Re: [News] Linux, BSD's, and Passion

[Jamie Hart <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
> news:44697614.QvG17vpMTS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Passion for Windows: Does it Exist?
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Both Linux and OS X are surrounded by user passion, and it
> > | shows. There's really no comparison that can be made to Windows in
> > | this way. As I've said before, I can?t even remember the last
> > | time when someone said they were really pumped about using Windows,
>
>     Perhaps it was 6 years ago, when XP first came out. Might happen again 
> soon when Vista comes out.
>
> > | but the other operating system alternatives receive these
> > | unsolicited testimonials on a very regular basis. When it comes
> > | right down to it, no matter how amazing or successful a product may
> > | be, if the passion and the drive aren't there, then it?s a failure.
> > | What do you think?
> > `----
>
>     It's an interesting metric. Is a product a failure if it nobody is 
> passionate about it? Well, is anybody passionate about the wheel, or the 
> lever? Is anyone passionate about desalinazation plants? Is anyone 
> passionate about TCP/IP, a critical ingredient in the internet?
>
>     Okay, what is instead of "product" we say "OS"? Is an OS a failure if 
> nobody is passionate about it? I suppose it all depends on how you define 
> "failure". And of course, if you define "failure" as "not causing anybody to 
> become passionate about it", then, yes, by definition, an OS is a failure if 
> nobody is passionate about it. There are alternative definitions to failure, 
> of course. There's commercial failure (e.g. did not cause its creators to 
> become rich); educational failure (e.g. did not teach its implementors 
> anything about how OSes work) which might apply in an academic setting, 
> where students are learning about OSes; technical failure (e.g. did not 
> implement all the require functionality specified at design time); design 
> failure (e.g. functionality specified at design does not solve any useful 
> problem); marketting failure (e.g. it's a perfectly good OS, but nobody's 
> heard of it, and thus nobody but a few close friends of its creator uses 
> it), etc.
>
>     There's something that bugs me about the phrasing "No matter how 
> successful a product may be, it's a failure if the passion isn't there."
I suspect that it's more to do with the fact that it's said about windows.

Try to think how you'd feel if they'd said people are passionate about 
windows and not about linux.  Would your reaction have been the same?

I know that we linux users get very defensive when anyone hints that 
Linux fails in some way, that's why there are so many responses to the 
trolls around here.  I suspect the trolls feel similar when we say Linux 
is better than windows, or when Roy posts news items about Windows flaws 
and that's what drives a lot of the trolling.

Basically, It's human nature, we all made a choice to use whichever 
operating system we do, and we feel the need to defend that choice.

>     - Oliver