Just a Few Clarifications
Submitted by Scott Dowdle on Wed, 2008-03-19 10:56.
Commentary | Editorial | FOSS | Free Software | Linux | Red Hat
The Objective Observer wrote an article entitled, "Penguin Suicide Bombers: The Terrorism of Open Source". The article is quite inflammatory although along the way the author tries to justify his handle. In any event, I thought it important to give the author the benefit of the doubt and to try my best to set the record straight... or my version of it anyway... in as positive a way as possible. What follows are the two, somewhat quick emails (please forgive any typos) I sent in response to the article... oh, and I'll be happy to include any responses I get back from him if any.
Dear Objective Observer,
I haven't completed the article yet (am about half way through) but I will. Here are few points about what I've read so far... and I doubt I'll need/want to send a followup... since I already wrote too much. :)
While you mention that characterizing what Open Source is... is quite difficult in a sentence... I did want to point out a few things:
1) Some FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) programmers are INDEED paid and work part or full-time for commercial companies that use/sell the FOSS they pay to have developed
2) Red Hat employs a number of top level Linux kernel developers and sponsors a lot of work on dozens of other FOSS projects... and all the code they pay people to develop is licensed under a GPL license... with a few, rare exceptions (their Red Hat Network service for example)
[Added later: There are certainly a lot of other companies paying for Linux and FOSS development as well. One of your main examples (Firefox) has a multi-million dollar foundation setup to support it with lots of paid employees.]3) FOSS software is not "public domain". While some software is public domain, most licenses used by FOSS developers allow for the program authors to retain copyright on the code they have written... or the authors hand over their copyrights to a body/organization that has long term responsibility for the body of work
4) The best way I've seen GPL described (although I know you were talking about Open Source in general and not GNU/GPL) is that the software license is geared to retain the rights of the software users rather than the software makers... and because of this reverse, it is often referred to as "copyleft"
5) You can buy FOSS if you want to. There are a number of companies that package it and sell it... or sell services built around it
6) So far as GNU/GPL is concerned, it is "Free Software"... with free being "Free as in Freedom". The Free Software Foundation has historically sold collections of their software in various formats although I haven't checked in years... so I'm not sure they are still doing that. The point being that the more important of the two types of free is "Free as in Freedom" rather than "Free as in Beer".
I'm sorry if you clarified any or all of those points later in your article. It was just getting to the point where I was building up so many points I wanted to make and needed to write them down before I forgot something.
Then I read on... and followed up with...
Dear Objective Observer,Boy was I wrong when I said I didn't think there would be anything else I would need to comment on. :(
1) While there is a good bit of "Microsoft is Evil" dogma among FOSS users... it isn't really a battle against Microsoft software... but bad, anti-competitive business practices... that are bad for users and for the industry. You have to understand that the vast, vast, vast (hmmm, I guess that is enough) number of commercial/proprietary software that has been written is no longer available because the companies/publishers that marketed them went out of business. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Oracle, etc... are really exceptions to the rule rather than examples of it. It has often been the case that people have put a lot of time, effort, and data into closed applications and data formats only to have it become unusable after a product disappears from the marketplace. Open Standards and file formats are important. I don't think as many people would have a problem with Microsoft if they really followed or used document standards or if they released their software under a FOSS license where the customer couldn't be left out in the cold if Microsoft decides to go a different way with one of their products. As you may know, Microsoft has made a few attempts to get into "Open Source" and to create new standards based on their protocols and document formats... but often it was because they were either forced to do so (by legal action) or they did it as a marketing stunt. Take the OOXML "standard" they tried to get through the OSI.
2) Regarding Linux, Linus Torvalds has time and time again explained that he is pragmatic... works on Linux because he finds it fun (see his semi-autobiography entitled "Just for Fun" with David Diamond) and doesn't care a hoot about Microsoft. Richard Stallman has said several times that he doesn't have anything against Microsoft and thinks they get picked on too much... as they aren't any worse than a number of other proprietary software companies. Just watch Richard (and everyone else) in the freely available "Revolution OS" video on Google video to hear straight from the horse's mouth.
3) Eric Raymond has lost some of his credibility in the "movement" and is often made fun of... as is Bruce Perens (we are all human and flawed)... although they do get respect for all of their past glories and any possible future glories. :) There have been a number of comic strips done on Eric Raymond although the domain name of the site eludes me now.
4) Regarding "crude propaganda and hate-filled rhetoric"... I know there is a lot of it but I would NOT characterize it as coming from leaders in the "movement" and would actually have a hard time saying it even came from mature adults. I think the popularity of FOSS these days and the numbers of people using it -- there are always going to be a small percentage of "squeaky wheels". While some of the leaders (take Linus Torvalds for example) have said some negative things about... oh... Microsoft or others... it was always in jest... and he is just as likely to jest in the same manner with his own developers or developers of other FOSS projects. I think if you ask serious questions of most of the leadership in the FOSS community you will find out that often there is a large degree of respect regarding Microsoft's technical aspects... but not so much about Microsoft's business/corporate marketing aspects.
5) Regarding "rejection and opposition to the direct capitalization of software", I think you have completely missed the mark. As I mentioned in my last email, "Free as in Freedom" is the important flavor of free... where "Free as in Beer" is nice but not necessary. There are a number of commercial companies based on free software and Red Hat is one of the most successful. While there is a certain amount of backlash against Red Hat because of its success (they are sometimes called the "Microsoft of Linux"), most of that is FUD/myth. Richard Stallman actually presented several business models (for like... making money) in his original GNU Manifesto... if I remember correctly. If not in that, one of is other early writings. Cygnus was probably the first commercial company founded to support free software (1989) and was bought by Red Hat in 1999. The point here is that FOSS isn't anti-money... but it does often operate with different business plans. Red Hat seems to have the most visible case... where they think open standards and software makes much better business sense than the closed alternatives. To see the business case for FOSS that Red Hat makes, visit here (two clicks from their front page): http://www.redhat.com/about/whyopensource/
6) Regarding security claims... only ignorant people claim FOSS is more secure. While many do believe that the software development model used by FOSS has a greater potential to be secure... the mantra is that security is a process and not a product. Linux Weekly News, a popular site for Linux news and original content has written several lengthy articles over the years documenting security problems in FOSS and has said clearly every time that FOSS is not necessarily more secure... and that we are basically lucky that there hasn't been a major security exploit on a FOSS project yet. I think we have had one... as this week it was reported around the net about the defacement of approximately 100,000 websites... mostly through phpBB. The point here is that the typical mature FOSS projects are as security conscience as commercial developers if not more so... and they must not fall asleep at the wheel.
7) Regarding "open source movement often skirts the boundaries", I totally disagree with you and here is why. I have seen discussion after discussion like the one here: http://lwn.net/Articles/273710/ Developers in the US are very concerned about patent and copyright issues... and there are even patent pools and organizations that have been formed to provide patent protection... in a mutually assured destruction (MAD) format... ie... you sue us over patents and we have patents we can sue you over. Regarding FOSS folks being hackers, while I don't have any data to back it up... the perceptions I've gotten over the years that most of the hacking going on on the Internet was done by "script kiddies" predominantly using Windows. I do concede that there are a small percentage of "crackers" (the better term for what you are describing) in all groups of users including FOSS.
8) Regarding "Now, I do not say this to be pejorative or otherwise mean-spirited to the open source movement but the similarities are rather striking"... I think with the addition of the information and clarifications I have provided... that hopefully it will be more clear to you how distorted and unstriking your comparison is. I can help lead a horse to water, but...
I would have provided you more links (citations) but are you really going to read all of the ones I have already listed? If you want more, just ask. I can find them but there isn't one nice collection of the information and I'd have to spend some time doing some web searches.
» Scott Dowdle's blog | login to post comments
@ The Objective Observer:you missed
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2008-03-21 17:20.
@ The Objective Observer:
you missed so much, your article will never be taken seriously.
A few things, so i don't waste my time over this:
FUD is what Microsoft does with GNU software. Every time they can.
The prime example is exactly the one you're buying : Patent Infringement. Microsoft never proved anything, never showed anything. They still talk about it - FUD. Furthermore, they historically have infringed quite some patents...
Not to mention the FUD on security - from time to time they show a few graphs to "prove" that Windows is more secure. They compare something like Red Hat with ALL programs available on the repos vs. standard Windows..
FUD? Forget about it..
You also mention CASUAL FORUM POSTERS and say "Linux proponents" spread FUD and whatnot. (users, some could very well started using it last week). To explain how this is wrong, I'm going to compare also, you know, so you can visualize: x Americans are murderers, y are thieves etc. - so the whole USA is nothing more than a den of murderers, thieves and so on... Can you visualize why this is wrong? And why you're wasting your time, and mine?
I didn't comment on other stuff, mostly because i didn't read it. In light of the above, who cares.
» login to post comments
Responses to second email
Submitted by theobjectiveobserver (not verified) on Thu, 2008-03-20 19:58.
Responses to second email:
1, 2) Understood, and terrorism is really about such things as "the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the createion of new Islamic caliphate". So yes, there is always a political or philosophical underpinning to the movement. I think the parallel though is how Microsoft is stood up as the "Great Satan". This is undeniable. Also, terrorists, like open source individuals are almost jealous of success. You say this yourself about Red Hat. The fact that they became successfully ostracized them from the "movement". It seems like an organization that has success becomes the enemy. Microsoft as the most successful is therefore the chief enemy. Similarly, the United States, as the most sucessful Western power is the chief enemy. I am not saying that there is not a diversity of opinion in the open source movement but any honest and objective person realizes the extent to which Microsoft is demonized. Given all this, the parallel remains extremely strong.
3) I'm not sure how this refutes any of the parallels.
4) Again, the level to which this permeates the open source culture is absolutely unforgiveable. You do not seem to deny this but instead attempt to qualify and justify it. The fact remains and thus the parallel remains.
5) Certainly you will agree that there is a wide range to the open source movement and attempting to come up with a single definition, especially in a short article, is nearly impossible. Yes, there are some models on how to make money at it but I would again submit that it IS a rejection of monetization of software. Linux was originally written by all volunteers and freely distributed. Red Hat, because of their success, has to some degree been rejected by the community. But, regardless of whether the particular "c" word is "capitalization" or "copyright" I think makes little difference and I think it varies within the community depending on who you talk to as to which is more important.
6) While this is certainly true, it does not change the fact that security is THE hammer used by the open source community to beat on Microsoft. It is simply undeniable. This is fear used as a weapon.
7) For every link you have where open source developers are truly concerned with patents there are twenty about how open source developers have broken patent laws and continue to infringe on patents. I don't think that having a small minority of more legally conscious developers changes things. As for hacking and cracking, there is little doubt that the same culture that spawned the open source movement also has these elements. Again, this is more guilt by association than anything else.
I think that as you dive deeper, the parallels become stronger, not weaker. While I am not making accusations, would it suprise anyone if individuals dedicated to the open source cause intentially wrote viruses and worms targeting Microsoft technologies in order to help perpetuate the belief that Microsoft technologies were insecure? This would definitely fall under the auspices of "violence" and unlawfulness. Trust me, I understand that viruses and worm authors typically do it for their own egos but, come on, honestly would that scenario surprise you?
Again, I will restate that this was not an "attack" on open source and while I tend to have a marketing flair for my articles, this article, as all my articles, are intended to spark critical debate and dialog. The open source movement is important and it is being studied by academics and will continue to be studied. Studying the open source movement could help us understand how terrorist organizations grow and mature, are organized, the internal politics, etc.
Final thought. While you do not seem to like the characterization of open source in the article, you offer no alternative definition or parallel. What is open source if NOT a terrorist organization? What better parallel exists. I would submit that the fact you simply attempt to refute arguments and offer no alternatives demonstrates the weakness of your position.
» login to post comments
nonsense
Submitted by Thomas on Thu, 2008-03-27 00:43.
Please have a look at one of our FOSS members; www.nsa.gov/selinux/
FOSS is similar to the Public Library. Some knowledge should be accessible by anyone with an aptitude for it.
I rest my case!
Thomas
» login to post comments
I'm All About Open Source...
Submitted by Scott Dowdle on Fri, 2008-03-21 11:40.
First of all, thanks for the response. There were a few folks who assumed your original article was written as a spoof... and I was starting to wonder myself.
I don't really care to come up with a complex parallel model when it comes to Open Source... because it is what it is... and I think it is easily understood without really needing another complex entity to compare it to.
I don't mind simple comparisons though. My favorite comes from Bob Young (one of the founders of Red Hat who has moved on)... who says that proprietary software is like buying a car with the hood welded shut. The story goes on for a bit longer but I'd recommend searching for Bob Young's version of it than any retelling I could do. Another comparison is that FOSS is like an insurance policy for software. You will recall my mentioning that the vast majority of commercial software that has been produced is no longer available because the vast majority of commercial software companies that have been created have gone out of business. With FOSS, since the source is available, anyone at any time can pick up the ball and run with it no matter who dropped it and when. vi and emacs are still being developed and they have been around forever (in Internet time). :)
I also think the model you are comparing against is greatly misunderstood... and what you offer up of it really is a stereotype. That isn't to say that I condone or agree with terrorism, because I don't... but it existed long before the current crop we have today... as did open source.
The FOSS community is so diverse, spanning the globe... and there are tens of thousands of completely unrelated projects... the very notion of lumping them all together into the term "community" is a monumental stretch. There have been a few recent interviews with Linus Torvalds and he isn't that fond of the word "community" because it doesn't really mean anything.
Linux people beat Windows users over the head with the security issue... and that is fear? Ok. I've been an active member of the Linux community in my area (Montana) for about 10 years now. I've have mentioned security some (mostly the lack of viruses and spyware) but really not as a major feature of Linux. I imagine those that have gotten burned by viruses/spyware who have switched to Linux (or insert FOSS project name here) as a result might trumpet the security aspect. Do you disagree with their logic as it pertains to their own experience?
Asking if FOSS folks would write virus for Windows? Given the fact that it would go against their nature to share code with others and seek improvements... in a public visable way... I'm not sure. I think a more likely scenario would be for anti-virus companies to write viruses so they can sell more of their wares. I'm not claiming they are doing so though.
All of your points focus on the perceived bad behavior of a small percentage of people who are not exactly representative of the culture they, for probably bad reasons, want to be a part of. What about the good behavior and massive accomplishments of the vast majority of the members of the community? Is a significant portion of terrorist organizations doing good things that are helping people? I guess a small percentage of them might be... but it certainly isn't a trait that many would acknowledge. So your analogy falls flat on its face... unless you are trying to explain how a small percentage of a huge community is like something... which seems less valuable. You seem to think that it is a majority of the FOSS community and a disagree with you strongly and chalk it up again to "squeaky wheel" syndrome.
Take myself as an example. I've been using Linux almost exclusively since 1995. My wife uses Windows... and my 15 year old uses Mac OS X. I haven't tried to switch anyone... although when asked about the availability of a certain application for a certain function, I do try to advocate FOSS apps over commercial apps whenever appropriate. Do I fit the pattern? In the length of time I've been involved with Linux User Groups... and Linux Installfests... I really don't think it is useful to put Linux on someone's system who isn't committed to learning something new. Of the people who I've helped install Linux for, I'd have to guess and say at least half (probably more) were back to Windows in a relatively short time... because people who already know something have a hard time switching to something new. I don't think Linux is for everyone... or even half of everyone. I'm not really fond of the "dumbing down" of Linux in an effort to make it usable by everyone. To me, the command line is a strength of Linux and something people should learn, but the "usability" folks want to avoid it if at all possible. I'm not sure what good converting hundreds of millions of Windows users to Linux users would do... but I am very grateful for the competition Linux has brought to the monopoly... and the fact that it has brought issues like open standards to the forefront.
The Internet would not have become what it is if it had been left up to a proprietary company to create. It exists mainly as a result of its commodity protocols which are open standards. I'm going to avoid getting into the patent issue as that would be a huge time sink... but I will say that the patent system, with regards to software especially, in the United States is horribly broken. That doesn't mean that I advocate patent infringement... but the vast majority of patent infringement cases I've seen are rediculous. Take the Blackboard vs. Desire2Learn case for example. If you look at what Blackboard has patented, and the fact that Blackboard won (at least in the first legal effort), you'll see how undeniably broken it is.
Oh, if you want a better analogy... one just popped into my head... but I'm not educated enough to flesh it out... and that is that the FOSS movement is like a digital civil rights movement.
» login to post comments
Some final thoughts on this
Submitted by theobjectiveobserver (not verified) on Sat, 2008-03-22 21:53.
First off, simply because the Linux movement is organized and acts like, has parallels with, terrorist organizations does not mean it is "evil". I think this is somehow getting lost in all this.
But, you continue to reinforce the parallels with terrorism. Just as there is a large community of FOSS, there is also a large community of Muslims, the vast majority of which are NOT terrorists. As you mention, the vast majority exhibit good behavior but there are those that exhibit very, very bad behavior. Again, this does nothing but reinforce the parallels.
Just because you use Linux or advocate FOSS does not make you a member of one of the FOSS projects, which are the terrorist-like entities that are organized into "cells" (projects), have a loose confederacy (not a community), and often "splinter" (fork) and are actively working to destroy some commercial software (usually one from Microsoft).
Again, this is not an indictment of open source, it is simply looking at open source objectively and saying "Wow, it has a lot of similarities with terrorism". And, it absolutely does. You are simply not being objective about the matter as is evident by your constant need to discuss all of the good things that open source has done and how great it is. That is 100% irrelevant. Terrorists would of course talk about all the great things that terrorism has accomplished.
Good or bad is not the issue here, it is a matter of traits. And in terms of traits, there are a lot of traits that open source shares with terrorism. Nothing within this discussion refutes any of that, you just FEEL that it does because your PERCEPTION of terrorism is "evil" and open source is "good". Thus you make a comment about how wrong the article is because of how obviously great open source is and everyone "hoorah's" and slaps each other on the back and you forget that you still haven't done anything to refute the parallels with terrorism. With all due respect, you need to abstract yourself from your preconceived notions. News flash, the people that we perceive as terrorists believe what they are doing is just as noble as what you believe you are doing with open source.
And, just to throw one last thought out of sheer speculative pondering, do you really think that everyone involved in terrorist organizations are 100% aware of everything that their side is doing or perhaps that they are even a member of "terrorist" organization?
» login to post comments
so now..
Submitted by mdl (not verified) on Sat, 2008-04-19 18:09.
Your conclusion is that:
- FOSS movement is a collection of small terrorist organizations against all closed programs.
- Microsoft is a leading dictatorship (currently rules the world).
- Google is a dictatorship (uses also FOSS terrorists to destroy Microsoft)
- Red Hat (and similar) is a dictatorship which symbiotically uses and supports FOSS
- Other SW companies are smaller dictatorships in a war with everybody else
- And users are collateral damage
Having this setup:
- All terrorists are pressed to publish their works to everybody in the battlefield. a terrorist can't do bigger harm than anybody else (can use only weapons freely accessible to everyone).
- All dictatorships hide everything they produce or buy from others. they are free to use works and ideas of terrorists. they use their private weapons and freely accessible ones.
- Hackers/crackers are all over the field. watching any weakness in everything.
- Users are money to dictatorships.
- Users are users to terrorists.
And now enjoy your reality :)
.. I just wanted to say:
Terrorists want to destroy or kill their opponents. every single company (Microsoft, Ford, ..) in the world wants to destroy its opponents - it is called capitalism. Following your "logical conclusion", every organization in competitive environment with weak organizational structure of groups would be terrorist.
I would bet anything that there are "bad people" (are really fanatically against their opponents) in Microsoft, McDonalds, Red Hat, FOSS, British Airways, .. is it really so, that the only thing that counts is organizational structure? I don't think so. try harder..
Cheers
mdl
» login to post comments
Opps... one additional point
Submitted by Scott Dowdle on Fri, 2008-03-21 12:03.
Ummm, if the FOSS community is so determined to destroy the evil Windows... why is so much of FOSS available for Windows... and Mac OS X as well? That seems uncharacteristic for terrorists. :)
Given the infrequency of Microsoft branded product releases, I think the FOSS community has done more to enhance Microsoft's share-holder value than Microsoft itself has done.
» login to post comments
Hear! Hear!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2008-03-20 04:41.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to that troll. But if you look at his(her) website . . . All of the stories are just as inflammatory(I won't link any of the stories, for fear of increasing PageRank):
Why Vegetarians are Stupid
Why Vegetarians are Still Stupid
I Don't Care That You're Gay
Maureen Dowd is a Sexist Pig
A Debunking of HIPAA
The Trouble with Jews
Beating a Not-So-Dead God...Err, Horse
Is This The Web That We Created?
IMO this guy(gal) is all about shock factor.
Excellent response on your part, but if I may make a suggestion; republish the original post inline with your responses, allowing a more logical point-by-point comparison.
» login to post comments
Feeding trolls...
Submitted by Rob Enderle (not verified) on Thu, 2008-03-20 20:03.
I have to agree with the above comment.
This is a great rebuttal but a bit of a waste of time. Look at the other titles: this isnt someone who cares about any logical discourse.
Yes, shock factor seems to be his strong point.
Still, very nice work.
» login to post comments
Revolution OS
Submitted by Chen Levy (not verified) on Wed, 2008-03-19 23:28.
The "Revolution OS" video isn't freely available. It is copyrighted work and haven't been released with any free license. Unfortunately the movie is uploaded periodically by viewers to places like Google video, and the Google policy forces the copyright holder to constantly hunt down copy of it.
Please don't exacerbate the problem by linking to such copies.
» login to post comments
Revolution OS
Submitted by Scott Dowdle on Thu, 2008-03-20 11:14.
Chen,
Thanks for the information. That video has been on Google for well over a year... unless like you said... it just keeps showing up. I bought it on DVD shortly after it was released and know a number of people who have also.
Having it on Google will probably increase sales of the movie because it will introduce it to a lot of people who didn't even know it existed. It came out a few years ago and is somewhat dated now so I'm not sure how much sales potential it has these days... and hope to get a few new sales for it.
I greatly respect the producer of Revolution OS.
» login to post comments
Revolution OS
Submitted by JeffCobb (not verified) on Thu, 2008-03-20 18:34.
I bought it too and thought it was great. Part of what might have lead to the current situation is that either right on the box or a sticker or *something* said that the disc came free of DRM and maybe some folks saw that FREE and stopped reading. I am not saying its right but at a time when DRM was such a big deal (I still have my DVDCSS tshirt complete with source) those words might have jumped out at just a few people.
WRT the article, when an author plays the terrorism card on anything tech it kind of shows what that author has an agenda. For a more advanced version of this same argument, grep google for Rob Enderle and terrorist....unbelievable.
Jeff
» login to post comments
Look at who he's looking at
Submitted by A watchful person (not verified) on Wed, 2008-03-19 22:52.
We must ask ourselves, from whom is The Objective Observer getting the notion that FOSS advocates are terrorists bent on blowing up Microsoft?
From this guy. Ken Starks has been out there for years with his hand out trying to shake down the Linux community for money. To do so, he uses every propaganda trick in the book - whatever it takes. Including driving every wedge into the community that he can. Distro vs distro, Linux vs other platforms, us vs them, "elitists" vs "Joe Sixpack". He did it with Tux500, and he's doing it now with Lindependence 2008.
Trace back everything that's giving Linux a bad name, and you'll find "Lobby4Linux" and Ken Starks' little group at the end of every click-trail.
The rest of us use Linux for the same reason that Apple users use Apple: it works and we like it. End of story.
» login to post comments
Not "End of Story"
Submitted by RyanF (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-01 07:02.
In the first place, yes that was Penguin Pete who posted this. Trust me.
Secondly, I've worked with Ken Starks for 18 months now and I can tell you first hand that he is tireless in his efforts and selfless in motive. This Penguin Pete guy has even stated that Ken is an enemy on his own blog. I've spoken with Ken about PP and he just laughs. Pete sits in his little corner and grouses and throws an occasional impotent stone while Ken is out trying to make things happen. And as far as "shaking down the community", Ken gave $20.000 of his own money to three different developers when he first started Lobby4Linux and I've seen the cancelled checks. I would like to see Pete's contributions...aside from running his libel-prone mouth.
Pete is extremely lucky. He hides behind a keyboard and wouldn't dare say the things he says to Ken's face. Knowing Ken as I do...he'd only do it once.
Davie
» login to post comments
PenPete???
Submitted by TK (not verified) on Mon, 2008-03-24 11:13.
Is this Penguin Pete??? It sure sounds like it.
Probably one of the reasons he may seem like (but really isn't) he's driving a wedge into the community is because he gets very little support from the same. Thankfully, he has a few folks that step up and take action to advocate in whatever way they can.
So if you have something that is pretty awesome (I happen to think Linux is and excuse me if it sounds corny) why not tell other folks about it? If that's a good idea, isn't it even better to smartly and actively advocate it even further?
» login to post comments
RE: Look at who he's looking at
Submitted by GreyGeek (not verified) on Fri, 2008-03-21 04:13.
Shakedown?
Wedge?
Propaganda?
Helios is a dedicated Linux supporter who puts his time and his money where his mouth is, and even going through cancer therapy didn't slow him down much.
You, on the other hand, mis-labeling yourself as a "Watchful person" when you can be better described as a "Hateful person", seem only good at drive-by character assassinations.
I have little doubt that Helios has done more FOR Linux than you, and if your posting is any measure it's doubtful you've done anything more than just attacking avid Linux supporters.
» login to post comments
...and that is well done
Submitted by Patrick (not verified) on Wed, 2008-03-19 18:14.
Very nice Scott.
A good example of how to respond to arguments that overstretch a poorly conceived analogy to fit a predisposition.
Thank you.
Regards,
Patrick
» login to post comments
Just who is an Advocate
I am in Austin attending the Linux Foundation Summit Conference and one of the reasons I came was because Ken Starks was invited this year. It is an honor most will never know to get invited to even one of these events but had it not been for Ken coming, I would not have taken time from work. I just wanted to spend some time with this guy and see what he was all about.
All I can say is that Ken is without a doubt one of the most likeable and Linux passionate people I will ever meet. His energy level is draining and one cannot help but be transfixed when he steps up to the mic and starts speaking. It's like getting a Linux B12 shot. For people like this penguin pete guy to take shots at someone he never met tells me that he is just threatened by someone like Ken. I am guessing Ken is everything Pete cannot or will not be and that's the reason for his deep hatred.
I want to personally thank helios for his efforts and for holding so many of us wonderfully captive during the Summit. I now have a clear idea of what a Linux Advocate SHOULD be.