...making Linux just a little more fun!
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:44:43 -0800
Part of a mildly ludicrous thread in which people invent objections to Don Marti's essay "Linuxmanship" (http://zgp.org/~dmarti/linuxmanship/) -- objections like "It's evil because it doesn't mention *BSD" -- for little better reason than this being the Internet, where being a crank is the approved way to get attention.
----- Forwarded message from Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> ----- To: conspire at linuxmafia.com From: Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:28:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [conspire] linuxmanship On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:11:56 -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us): > >> The exhortations on Don's page were a very positive force for the time >> period in which they originated, and their substance is relatively >> timeless, but the presentation strikes me as very "yesteryear" in 2006Q4. >> Both the world of Linux and the rest of the world have passed it by. > > Please do tell. Which observations on it have become untrue or > inapplicable, please? I find it still dead-on.
A point-by-point would be much longer than the page itself. Luckily, what you said below manages to touch on what I mean:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:07:18 -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Keith Keller (kkeller at speakeasy.net): > >> Question: why no mention of *BSD, which is possibly in many ways as good >> as linux, or at the very least not a proprietary OS? Yes, I understand >> it's called *linux*manship, but it seems like not mentioning BSD at all >> seems slightly disingenuous. > > OK, I'll bite. > > o The page is a marketing essay on how to (and how not to) market > open-source software solutions based on Linux. Why no mention of > BSD? Probably because that's not the purpose for which he wrote > the essay.
The purpose of the essay is the very first thing that has not changed with the times. When it was written, Linux was "a better solution, which just so happens to also be viable." Thus, advising those who wish to promote and market Linux-based solutions to cast aside thoughts and actions that might shine any kind of favorable light on a non-Linux solution (presumably including *BSD and the like) was very prudent. But:
1) Today, Linux is "the most viable solution, which just so happens to also be better [than proprietary equivalents]."
2) What you described before regarding parasitically encumbering preloads and the glut of consultants is far more true today than it was then. These two developments very much work against the tone of the essay. It's no wonder Keith mistook it to be disingenuous. That's an impression one was not likely to get when it was written, but in the world of today, that's an impression that should be expected, in my estimation. I think that both of Edmund's two very excellent recent posts (#2517 and #2534 in pipermail) are the best descriptions I have seen of what really happens in the environments where marketing of Linux-based solutions other than embedded platforms occurs.
> Author permits verbatim mirroring, and adds "Please write for > permission for other uses." I'd speculate that he might bless > any BSD advocate's desire to go to town with a derivative work > tailored for that purpose.
I'd like to see such a work...
> o I'm guessing you're unaware that the word "disingenuous" > means "lacking candor, giving a false appearance of simple > frankness, calculatingly deceptive". Which is a rather not-nice > thing to say about the motives of someone you probably don't even > know for no better reason than his having written a useful esssay.
As I touched on above, it seems the opposite is happening: There's so much candor and simple frankness that it gives the false appearance of being calculatingly deceptive. Ironic, isn't it?
_____________________________________________ conspire mailing list conspire at linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> ----- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:49:22 -0800 To: conspire at linuxmafia.com From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> Subject: Re: [conspire] linuxmanship
I feel like a sucker for having asked your objections to an essay I didn't even write, but, hey, that's my error, and I'll pay the price.
Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
> A point-by-point would be much longer than the page itself. L
A truly glorious, epic hand-wave. Nicely played, sir.
> The purpose of the essay is the very first thing that has not changed with > the times. When it was written, Linux was "a better solution, which just > so happens to also be viable." Thus, advising those who wish to promote > and market Linux-based solutions to cast aside thoughts and actions that > might shine any kind of favorable light on a non-Linux solution > (presumably including *BSD and the like) was very prudent.
Your premise about the "advising" is transparently bogus, and supported not at all by the text.
> 2) What you described before regarding parasitically encumbering preloads > and the glut of consultants is far more true today than it was then. > These two developments very much work against the tone of the essay.
You might be correct, or not -- but it's completely impossible for me to determine from the above (or from the above plus the remainder of that paragraph) what on earth you mean.
> I'd like to see such a work...
Well, you know whom to contact.
> As I touched on above, it seems the opposite is happening: There's so much > candor and simple frankness that it gives the false appearance of being > calculatingly deceptive. Ironic, isn't it?
And I thought I was a little paranoid.
_____________________________________________ conspire mailing list conspire at linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> ----- To: conspire at linuxmafia.com From: Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:13:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [conspire] linuxmanship On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:49:22 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> I feel like a sucker for having asked your objections to an essay I > didn't even write, but, hey, that's my error, and I'll pay the price.
heeheehee
> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us): > >> A point-by-point would be much longer than the page itself. L > > A truly glorious, epic hand-wave. Nicely played, sir.
Outplayed you? This might be a first.
>> The purpose of the essay is the very first thing that has not changed with >> the times. When it was written, Linux was "a better solution, which just >> so happens to also be viable." Thus, advising those who wish to promote >> and market Linux-based solutions to cast aside thoughts and actions that >> might shine any kind of favorable light on a non-Linux solution >> (presumably including *BSD and the like) was very prudent. > > Your premise about the "advising" is transparently bogus, and supported > not at all by the text.
OK, this time I don't really see what you mean.
>> 2) What you described before regarding parasitically encumbering preloads >> and the glut of consultants is far more true today than it was then. >> These two developments very much work against the tone of the essay. > > You might be correct, or not -- but it's completely impossible for me to > determine from the above (or from the above plus the remainder of that > paragraph) what on earth you mean.
My bad. Something got lost in several consecutive cut&pastes to rearrange the message. In the part that got lost, I compared the essay to the apparently genuinely disingenuous page promoting Windows, to which the essay links.
>> I'd like to see such a work... > > Well, you know whom to contact. >
I do? So someone has written one?
> >> As I touched on above, it seems the opposite is happening: There's so much >> candor and simple frankness that it gives the false appearance of being >> calculatingly deceptive. Ironic, isn't it? > > And I thought I was a little paranoid.
It's just another example of the "sales resistance" you mentioned before.
_____________________________________________ conspire mailing list conspire at linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> ----- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:36:59 -0800 To: conspire at linuxmafia.com From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> Subject: Re: [conspire] linuxmanship Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us): > > A truly glorious, epic hand-wave. Nicely played, sir. > > Outplayed you? This might be a first.
Actually, you've just been introduced to the fine art of charientism -- sort of like when an Englishman refers to someone as "clever".
(It's a peculiarly English type of insult: Foreigners are sometimes said to be "clever", i.e., tricky and untrustworthy. A fine young Englishman with roughly the same qualities would be described as "a smart lad".)
> OK, this time I don't really see what you mean.
I summarily denied your premise about the essay advising readers to disregard non-Linux solutions.
> > Well, you know whom to contact. > > I do? So someone has written one?
Not yet. Your arm broken?
> > And I thought I was a little paranoid. > > It's just another example of the "sales resistance" you mentioned > before.
But I'm not selling -- and neither is the essay. The latter is a set of techniques one might use in business to overcome objections to a Linux-based solution. It is not an attempt to sway random members of the public encountering it on the Web to adopt Linux-based anything.
I imagine that Don's probably gotten a boatload of crank e-mail, over the years, from OS-advocacy cretins making that exact error.
I've gotten a few, myself. If I'm feeling polite, I might respond to them the way I did in my Sydney Morning Herald / The Age interview (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511127721.html):
Q: Do you think you could achieve more if your advocacy was a little less strident?
A: I'm reminded of a story about the 19th century US public speaker and political figure Robert G. Ingersoll, who was wildly popular with the public but inspired influential "establishment" detractors by being publicly non-religious: Some reporters came to visit, and asked him about the rumours that his son had gotten drunk during a wild party and fell unconscious under the table. Ingersoll paused for effect, then started: "Well, first of all, he didn't fall under the table. And he wasn't actually unconscious. For that matter, he didn't fall. And there wasn't any party, and he didn't have anything to drink.... And, by the way, I don't have a son."
So it's not what I'd call strident, and I don't do advocacy. At least, not in the usual sense of the term.
The usual sort of OS advocacy is what the "Team OS/2" crowd used to do: They knew that their favourite software would live or die by the level of corporate acceptance and release/maintenance of proprietary shrink-wrapped OS/2 applications. They lobbied, they lost, IBM lost interest, and now their favourite OS is effectively dead.
But Linux is fundamentally different because it and all key applications are open source: the programmer community that maintains it is self-supporting, and would keep it advancing and and healthy regardless of whether the business world and general public uses it with wild abandon, only a little, or not at all. Because of its open-source licence terms, its raw source code is permanently available. Linux cannot be "withdrawn from the market" at the whim of some company - as is slowly happening to OS/2. (Ed: IBM finally pulled the plug on OS/2 on December 10.)
Therefore, Linux users are not in a zero-sum competition for popularity with proponents of other operating systems (unlike, say, OS/2, MS-Windows, and Mac OS users). I can honestly wish Apple Computer well with their eye-pleasing and well-made (if a bit slow and inflexible) Mac OS X operating system: wishing them well doesn't mean wishing Linux ill.
Note that all of the identifiable "Linux companies" could blow away in the breeze like just so much Enron stock, and the advance of Linux would not be materially impaired, because what matters is source code and the licensing thereof, which has rather little to do with any of those firms' fortunes.
Further, and getting back to your original point, I honestly don't care if you or anyone else gets "converted" to Linux. I don't have to. I'm no better off if you do; I'm no worse off if you don't.
What I do care about is giving making useful information and help available to people using Linux or interested in it. Why? Partly to redeem the trust shown by others when they helped me. Partly because it's interesting. Partly because researching and then teaching things I usually start knowing little about is the best way I know to learn. And partly out of pure, unadulterated self-interest: people knowing your name is at least a foot in the door, in the IT business.
As to stridency, there is a well-known problem of all on-line discussion media. Some people become emotionally invested in positions they've taken in technical arguments, and gratuituously turn technical disagreements into verbal brawls. And unfortunately they tend to be drawn to people like me who attempt to state their views clearly and forcefully. It's as if you were to say "I like herring" and thereby summon every dedicated herring-hater within a hundred-mile radius. The problem comes with the territory.
But that causes occasional unpleasantness and back-biting among some on-line Linux users, not an aspect of "advocacy", which isn't something we have much use for, generally - especially where the term refers to convincing the unwilling.
And, in conclusion, herring-haters suck ass.
_____________________________________________ conspire mailing list conspire at linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire ----- End forwarded message -----
Benjamin A. Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:21:08 -0500
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:44:43PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Part of a mildly ludicrous thread in which people invent objections to > Don Marti's essay "Linuxmanship" (http://zgp.org/~dmarti/linuxmanship/) > -- objections like "It's evil because it doesn't mention *BSD" -- for > little better reason than this being the Internet, where being a crank > is the approved way to get attention.
I've heard it said - and find this to be true in enough cases to be useful as a rough guide - that men often try to stimulate conversation by disagreement, while women generally do the opposite (this provides a highly amusing view of teenagers' conversations involving the apposite sex, which tend to illustrate this, or something very close to it.) If so, then the Net often appears to be full of 12-year-old boys, stoned out of their minds on their brand-new experience with testosterone and desperate to be noticed.
> > A point-by-point would be much longer than the page itself. L > > A truly glorious, epic hand-wave. Nicely played, sir.
Heh. Rick, I note that your bullshit meter is well-tuned and within its maintenance schedule.
[ ... ]
> And, in conclusion, herring-haters suck ass.
Bravo! This should indeed be re-published - if nothing else, at least as advocacy for Don's excellent statement of facts. Perhaps more people - including the 12-year-old crowd, who need it most - will take note.