Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #476411
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux haters fail |
| Date | 2018-11-09 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4m3n7Fba2mU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <3h4bud5tao3io4jmml719fbop21tmsqdab@4ax.com> <7ru2selshp2c.euogzilc6279.dlg@40tude.net> |
On 11/9/18 9:04 AM, nobody wrote: > On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:37:25 -0600, chrisv wrote: > > snipped unread. > > Here is the text from the article. > > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/web/linux/Linux-zealots-adversely-desktop.html > > Linux Zealots Are Adversely Affecting the Success of the Linux Desktop > Zealots have given the Linux® desktop a bad name. Moderation is critical to > every worthwhile endeavor. All zealots always manage to take an extreme > position, and are, therefore, always wrong. > > The extremes of any position are always incorrect. The correct approach > will always be found somewhere in the middle of both possible extreme > positions. Windows zealots claim that Microsoft Windows can do no wrong. > Linux zealots claim that having Linux distros that are extremely diverse > and incompatible with each other is a highly desirable feature of Linux. > > Just because you can, does not mean that you should. Just because a person > likes to use a Linux desktop does NOT mean that they should advocate hatred > and exclusion against those who do not. Absolutely agreed. I use Linux, macOS, and Windows... and each has pros and cons. These stupid religious wars are insane. > Linux Software Restriction Can Be Good > Linux zealots have given the Linux desktop a bad name. > In this stunt, Richard Stallman presents himself as Saint Ignucius of the > Church of Emacs (Oslo, Norway, 2009). > Just because you feel like it, does not mean that you should. Just because > you physically can murder someone does not mean that you should kill > people. > > All Linux DE Distros Conforming To Certain Minimal Standards Would Be A > Good Thing > Just because you can change an apple pie recipe, does not mean that you > should. Not all cooks are master chefs. Some chefs know what they are > doing, while others are hopelessly inept. Too much salt will make your > apple pie taste terrible. Leave out the apples and you wont end up with an > apple pie. We see this a lot in COLA, people who think that having 1,000 choices for their GUI, for example, makes them a GUI expert and allows them to understand how all those choices work together to increase or decrease productivity and even enjoyment of the system. The end result is they HAVE to spend a lot of time to even understand what these features are and how to get to them, AND they end up making less than optimal choices. On the other side, systems such as macOS or Windows which are based on a lot of research and community feedback can go too far in not offering customization which would be beneficial to a SPECIFIC person. Both ways have pros and cons. > Just because you can change a Linux distro, does not mean that you should. > Not all programmers are equal. Amateur teenage programmers are pervasive in > far too many minor Linux DE distros. Teenagers in general cannot deal with > the concepts of no, programming standards, and good programming style. They > think that they know everything, yet know absolutely nothing about issues > that concern most academically trained and seasoned programmers.[1],[6],[7] > Have you ever met a teenage programmer who did not think that they were > awesome geniuses? These know it all teenagers view any criticism of their > horrible programming styles as a restriction upon their software freedoms. > Yeah, that loudmouth obnoxious creature giving you so much grief on the > Web, often turns out to be just a snot nose teenager. Or one of the "herd" members. :) > Just because you can change a text editor[2] program, does not mean that > you should. You can make a change to a program that introduces a new bug. > Make the wrong program change. And, your program just might stop working. > The gedit text editor[3] developers once upon a time achieved perfection. > They however kept on making changes to the point where the result in the > eyes of many was horrible. That could be why the Pluma text editor[4] was > started in order to restore the glory that once belonged to gedit. Reminds me of Owl with his sc work. He shows no signs of understanding the dangers of what he does. For his own use that is fine, but he presents it as stable and usable by people who would actually make use of the rows and columns he added. > Just because you can change a desktop GUI, does not mean that you should. > The Gnome[5] desktop environment is a great example. Many believed that > perfection was obtained in Gnome 2. Nevertheless, as all Linux zealots like > to do the Gnome developers kept on making changes in Gnome 3, which in the > opinion of many were horrible. > > Just because you can do anything with a Linux distro or application, does > not mean that you should. There appears to be a few Linux distros and open > source programs out there that cater to the criminal element. A few Linux > hackers would like to be able to muck around with Web sites in both privacy > and safety. Just because you can does not mean that you should. > > Just because you can create Linux distros that are incompatible with each > other, does not mean that you should. Linux zealots refuse in their zeal to > consider the viewpoints of other people, such as computer hardware > manufacturers and application developers, for example. While Linux Zealots > often crave extremely diverse distros, manufacturers of computer hardware > and application developers crave conformity. Why should any commercial > company ever choose to support Linux when so many distros are incompatible > with each other? While Linux distros can be different superficially, at > certain fundamental levels all Linux distributions should confirm to each > other. Otherwise, computer manufacturers, application developers, and major > corporations will continue to refuse to support Linux. Say I wrote a great program... I make a Windows version and a macOS version. Should I then make a version that fits in with the KDE UI? The GNOME UI? > Richard Stallman as the Original Linux Zealot > > In the above video you can see Richard Stallman's mind numbing avalanche of > verbiage in action. While he does make some good philosophical points, it > is very easy to get lost in his nonsense. Notice how he calls all distros, > GNU/Linux. Notice how he claims that most of them are ethically flawed and > impure. Ubuntu Linux just happens to be the 3rd most popular distribution > of Linux, currently available. He wants fame. He wants to push his ideas of sexual harassment and abuse of minors as being acceptable. > Never forget that it is a working Linux distro, like Ubuntu, that can give > new life to your computers rather than Stallman's lofty software freedom > ideas. There is absolutely no freedom offered by dead computer hardware > that remains a pile of junk on your desk without a working Linux DE distro > installed on it. > How wrong can these Linux zealots be? Linux zealots are directly > responsible for the Linux desktop failing to be accepted in the > marketplace. Their refusal to speak of the weaknesses holds it back. No doubt. > Who is a Linux zealot? A Linux zealot is any Linux person who insists upon > doing something with Linux, even though they clearly should not, just > because they can. Linux zealots cannot deal with "no." A Linux zealot > always ends up taking an extreme position, and refuses in their religious > like zeal to compromise. Because of the unchecked proliferation of Linux > zealots, the entire Linux desktop environment community is suffering. Why > should a Linux zealot be different from any other zealot? Linux zealots are > not different. Zealots never compromise and they never consider the view > points of other people. Thus, they are always wrong. The extreme extremism > of Linux zealots have given the Linux desktop a bad name. Absolutely correct. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 08:37 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 07:03 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail nobody <nobodysaysitalldoesntit@nobo.org> - 2018-11-09 11:04 -0500
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 08:20 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 10:41 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-09 09:57 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 10:24 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 14:48 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:18 -0700
Re: Why Linux haters fail RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 23:14 +0000
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:37 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 18:58 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-09 18:29 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 20:17 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 07:09 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 05:27 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-12 06:28 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 06:59 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 09:21 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 07:34 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-12 20:02 -0700
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-12 08:51 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 11:37 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 12:07 -0600
Re: Why Linux haters fail RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:40 +0000
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:42 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-12 13:06 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 20:16 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 05:57 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-12 20:01 -0700
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 04:06 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-11-09 18:25 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 18:43 -0800
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 11:46 -0700
Re: Why Linux haters fail Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 11:58 -0700
Too many of the Linux Supporters in COLA are total fruits Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 08:23 -0800
Re: Too many of the Linux Supporters in COLA are total fruits Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 09:21 -0800
Too many of the Linux Supporters in COLA are total Linux fruits for anyone here to care Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 05:14 -0800
csiph-web