Vote Up
5
Votes
Vote Down
Apr 28, 2011 4:16 PM
20 comments

A TM that summarizes the Linux “community”, the open-source development culture as well as the IT industry at large.

Read this article. Take particular notice of point #3. Yes, this is apparently the attitude most (if not all) (F)OSS proponents share.

It is a pretty common misconception that “innovation” means you take a flash of ideas that you have conceived from atop a toilet seat, and then trivially apply it to a lump of whatever things in existence. There are approximately 6 billion people on earth at the time of this writing, and many more before that. By the principle of the birthday paradox, that means chances are at least some people have probably thought of the same ideas that your immense snobbery tries to convince you as novel, and – what’s more – have fought countless hours only to come to the conclusion that these “novel” ideas are simply stupid and unworkable.

Of course, why bother looking up on what someone else has already done when you can waste the same amount of sweet time just to reach the same conclusions, preferably while burning through millions of dollars of investors’ money?

We have gone from Lindows to Ubuntu, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations between “free” and “non-free”. But why stop there?

We have gone from TWM to Compiz, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations in “hey-look-it’s-so-wobbly”. But why stop there?

We have even gone from Facebook to “Facebook but …”, bringing also absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations in God-knows-what. But why stop there?

Just keep playing around aimlessly with that source, and hope that the Nobel Prize of whatever will come waiting at your doorsteps.

As Albert Einstein once said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Related Trademarks

#1 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 28, 2011 5:40 PM

Ultimately I think many hard problems are solved by sudden epiphanies. But it might take years of experimentation and thought to reach.

#2 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 28, 2011 5:42 PM

“We have gone from Win95 to Win7, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations in system theme (oooh glass!!). But why stop there?”

Fundamentally nothing has changed in the Windoze world either. Anyone could still program, listen to music, play games, and even the UI was incredibly similar in Win 95 vs Win 7. Of course Winbreds will never admit this.

“We have gone from Lindows to Ubuntu, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations between “free” and “non-free”. But why stop there?”

The difference in GNU/Linux is not technological, it’s the concept of freedom. I can put the new Ubuntu 11.04 on a USB key and install it anywhere I want, or even modify it. I can build a whole business on FOSS and an idea (and there are MANY examples of this – Google for one). You never never get that level of freedom from Mafia$oft’s EULA. Period.

#3 Posted by JoeMonco on Apr 28, 2011 5:57 PM

“Ultimately I think many hard problems are solved by sudden epiphanies.”

Thanks for clearing that part of the story up then.

#4 Posted by administrator on Apr 28, 2011 10:38 PM

Move those goal posts, Adam. The argument has always been that Linux is technically superior. Zealots claimed it didn’t need to be rebooted, that it could run all software, that it was inherently secure, and never crashed.

And yeah, no large businesses were founded on Microsoft technology. By all means, try purchasing a car who’s assembly line wasn’t automated with Windows, I think you’ll be surprised.

#5 Posted by Almafeta on Apr 29, 2011 2:36 PM

A better name for this might be Wheel Reinvention: All the effort spent on covering existing paths.

#6 Posted by DrLoser on Apr 29, 2011 5:42 PM

Purchasing a car?

Next thing, you’ll be encouraging the idiot to drive one.

What the ferk are you thinking?

#7 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 29, 2011 6:49 PM

“Move those goal posts, Adam. The argument has always been that Linux is technically superior. Zealots claimed it didn’t need to be rebooted, that it could run all software, that it was inherently secure, and never crashed.”

I very honestly believe that Linux is technically superior.

#8 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 29, 2011 6:50 PM

I should have said “the main difference”. GNU/Linux IS technically superior, but the freedom aspect is a far bigger deal.

#9 Posted by ChrisTX on Apr 29, 2011 7:48 PM

“I very honestly believe that Linux is technically superior.”

You constantly say so. But ok then, how exactly? What are these exact things you think Linux does better? ( please don’t say such generic things as security now, instead why you think it would be ie. security then )

#10 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 29, 2011 10:10 PM
#11 Posted by masterLoki on Apr 29, 2011 11:00 PM

@Adam King
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/”

Forget about drivers… Welcome to recompiling
Why would you still need to install stuff… Isn’t that bloated?
Is your system unstable?... Are you using the latest versions? Then yes.
No big mess in your start menu… all config loaded in a two menus. Administration & Preferences (Gnome)

Few cases where you should stick to Windows

Proprietary software you can’t live without… Let it be Photoshop, Flash, Premier, Office, AutoCAD…
You’re a hardcore gamer… No Steam for you…
You work in the book, printing industry… sigh
You’re hardware is not supported… Likely you have a brand new laptop or you use some hardware to do your job (namely a wireless card)

#12 Posted by ChrisTX on Apr 30, 2011 7:32 AM

@Adam, no, I wanted to know what makes up the superiority for you. That site does seriously make points against XP SP2, and none of them backed with proof. Considering you like proof so much – and so do I – what would that be exactly?

#13 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 30, 2011 1:49 PM

Well for me, I consider GNU/Linux far more customizable then the proprietary competitors (down to the source code if need be, and in my experience many enterprises take advantage of this) to be it’s greatest technological asset. It’s also easier to customize in general, ie. no DLL hacking.

The flexibility of Linux do adapt to pretty much any computing load is astonishing, the same exact codebase you can take a Linux kernel and compile it for a router, for a smartphone, for a eBook reader for a server, for a desktop, to a traffic light, or a supercomputer. The same kernel. Nobody has something like this except for perhaps NetBSD.

That combined with it’s free nature is why you’ll see Linux powering a lot of very elaborate business and scientific systems out there. This provides comfortable work for me which further incentives my use of GNU/Linux.

I know you are only interested in technical arguments. But the free nature of Linux should not be trivialized, both free of cost and free as in freedom. I can do things with FOSS that would be very expensive to do with purely proprietary solutions, and the freedom aspect has further cost savings and less risk (ie. of violating the EULA, which is trivially easy with Mafia$oft software).

Corporations often actually have to lawyers read all the EULAs for software (not like you guys, I bet, who probably just click “I Agree” to everything). This is a huge legal cost.

If you are not careful you can get easily get sued by an entity like the BSA and lose you a massive amount of money over trivial EULA violations. This is an incredible risk that makes using proprietary software dangerous in my opinion.

#14 Posted by ChrisTX on Apr 30, 2011 3:36 PM

“It’s also easier to customize in general, ie. no DLL hacking.”

I do hear that often, but what customizations to apply? ( I don’t know what 'DLL hacking’ is btw, I’ll assume hooking here ) I seriously would not know how I would want to customize my Windows other than its appearance, which – frankly said – I can.

“But the free nature of Linux should not be trivialized, both free of cost and free as in freedom.”

Look, I can shorten that one up:
Does X allow me to build software against any abitrary license; where X is the system’s headers and libraries?

X=Windows -> yes.
X=FreeBSD -> yes. ( *BSD actually )
X=Linux -> no.

That’s where for me the freedom with Linux ends. I don’t want that kind of GPLv2/v3 freedom where I must pay attentiont hat I only link GPLv2 OR GPLv3 libraries with my code and not some other OSI certified OSS license which is GPL incompatible like PHP’s license.

If you made that point for *BSD, I would definitely agree, though.

“The flexibility of Linux do adapt to pretty much any computing load is astonishing, the same exact codebase you can take a Linux kernel and compile it for a router, for a smartphone, for a eBook reader for a server, for a desktop, to a traffic light, or a supercomputer. The same kernel. Nobody has something like this except for perhaps NetBSD.”

That is true, Microsoft offers different systems for each of those markets. So far the kernels ( WinCE and WinNT ) are separated, although Windows 8 will change that to a certain extend, WP8 will run an NT 6.2 kernel from what they say now.

However, I wonder, how does it help me on my computer that Linux also runs on XYZ when Linux suffers from that in for instance the form that Linux only supports spinlocks in its kernel and not a flexible interlocking, like Windows NT 6.1 does? If Linux were built for fewer platforms, it would do better.

“I can do things with FOSS that would be very expensive to do with purely proprietary solutions, [...]”

What things?

“Corporations often actually have to lawyers read all the EULAs for software (not like you guys, I bet, who probably just click “I Agree” to everything).”

GPLv2/v3 incompatibility and non clear passages. See the appliance of the term 'users’ in GPL. This is held very open and free for interpretation. In general, GPL trials are more common than 'accidental’ Windows EULA breaches.

“If you are not careful you can get easily get sued by an entity like the BSA”

The BSA hunts software piracy. Windows does have a rather clear policy with its CAL system here. If you employ a MSCA/E, they will know how this works.

“This is an incredible risk that makes using proprietary software dangerous in my opinion.”

Which in my opinion GPL does. Link license enforcements? Go away.

If you speak of software freedom, BSD licensing please. That is the real – and not FSF-but-you-cant-X – freedom.

#15 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 30, 2011 3:48 PM

I view BSD as selfish and hypocritical. You want freedom which the BSD gives you, but you want to also take away freedom from others with your own works.

#16 Posted by ChrisTX on Apr 30, 2011 3:53 PM

“I view BSD as selfish and hypocritical. You want freedom which the BSD gives you, but you want to also take away freedom from others with your own works.”

For me it’s not open-source otherwise. I wouldn’t want semi-freedoms. Either you fully share the code, with all consequences, or you don’t. I really don’t want to ask a lawyer for finding out whether I might link GPLv2 with PHP modules or not or how I could write a PHP module for a GPLv2 libraries.

Although, with a cleaned up LGPL ( removed that preambel crap, nobody cares etc ) I could live. Link blocks == no freedom.

You can say otherwise, but that is my opinion.

#17 Posted by Adam_King on Apr 30, 2011 7:48 PM

So you want OTHERS to open source their stuff but you don’t want to do the same. That’s fine, but I still think it’s hypocritical and selfish.

#18 Posted by JoeMonco on Apr 30, 2011 11:06 PM

“Well for me, I consider GNU/Linux far more customizable then the proprietary competitors (down to the source code if need be, and in my experience many enterprises take advantage of this) to be it’s greatest technological asset. It’s also easier to customize in general, ie. no DLL hacking.”

My car is so customizable I can even get to build my own engine. Huzzah!

“The flexibility of Linux do adapt to pretty much any computing load is astonishing, the same exact codebase you can take a Linux kernel and compile it for a router, for a smartphone, for a eBook reader for a server, for a desktop, to a traffic light, or a supercomputer.”

Wow, a batch process scheduler! What’s next? Flying cars?

“That combined with it’s free nature is why you’ll see Linux powering a lot of very elaborate business and scientific systems out there. This provides comfortable work for me which further incentives my use of GNU/Linux.”

Like cleaning the bathrooms in the Fermi Lab campus?

“I know you are only interested in technical arguments. But the free nature of Linux should not be trivialized, both free of cost and free as in freedom.”

Sea water is free of cost and free as in freedom, too. Wanna drink it?

“Corporations often actually have to lawyers read all the EULAs for software (not like you guys, I bet, who probably just click “I Agree” to everything).”

Rest assured none of these same lawyers aren’t even bothered enough to read the GPL. It’s not like, you know, SFLC is gonna sue them otherwise or anything.

“If you are not careful you can get easily get sued by an entity like the BSA and lose you a massive amount of money over trivial EULA violations.”

cough SFLC cough

#19 Posted by ChrisTX on May 1, 2011 7:56 AM

“So you want OTHERS to open source their stuff but you don’t want to do the same.”

Also not, I said I want to be able to use any OSI approved license on my code.
Look how do I write my BSD licensed ( compatible to both v2 and v3 ) project linking GPLv2 and GPLv3 libraries?
Spoiler: GPL says you can’t. All is open source, but you still can’t.
Or how about I write a GNU readline module for PHP? Oh, I can’t either, license incompatible.

Then again, there is also a strawman argument there. I don’t 'want’ others to open their code. See I am perfectly fine with Windows without digging through NtXxx, ZwXxx and similar routine’s implementations. I want to be able to license my project with an abitrary license. GPL headers in Linux say: You can’t.

Actually, linking any GPLv2 incompatible project on Linux is grey zone. glibc links kernel headers and it’s really not clear what it means if your say PHP uses glibc. Technically viewed, this is illegal. Or can you answer me how it wouldn’t be? Does glibc’s LGPL disable GPLv2’s linking exception with magic pixie dust?

I think I’d need a lawyer on this one.

“I know you are only interested in technical arguments.”

Still haven’t seen any. And still not interested in GPL vs BSD discussions. Stop distracting, bring up or shut up.

#20 Posted by reactosguy on May 2, 2011 3:33 PM

“We have gone from Win95 to Win7, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table except the oh-so-important variations in system theme (oooh glass!!). But why stop there?

+1

Adam King’s one and currently only moment of lack of stupidity that we laugh at.

You must be signed in to leave comments.