and me. I've never used BeOS but I bet Eugenia could hook up a 100% usable desktop for me (so long as my needs are "reasonable"). I could do the same for her with Linux.
Answer: There's no logical connection between being consistent and being wrong (or right). Paul Wolfowitz has been saying for years and years we need to get rid of Saddam. Whether he's right or wrong is a matter of fact and argument - SUBSTANCE. Just pointing out somebody consistently takes a position does not advance the debate or help figure out the answer. It's just a smear tactic, trying to imply somebody is not levelheaded and open, without engaging in substance.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're trying to say that just because someone is consistant doesn't mean that they're wrong, I would agree with you. However, being 'consistant' about something, even when the topic doesn't warrant it is zealotry. For example, if two people are having a discussion about different ways to customize something in WinXP and you jump in and say that WinXP sucks and they should be using OSX instead. True, you may or may not be right, but you're completely off-topic .. and out of line.
but I will admit that the wintel platform is (1) cheaper, (2) faster (currently), and (3) has more "compatibility"
But if asked by someone, would you specifically recommend the Wintel platform to them over your preferred platform if you know for sure it is better suited for their needs? If not, you are most, you still qualify as aa zealot
As a final thought, a zealot doesn't necessarily have to have ALL of these characteristics, but probably does very strongly have at least two of them.
And to dwilson, you're right - I have probably been guilty on occassion of calling someone a zealot when it wasn't warranted - it's a character flaw of mine Sometimes I don't find out until after the fact that I was wrong.
i don't know. maybe i'm off base, or its just me,
but is osnews a professional site?
this article is titled 'pyshchology of an OS zealot'.
psychology? all he did was speak about a few different OS's newsgroup situation.
its getting harder to keep coming back here. its generally interesting reading, and lots of good links to interesting news, but with a large number of technical inaccuracies (mentioned, but BSD i think is more regarded as king of servers than linux), and opinion based fact (i thought this article was to be approached 'scientifically'??) and just sheer bad use of language (throne not thrown, feeble, not feable, easiest not easyest).
this is not just happening in this article, it happens alot, and not always by 'guest' editors.
so i have nothing really more to say, just to the administrators: consider going through some of your content with a finer comb.
also, the 2nd post i believe mentioned neal stephenson's 'in the beginning was the command line...'. i too will recommend it, it is very interesting and funny, if a little long.
if you read that, you should read everything else he has published, because it too is of amazing quality. ok, thats enough of that.
Item 1:
...and some of its vocal supporters make it very clear that if you aren't a guru, then don't use Linux.
I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that when I see that response, it is from somebody who is frustrated and is complaining about Linux and stating how much they love Windows. That being the case, I think it is a valid response. If a user is frustrated, but asks questions and shows they are interested in learning, they are not turned away (by most anyway. Some people are just jerks). On the other hand, if somebody posts a list of all the things they hate about Linux and why Windows is so much better, then what option is left to other members of the list but to argue with them or dismiss them?
You even said it yourself at the end of your article. There were many things I learned whilst I worked on this article, but the one thing that kept comming back was this: Whats right for you is right for you, and that whats right for you doesn't necesarily mean that its right for others. Sometimes Linux, BSD, or some other OS just isn't right for you. If you can't figure that out on your own, what is wrong with somebody else helping you come to that realization?
As for the "zealotry". Personally, I publicly disagree with people on this site and others regarding Windows vs. the rest of the world when I feel their criticism is unjustified or based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. That is not a bad thing. I use Windows, Linux, and BSD all the time, and I play around with QNX and other operating systems for fun. I'm not a zealot against any of them. I do, however, dislike it when somebody posts a scathing or biased article which makes points based on incorrect assuptions or information. In my opinion, if this is zealotry at all, it is only zealotry for accurate information; or opinion based on such.
I would like to bring up one last point that I feel is related. Contrary to what you've said in your article, I do think that Linux (and BSD) are ready for the desktop. The real question should be whether or not each person individually is ready to use them as a desktop. There is nothing in the world that says a desktop is only a desktop if the most inexperienced and inept person on Earth can figure it out without training, study, etc. That is a limitation of our own minds and our own laziness; it is a conditioned response and it is incorrect. Thefore, to me anyway, if a person feels that Linux or some other OS is not ready for the desktop, then for them that is probably the case. For others, it may not be.
Item 2:
A great many people are scared of linux's complexity, and in some cases this isnt' helped by users who's only reply to straightforward questions is RTFM, especially when a lot of these manuals are written for and by very linux savy people.
Let's be fair here. Admittedly, if a new user goes posting to the kernel developers mailing list, they are probably going to be treated with contempt. Most lists have well established rules of etiquette when posting. If you break those rules, you should expect to be treated the same as when you breech etiquette in other social situations (like farting loudly in church for example). Also, there are those in the world who's ego is expanded whenever they can tell somebody to bugger off; but they act the same way in other situations as well, so we shouldn't be too surprised by them and shouldn't judge a community based on their social ineptitude. I think these examples back up what you said in your article.
On the other hand, there are many mailing lists and forums that are very useful to new Linux users. Gentoo's forum and Libranet's support mailing list are two good examples. http://www.debianhelp.org is another. New users are helped with their problems or given links to other posts on the forum where the question has already been answered.
I think the rules that new users need to abide by when posting on such support lists is use the correct list, be polite, ask detailed questions and be specific, and follow the rules of etiquette set forth by those who operate the list. If you do this, your RTFM responses should almost disappear.
It's tragic the way Linux is being marketed to the masses ("you should run Linux instead of Windows"), but when the masses seek help from their peers, they're told, "if you can't figure it out, you shouldn't be running Linux." So who are we supposed to believe?
You know, this may have been the case a long time ago when the only people who used Linux were socially retarded curmudgeons who couldn't get a date (you know, people like me). Let's be perfectly honest here though, I really don't see these types of responses anymore, neither have I for a very long time.
I don't like seeing this RTFM card being played by people opposed to Linux because it simply is not true anymore.
In response to you comment regarding the GPL, let me offer a couple of comments of my own.
The GPL is the reason that Linux exists and has become what it is today. With a proprietary license, this never would have been the case.
I respect the BSD license, and others, but the thing that the GPL offers me over these licenses is the ability to ensure that my donations to society are not hijacked by somebody else. If I choose to donate something to the world for free, then I don't want somebody else stealing it! If I donate blankets to freezing children in Siberia, then I don't want a third party grabbing them at the Siberian post office and then selling them to people for a profit. They were a gift from me. The GPL ensures that my gift remains a gift. That is why I like it so much.
Another comment I have, although it is not related to your statment per se, is regarding people who compare the GPL to communism.
This statement is really at the far, opposite end of the intelligence spectrum. If you want to compare the GPL to politics or a governmental style, then it would have to be compared with the United Order. I realize that many people out there don't think there is a difference between the two, however, there is a difference and it is a very important one.
The difference between communism and the United Order is that of freedom and choice. Communism is forced upon people by a government. It is a warped and twisted counterfeit to a United Order based form of government; which is completely a personal choice. You share your wealth with the whole because you want to, not because you have to.
In order to compare the GPL to communism, people would have to be physically forced to use GPL'd source code. This does not happen. People are free to chose the use the GPL or not to. That is why it cannot be compared (at least intelligently) to communism.
And with that I will refrain from rambling on any more.
X is being unresponsive, not Linux.
you don't have to tell me that but since we are talking about something that is usable (and as I quoted for my wife no less) we are talking about the whole package.
seriously...Linux without X is really NO use to very many desktop users! especially those who just want to get shit done.
i love how people are always quick to seperate Linux (the kernel) from the rest of its parts that make up a workable desktop when performance is hit or something crashes....though it is very true (and i used to do it myself on this very forum) it is pointless because we all know they are talking about the WHOLE package and not just the kernel.
and really...comparing a Win2k install to "just" a linux kernel is stupid....especially in terms of desktop use.
I'm not against linux (hell, I've used it a few times and have a perminant BSD box here being used as an mp3 jukebox), but to say it doesn't happen is not true, yes perhaps I've gone to the wrong groups and asked but there you go. I always try to be polite, even when faced with critisizms (and yes I really ought to have gone over the final draft with a spell checker, my apologies, it won't happen again). But to say it simply doesn't happen is quite frankly a lie.
I must admit that a lot of these posts point out some interesting things that I hadn't considered or even heard of (the Amiga user persecution complex page sounds interesting and I may well read through it)
My hope was that people added to this or at least pointed out where I had gone wrong in what I had put. I'm glad a lot of you enjoyed it and to those people who did either of the former I thank you for your taking the time to have helped me.
To those who could only come up with "another ignorant post" type comments, again I say, write your own if you feel that this is so inferior, or better yet, if you feel so strongly as some of the comments suggest, just stop coming here. Your comments only serve to hurt others and quite frankly make yourself look like a fool
Again, the title of this article WAS NOT MINE. I quite understand the comments that followed in this regard, if I had read this from someone else I too would probably have made the same complaint, hell, when I first came here this afternoon I genuinly thought that someone had beaten me to it until I read the small intro.
I wrote this article to be easily digested with a subject matter that I felt was important, I didn't want some huge deep psychological essay because thats simply not my field of expertise. I hoped that people would enjoy it and again, I'm glad some of you did.
Regards
Alan Fisher
What really pisses me off are the Windows trolls that hang out in comp.os.linux.advocacy (COLA)!
COLA *should* be a place where Linux people can hang out, exchange experiences, views, tips, etc. Instead it is the home of the biggest Windows Versus Linux fight you've ever seen. And nothing is out of bounds there: namecalling, bashing, swearing, etc. It is all there.
Being a zealot about your operating system is one thing. Promoting it as good, liking it, etc. is all fine by me. BUT, when the Windows zealots start hanging around in the Linux groups and starting fights, that is quite another.
Okay, I tried to resist replying to this flamebait thread, but some of these things I see are just amazing me:
[The highpoint drivers could well be buggy. My only point was that it had nothing to do with them being binary as they in fact have source along with them. My friend only pointed to them because he thought they were not open source.]
It is a well known fact that binary drivers are the source of most problems on Linux systems currently. The vendors rarely bother to test them sufficiently and third-party coders have no way to track down and/or work around problems in them. There are some very juicy threads on the LKML that go through this topic point by point. Your friend was doing nothing more than pointing out a possible source of the problem. What's he supposed to do, blame the kernel itself immediately when it works fine on any other system?
[While I don't dispute that sharing is good, morel dilema is a little different I suppose. I get the impression that a lot of open source folk seem to think that proprietary programs are somehow 'evil'. While the model may be greedy, it is by no means 'evil'.]
It's a bad model if you care about having control over your systems and flexibility to grow beyond the features that are sold to you from higher up. It's a bad model if you desire not to be controlled. It's not evil, but it is the wrong choice for many circumstances.
The moral aspect comes in when you study history and realize that the original intent of copyright was to promote the public interest by encouraging the development of creative works which would then be returned to the public commons. There are two problems with this: 1) default copyright currently lasts for 70 yrs after creator's death (and when copyright is assigned to a corporation, which doesn't die, this is essentially eternal), and 2) copyright when applied to software gives the public nothing when it expires. Why? Binary software is nearly impossible to decripher and improve.
Companies who are leveraging copyright for software and keeping the source code secret are giving the public an empty bargain in return for the monopoly on distribution they are granted. This is why divulging of sourcecode should be necessary to maintain copyright over any code. Otherwise the company gets the government-granted monopoly, exploits it for years, and returns nothing to the public when it expires. Even schemes like Microsoft's Shared Source is better than the typical proprietary software, because it ensures that the public has the source code in a sort of "escrow" for when the copyright expires, so that they then may use the source code for any purposes they want.
When looked at it in the sense of the intent of copyright, proprietary licenses without availability of source are 100% wrong. Note that availability of source doesn't mean that you are free to take that code and use it in whatever you want, you must still obey the copyright holder's wishes until it expires.
[I firmly believe that the base operating system an libraries should be open. However, realisticly I can't see a world in which everything is free. People need to make money and they should have the right to try.]
There are so many straw men in this sentence, I don't know where to start. First of all, nobody is suggesting that everything should be free (besides communists, but even they recognize value). This is about SOFTWARE. It is a SPECIAL CASE unlike anything we have ever seen before. The second part of your sentence makes it sound like people are suggesting that proprietary software be outlawed. That is utterly ludicrous. Saying "people shouldn't use proprietary software" is a completely different thing from "we shouldn't _let people_ use proprietary software". One is a choice the individual makes, the other is government. The first is what people are saying, the second is the straw man you've put up so you can attack it. Please do not cloud debates with such rubbish.
[The best way to lead is by example, not force. A lot of open source software tries to force people into open source.]
Huh? This is again, utterly ludicrous. Nobody is forcing you to modify and redistribute GPL'd software, which, by the way, is the only circumstance under which you must accept the terms of the GPL. If you don't like it, keep your modifications in-house or use a more permissive license. How are you being forced to do anything? I find it curious that people lambast the wishes of the copyright holder, even when he is ENCOURAGING YOU TO SHARE THE CODE, and then pat the copyright and proprietary software industries on the back for reserving even MORE rights to themselves, as well as sticking EULAs on you to not only restrict you via copyright, but also restrict your usage of the software. Please!
[The Linux kernel is a great example. While not being anti-closed source, the Linux kernel certainly makes it awfuly difficult for proprietary solutions in some cases.]
Tough sh*t. They don't have to work with Linux. They'll only lose Linux-based customers in the long run. If we want Linux, and we have a myriad of hardware to choose from on the market, we're going to choose the ones with good support, which typically implies open source drivers in the Linux world. So what? Linus has stated that the Linux kernel does not exist to serve anyone's purposes except its users. If it bent over backwards to be "proprietary-friendly", it would be serving the purposes of its users less and serving more the interests of companies who wish to keep their sourcecode secret and not share it with anybody. Who cares? Not anyone that has invested time and effort into the Linux kernel or operating systems based around it.
In short, your premises are flawed and you use fallacious arguments to reach your conclusions. Please put more thought into your responses.
"For example, if two people are having a discussion about different ways to customize something in WinXP and you jump in and say that WinXP sucks and they should be using OSX instead. True, you may or may not be right, but you're completely off-topic .. and out of line."
Answer: Depends on what the starting topic was. If it was about which OS is more customizable, then why is a comment that OS X is more customizable (not saying it is) off-topic? Also, as a general matter, people have a right to make the comments they want. Only at the far extremes should there be any policing of this, if any.
"But if asked by someone, would you specifically recommend the Wintel platform to them over your preferred platform if you know for sure it is better suited for their needs? If not, you are most, you still qualify as aa zealot "
Answer: Yes, I would recommend a wintel PC to someone looking to spend 499 on a computer, or to play large numbers of the most recent games. But I would also tell them there are costs associated with that - i.e., using the inferior OS, having much less integration of the various pieces that make up a computer (OS, hardware, apps, etc).
Symbian OS rock. Everything else stink. It's not only my opinion, it's the TRUTH.
Well, since you capitlized the word, then it must be. Thanks for contributing in a meaningful way.
I have never once had any Linux user respond to any of my questions with 'RTFM.' I have occasionally been told, 'That's a pretty complicated problem, I don't have time to deal with it right now, but you could look at (manual name) or ask (other person's name). Likewise, I've never responded to anyone with 'RTFM.' Many Linux users would like to see others adopt Linux, and know that being rude and unhelpful isn't a good way to go about that.
Likewise, the only people who tried to disuade me from using Linux or said that it was for 'gurus' when I started had never used it and were intimidated by something they knew nothing about. Knowledgeable users, on the other hand, gave me advice like 'you should probably not start with this distribution, doing things in it is complicated and probably not the best way to learn at first...' That is, they gave me helpful advice and then left the choice up to me, having informed me what my options would mean in terms of effort and time on my part.
Depends on what the starting topic was. If it was about which OS is more customizable, then why is a comment that OS X is more customizable (not saying it is) off-topic?
Unless somebody has specifically mentioned OSX (or something about Windows being the most customizable), it's off-topic. Like if two people are talking about different ways to customize the start menu in WinXP, and you jump in and go "Oh yeah, well in OSX, you can ...." I'm sure you get the picture
Also, as a general matter, people have a right to make the comments they want. Only at the far extremes should there be any policing of this, if any.
Nobody is saying you don't have a right to do anything, but of course then we have the right to call you a zealot for doing so
Yes, I would recommend a wintel PC ... But I would also tell them there are costs associated with that - i.e., using the inferior OS, having much less integration of the various pieces that make up a computer (OS, hardware, apps, etc).
Much less integration, sure. But you're starting to cross the line with the 'inferior OS' part. I'm not saying that I disagree with you or that you aren't right (and I don't really want to argue the merits of each OS here), but 'inferior OS' is just kind of one of those general comments that zealots like to throw around.
If you say "Sure, you can play the latest games on Windows, but you'll be prone to more viruses and greater security risks", I don't think most people would disagree with you. But saying 'inferior OS' is just a little too subjective, IMHO. Because if a person may think that OS 'a' is superior because it has a much better visual appear than OS 'b', even though OS 'b' is much more stable and secure.
Comparing GPL and Communism. Have you ever heard about Military Communism Politics in Soviet Russia (1918-1919) since October Revolution till Kronstadt Rebellion (MCP)? Later MCP was replaced with "New Economic Politics" and transformed to "Peaceful Coexisting of Different Communities" doctrine (Stalin vs. Trotsky) GPL is comparable to soft MCP with PCDC: if you use, accept. True communist never bother of licensing, he write "Written/rewritten/modified by Ivan Ivanov, 8 Apr 2004." and assume "Donated to public domain." Public domain is the only way to be communistic. GPL is more of MCP kind, it states: "We protect ourselves. If you use our product, you follow us, thus you accept _our_ rules. Otherwise, do _not_ use our products." True communist's way in these capitalists' copyrights laws is only "Written by Ivan Ivanov, 8 Apr 2004, placed to public domain." After such clause Ivan can not be taken to court (esp. in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus) and everyone can use his code.
Militaristic communist, of course, should use "strong copyleft", like Nethack(?) PL. GPL as a compromise, it allows code sellings.
As for manuals. IXoids (e.g., BSD and GNU tools) have one great thing: they provide really good and full documentation. In most cases a man doesn't know what he need to read. I've seen many questions like "I want ... What man pages should I read?" Less frequent are questions "I want ... Variant <tool-name>+<tool-name>+<tool-name>+... does not fit/is bad because of ... Any suggestions?" Computer is a complex instrument, this is rare understood point. Many users want "get bicycle and ride on" and become very unhappy when they fail. Just like little children. It is too hard to devote half an hour to learn riding. Of course, shell+tools is bad for them, they are children, but nobody of them even can say what they want. Even in this case, IXoid can be tuned to have childish shell. Real IX masters, workers do not understand that children want a _box_, that plays music/video and runs WWW browser, text editor and desk calculator. Such unflexible things are not liked by workers.
They can build/change and want be able to do it. Not only moving bookshelves, but resizing them and sticking them to ceiling not wall These is difference between IX user and Mac/Win user. (E.g. after GNU/Linux acquaintance, my friend learned vim to such extent that he wrote scripts to process texts. He was confused after I told him about sed, awk, sort, uniq, wc... Possibly he considered vim with his regexps as a better VBA for MS-Word.)
What you call "zealotry" should be considered as a human right to choose. Between "Yet Another OS" writers, that can't spend their energy, I find people, that hate OSes for their failings: Windows for its blackboxness, GNU tools for bloatness etc. Of course, they use usual OS, but try to find or write a better variant.
And there are, of course, all different kinds of zealots - like the guy who once tried to convince me that C++ was better suited for text processing than perl.
No kidding! Everybody knows that Python is the best language for text processing. : )
Hi,
I was myself last time on IRC and by accident came in a OS battle. I just followed the conversation as I don't have any real OS preferences.
But one point was raised and that stuck to me is: Linux is a mediocore OS meaning everything it can do another OS can do better. Linux as server? BSD is much better for it. Desktop? Windows or MacOSX. Only thing it has going for it is that its free and the media hype arround it.
I was going to ask where's the psychology in the title of your piece, but now I know it was an editor's liberal use of the word. Misleading actually, since I learnt nothing of the psychology of the zealot in your thinkpiece.
To be pretty frank... assuming that we start from what is best for most people, wouldn't it be pretty honest to say.
Mac - Simple, good for media etc.
Win - Pretty much covers general joe users needs for low cost
BeOS - Media Heaven
*BSD - King of servers
Linux - King of GPL advocates????
I still haven't heard a reason to why Linux should be chosen prior to BSD??? Is there any reason at all?
Darius: "But you're starting to cross the line with the 'inferior OS' part"
This is what I'm talking about. You can call me a mac zealot. Guess what, you're a zealot too. Just your religion is "there's no such thing as better" it's all "preference."
The problem with this kind of thinking, taken too far, is that it washes over and denies and muddies clear thinking on what's best, what's good and what's bad. This serves no purpose and is counterproductive. Maybe if people just came right out and admitted it, "you know what, why is OS X so much better than our OS (windows)?" What would happen? Probably there would be more pressure on MS to fix it. Instead, there's all this equivocating and "there's pluses and minuses, it's all really just the same."
Windows is heavily weighed down by legacy crap. MS should toss the whole thing and start fresh, just like Apple did. But it won't, partly because large elements of the PC populace just live in a dream world, one where things like the registry and Outlook the virus vector and too many insolvable glitches get swept under the rug -- apparently just so people can feel better about their choice of computerl.
To be honest I share your sentiment Les, I know my piece touches on the whys and possible reasons for, but to say its a psychological piece is I agree rather misleading.
Thanks for being as polite as you were :-)
This is what I'm talking about. You can call me a mac zealot. Guess what, you're a zealot too. Just your religion is "there's no such thing as better" it's all "preference."
The only problem with your logic is that when you say OSX is 'better', it is you who gets to determine what is better and what is not.
Sure, OSX may be more secure and more elegant (I'm not sure about the latter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but what is that for somebody who mainly uses his PC to run all of the latest computer games? Do you think this person is going to give a rat's ass about security and elegance? The reason why I say its all 'preference' is that your definition of 'better' is not the same as it is for others. And the dfference between you and I (and the reason why you are a zealot) is because I don't sit here and try to dictate what's better for everyone else based on my own personal bials. My motto is use what works best for you.
In the case of our gamer, he has three options:
1. Switch to Mac and have a limited selection of games
2. Stick with Windows and work through its shortcomings for access to all the latest computer games
3. Say screw it and get a PS2, Xbox, or Gamecube, and sell his computer to a pawn shop.