HOW-TO: Giving up Ubuntu

[Serg Belokamen]

Derek,

There is a difference between a user and a zealot. From what you
written you sound like the later.

Those who get hostile and dismiss everything that doesn't have "nix"
in its name are zealots. Close minded with rather pore to non-existent
social skills (you know the type, 100kg+ and a bushy beard) or ability
to hold a conversation with another (real) human.

Unfortunately Linux community (and IT community in general) is plagued
with them. I am a Linux user, I use Windows maybe 1% of the time and I
do spend excessive amount of time during the day in front of a
machine. Yet I don't get hostile when a Windows user decided to
express their opinion, I think its an inferior system, but it is
exactly that – my opinion.

From the sound of things, if it was up to you Linux would be locked in
a closet and only shown on weekends to selected few who think
communism is the way of the future. Yes Linux does need a bigger
market share, and yes people can make money of Linux and Open Source
(and do, and should assuming contributions are made as well) and it is
a commercial OS and any OS exists to serve its users.

So saying silly things like Linux doesn't need a larger market share
or that Linux is not a commercial OS is equivalent of taking the
community 10 years back.

   Serg



On 04/11/05, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Duncan Lithgow wrote:
>
> > Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> >>Timothy A. Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm insulted and angry that people react so agressively to my earlier
> >>>post.
> >>>
> >>>Duncan
> >>>[Timothy A. Holmes]
> >>>
> >>>Duncan -- I tend to agree with you -- this is a mindset that the Linux
> >>>community at large MUST get over if we hope to have a chance of winning
> >>>a large number of converts --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>This is the problem.  We're not in a race.  We have no need for a large
> >>number of converts.  We don't need market share (in fact, free software,
> >>under the existing definitions, _can't_ have market share - no matter how
> >>many Linux desktops we have, the 'market share' will be restricted to
> >>those that bought a commercial Linux variant).
> >>
> >>We simply don't _have_ to get over anything, and being told that we do is
> >>likely to get people's backs up.
> >>
> >>
> > Okay, I'll reword Tims post so it is more palletable to you:
> >
> > "...I tend to agree with you -- this is a mindset that makes the Linux
> > community at large appear hostile to non-linux users, we would benefit
> > from avoiding this mindset if we want to share Linux with a broader
> > share of computer users."
> >
> > Now, try and answer the points in the text,
>
> I can't, since I can't see any post that he's responding to.  As far as my
> newsreader (I read this list via gmane news) is concerned, Tim's post is
> the first in the thread.
>
> I will, however, reiterate that, despite your rewording of the statement, I
> don't think it's an issue.  If non-linux users are turned off by the
> attitude of linux users, such is the nature of the linux users.  We, the
> linux community, are what we are and neither likely to change nor
> particularly in need of change.
>
> > instead of reinforcing the
> > point that Linux users often get hostile in the face of people wanting
> > to use windows.
>
> If you think _my_ post was hostile, then it's no wonder you think Linux
> users get hostile.  I was simply trying to make a point that, imo, I too
> often see Linux _advocates_ talking about the importance of improving the
> Linux market share - and it just isn't necessary.  Linux isn't a commercial
> OS.  It exists to serve the needs of its users.  Its users are its
> developers, and those who don't like a particular flavor of Linux will
> either use another flavor, use another OS, or start their own.
> --
> derek
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>