[Groups reduced to just comp.os.linux.advocacy]
__/ [r.e.ballard@xxxxxxx] on Saturday 10 December 2005 23:01 \__
> Gideon Kalejs wrote:
>> Yes, it seems true of this group, cola, that linux non-advocates (defined
>> by those that do not advocate linux but rather denigrate anything which is
>> not in keeping with their pea-brain capacity) love to jump through hoops
>> to find out why their filters did not work for certain 'perceived' trolls.
>>
>> That is all they live for. There are of course mental and health issues
>> surrounding linux.
>>
>> A private study found that whilst cola is supposed to represent linux
>> advocacy, in fact it does not. Posters in cola are possessed, fixated,
>> hung up, dominated and sadly, controlled by Microsoft and images of trolls
>> in their heads over linux. Yes, it's true, the study says so.
>
> I'd be very interested in seeing more details of this study? How many
> articles did you survey, how many different posters were reviewed? How
> was data sorted, compiled, and summarized.
It seems rather obvious that talking to the OP is like talking to the
wall. Yet, somebody ought to have pointed out that the OP was pulling ar-
guments out of his ass.
>> Posters, namely 'linux non-advocates' either, incessantly ramble on about
>> Macs or Microsoft, but very seldom advocate linux without their urges
>> forcing them to utter the words Mac or Microsoft,
I find that to be quite true, but... [see below]
> This probably quite accurate. Microsoft is the leading competitor to
> Microsoft, and is the operating system previously installed on about
> 80% of the machines that are converted to Linux. Mac is the other
> major competitor and OS/X has a great number of similarities to Linux
> including it's similarities to other variants of UNIX.
...operating systems should be judged on a comparative basis. Negativity
and criticism is not the best way forward, but positivity which neglects
to take a /broader scope/ will be discarded. Any paper that does not refer
to existing work and the shortcomings is unconvincing.
Benchmarks are probably the most valid among advocacy tools. Pointing out
facts about security, for instance, is fine. Good security cannot be ar-
gued for in an active fashion, unlike for example, a desktop environment.
Security is rarely meansurable either, apart from penalty points. It is a
passive scenario: when an exploit is found, critique follows. Since all we
ever hear about are Windows exploits, it is only natural to have it men-
tioned intemperately in that context. This is the only type of evidence
that can ever serve a contention that Linux is more secure.
>> or some sexual need to
>> curiously modify the way Microsoft is spelt,
>
> There many variants on how Microsoft is spelled. Many of these are
> references to Microsoft's ability to get money from customers and
> corporations even beyond what they might normally be willing to spend.
> In some cases, it's almost as if Microsoft was sucking money out of the
> company with a vacuum cleaner. I suppose a reader with a sexual focus
> could consider such a spelling to be sexual.
>
>> or apply homosexual labels to
>> those posts made by normal posters. That is often extended to their sexual
>> arousal expressed by even modifying the name of the OP on occasion
>
> I find these references a bit offensive myself. ...
These have become stereotypes and they are propagated by 'flatfish'
posters such as this.
> ... Many feel that certain
> posters have a relationship to Microsoft which resembles the
> relationships in prison between weaker inmates and stronger inmates who
> protect them in exchange for "personal favors". In these prison
> relationships, the weaker person makes it a point to make frequent
> references to his "protector" touting him to someone "you don't want to
> mess with".
I need to memorise this analogy...
> Many of those who post articles to COLA boasting of the prowess of
> Microsoft seem very similar to these weaker people who want to
> ingratiate themeselves with Microsoft. It's questionable how much
> Microsoft actually cares, but there seems to be some satisfaction
> derived from advocating Microsoft products in a group whose charter is
> to advocate Linux and Open Source products and projects.
This infiltration into an irrelevant newsgroup could only suggest that
there's a glimmer of fear. As I said before, it is only when the opponent
gains strength that you feel the urge to stir up a riot. Admittedly, a few
times in the past I decided to halt participation in this group because of
the prevalence of trolls. Fortunately, they seem to be drifting away, pos-
sibly as they are scarcely fed. I am referring to direct follow-ups or di-
alogues involving Windows advocates. They are an utter waste of time.
>> they the
>> 'linux non-advocates' believe to be something call 'flatfish' or just a
>> perceived troll in general,
>
> A poster who often used the identity of "flatfish" was very skillful at
> studying the Linux compatibility documents and finding those components
> which were not supported by Linux. Flatfish would carefully design
> custom hardware from these components and then post an article claiming
> that because Linux did not support this particular configuration, that
> Microsoft Windows was superior to Linux.
>
> Often, when other posters point out hardware that is incompatible,
> these are referred to as "flatfish". Flatfish postings are identified
> for the purpose of helping potential purchasers of systems which may
> eventually be intended for Linux - to avoid the hardware being
> referenced. Searching COLA with the keyword "flatfish" will point you
> to numerous products which should be avoided, including video cards,
> peripherals, and even computer systems.
That should never be considered an issue. The only exception is a time of
O/S migration. Anybody who has used Linux for a while opts for hardware
that is fully-compatible. There is plenty of choice, even when buying sec-
ond-hand. Any 'flatfish'-type post adheres to a narrow point-of-view. it's
somewhat like buying a new pair of shoes that in due time expands to fit
your feet.
> These days, most OEMs make "Linux Friendly" systems, and most of these
> systems have not experienced the "price erosion" of "Windows Only"
> systems which are not well suited to running Linux. As a result, most
> "Linux Friendly" systems are sold at higher profit and higher prices,
> than traditional "Windows Only" systems which are often sold at
> clearance prices far below cost.
>
>> but nowhere will you see linux advocacy being
>> preached or just proclaimed - nowhere.
>
> I have posted a number of "pure linux advocacy" postings, but they are
> not as interesting as dialogues between Windows advocates and and Linux
> advocates.
They are more interesting than you imagine, but they tend to be longer so
readership is lower and followups likewise. People tend to go for succinct
(sometimes 'lazy') post that are only a 2-line statement, often derogatory
or humorous.
> The conversation keeps shifting and evolving.
>
> At one time, it was considered a big accomplishment that millions of
> people had installed Linux in "dual boot" environments, and were
> frequently booting over to Linux and booting to Windows when they
> needed to use Office or access a site that needed IE.
I remember the day when I first joined the University. Linux was indeed a
poorer and less appealing tool. It is a shame that certain people choose
to remember a Linux experience they had in the 90's and compare it against
Mac OS or Windows XP. More and more people are beginning to re-direcover
Linux in its modern, state-of-the-art state. That is why so many dual-boot
machines and Linux-only machines become prevalent. Here in our department,
all workstation are Dell (get the clue), but /all/ of them reach the desk
with SuSE 9.3 and Windows XP. What does that tell you...?
> Today nearly 100 million people are using Linux in some form
> concurrently with Windows. Nearly 1/2 of all of the machines sold with
> Windows have Linux added.
Are you sure about the latter figure? Even with emulators taken into ac-
count, I truly doubt it.
> Open Source technologies which evolved in Linux have been making huge
> breakthroughs, with nearly 100 million people using FireFox,
> OpenOffice, and Thunderbird.
Some staff seems to be very keen on Opera too. People talk and so do the
lecturers, so expect the growth of these applications to be explosive. I
am struck by surprise when I install Firefox or Thunderbird on somebody's
XP laptop and then hear "Wow! So it's the Open Source thing?". People are
becoming aware of the dangers and flaws in using proprietary formats under
commercial software. Again I'll say: people talk.
> The Microsoft advocates like to point out that 95% of the machines are
> still sold with Windows preinstalled, which is true. They also like to
> point to surveys in which only 1-2% of the browsers indicate that they
> are "Linux" systems. Most of those surveys are no longer published,
> but the available information shows that most of those in the "Other"
> catagory (nearly 10% in most recent surveys) are actually Linux
> browsers which use "generic" terms such as "Unix", "x11", or "squid"
> (which appears as a robot to the server).
Yes, and somehow this out to be rectified over time. This reports deceiv-
ing figures to Webmasters and surveys, which could otherwise favour Linux
more openly and provide proof of its rapid spread. I can confirm that
about 10% (or more) of Web traffic tends to be from "Other" (based on 5
sites). I have no doubt in my mind that Windows will never identify itself
as "Other", not even when it is 'zombied', in which case figures are
tweaked in favour of Windows. When you come to think of it, these hijacked
Windows workstations help give the illusion that Windows is everywhere,
making it hyperactive even when the owner is asleep.
Roy
|
|
