Re: [News] Linux, BSD's, and Passion
- Subject: Re: [News] Linux, BSD's, and Passion
- From: Jamie Hart <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:09:51 +0100
- In-reply-to: <8p7%g.35836$P7.3854@edtnps89>
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
- References: <44697614.QvG17vpMTS@schestowitz.com> <8p7%g.35836$P7.3854@edtnps89>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20060909 Thunderbird/184.108.40.206 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
- Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1171083
Oliver Wong wrote:
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
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
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.