I hate the Open Source Community

Inverted Priorities

The Open Source community believes that Microsoft's servers are inferior to Linux servers because they require maintenance once in awhile, yet they believe that Linux is a superior workstation system to Windows even though it requires much maintenance than Jennifer Lopez's ass. Maybe it is me, but shouldn't a workstation be productive and not waste one's time with hours of configuration? Although the answer is yes to anybody with a brain, the Open Source community is not productive and therefore doesn't need the extra time to do something useful with their workstations. They also feel that ten minutes of downtime once in awhile for a web site is ludicrous since they spend their lives online and can't even spend ten minutes away from discussing trivial subjects on Slashdot, which has taken the no maintenance philosophy of Open Source to new heights in its refusal to correct errors in articles and to properly maintain the atmosphere of their site.

Hypocriscy and FUD

Whenever anybody criticizes an Open Source product, whether or not the criticism is accurate, the community immediately labels the criticism as FUD, and they claim that Microsoft is guilty of constantly spreading FUD. While being unable to handle criticism maturely, they constantly attack Microsoft and its products, claiming they are highly unstable and take years to patch a problem. It's funny, considering that whenever Windows has a problem, Windows Update is quick to have a solution. Of course, if you explain that to them, they'll cry out FUD like the dumbasses they are. Meanwhile, when a patch is released for Linux, there are many different versions of the patches, and one must follow several steps to install the patch. Meanwhile, when Microsoft creates an operating system with properly licensed software and a GUI that looks nothing like OS X, the Open Source geeks claim that Microsoft is guilty of stealing. However, when a Linux hacker creates a program called Evolution that is made to look shamelessly familiar to Outlook or a program called Nautilus that "steals" code from Mozilla, it is innovation.

Lost in a Time Warp

Whenever the Open Source community compares Linux to Windows, they usually compare the newest version of Linux products to a Windows version that Microsoft released years ago, such as Windows 98. Perhaps they should stop being idiots and either compare the Linux of today to the Windows of today, which is Windows XP, or compare Windows 98 to the Linux of 1998, which was terrible compared to its competitors. They wouldn't do that though, because although Linux of 2002 might be superior to Windows 98, it cannot compete with Windows XP.

GNU's Not Unix, but UNIX is GNU?

Why is it that the Open Source community always treats a victory for UNIX as a victory for Linux or as it is officially called, GNU/Linux, when it is in its name that Linux is not UNIX? Is it because that without piggybacking on the UNIX name, Linux has nothing? That is exactly the reason.

Luckily, the alternatives to Open Source are improving in quality, while Open Source companies are going bankrupt. In time, Open Source will be known as a fad and all the virgins of Open Source will either be in an asylum, a prison, or on the street. That glorious day will arrive soon.

	That's okay. (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 04:21:53 AM PST

	The feeling is mutual.

	You thoroughly spanked them. (none / 0) (#2)
	by venalcolony on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 04:38:58 AM PST

	Their silence speaks volumes. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	The silence is deafening. (none / 0) (#3)
	by because it isnt on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 05:25:56 AM PST

	Why shouldn't there be anything but silence? Open Source is dead. As I'm sure you know, all the programmers stopped when they heard that Microsoft didn't like what they were doing. They gave up. There is no more Open Source. No longer will anyone ever write software without charging you money to use it. You will never see source code again unless you write it yourself. Well done big man! You win! We are now living in a technical utopia, where difficult things like Total Cost of Ownership are as easy to calculate as reading the price-tag off the WindowsRG retail box. You can now get a Programmer to write anything for you, even a bomb, simply by paying him cash. He has given up all moral or interest-driven reasons for programming. All he knows how to do now is how to whore his technical abilities to best effect. I, for one, am glad to see a greed-driven society. It's how I've always wanted to live. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	yes but you must ask yourself why (none / 0) (#4)
	by venalcolony on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:08:12 AM PST

	OSS programmers are scarce. The OSS community of gadflys, politicos, venal opportunists, cutters and pasters, hewers and drawers, and the shrill children that call OSS sites home are legion. We are now living in a technical utopia, where difficult things like Total Cost of Ownership are as easy to calculate as reading the price-tag off the WindowsRG retail box. I dont give a damn about cost of ownership, retail boxes, price tags, blah, blah, blah. A proper Marxist understands that capital must expand until capitalism consumes itself according to its internal contradictions. All he knows how to do now is how to whore his technical abilities to best effect. I, for one, am glad to see a greed-driven society. It's how I've always wanted to live. You're in luck! Software is capital infrastructure; it's only purpose is to run machines which are sold for profit. Anything else can be expressed with psuedo code on the back of a napkin. Open Source software is, in praxis, slashdot. Today's slashdot: Homogenized Music -- Something about the consumptive habits of embarrassingly rich consumer societies. United Linux is Here -- Something about a new commercial Linux distribution which means to compete with RedHat, Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux. Shuttle SS40G Mini-PC -- Something about a geek, sold for profit toy. Red Hat Makes Patent Promise -- Something about Red Hat promising not to make money while trying to make money. LOWERCASE MUSIC -- See 1. Solaris 9: Sticker Shock -- Good thing they're including an OSS window manager to defray the shock. Inspiring Adventures in SF Wireless Networking -- See 3. 1394 Trade Association Adopts FireWire Brand -- See 3. At this point I grew tired of the revolution, but dont let by my bourgeois conformity keep you from the rest of the story. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	the point about capital infrastructure (none / 0) (#5)
	by venalcolony on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:27:51 AM PST

	ask yourself this: has OSS diminished capitalism or has OSS served capitalism's expansion? Remembering that capital must grow, I dont think you could have asked for a better demonstration of classic Marxist economic theory. No, comrade, the future is unfolding as it should. When you hang with the devil, dont expect to change the devil any time before he changes you. It was a great leap forward while it lasted. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	OSS = Marxism? (none / 0) (#8)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 05:15:33 AM PST

	Nonsense. Open source programmers are not by definition anti-capitalist. They just like writing software, they like sharing their software with other people who want to use it, and they like using and playing with other people's software. Capitalists like making money. These are not conflicting interests. Most open source programmers are employed by capitalists to produce non-open source software. Now, the GNU project is interesting. There is a pot of software that everyone is free to use, share, and change if they want. The only proviso is that redistributing GPL software requires the software as a whole to remain free. That way, the pot of software that everyone can use gets bigger, which benefits everyone. Now, some capitalists do not like this scenario -- for example, they wish to use some of the GPL source code in their own closed-source software, but do not wish to offer this combined work back to the community that gave them the GPL source code. They are not short for options. Use a "non-substantive" amount the GPL source code, which does not infringe copyright law. Use the GPL software in an "external" fashion. Use, but do not redistribute the GPL software. Ask the copyright holders of the GPL software to offer the software to them under different terms. Obtain similar software from another source. (r4nd r0x0rz! fr33 m4rk3t d00dz!!!1!) Employ private programmers to duplicate the GPL software's functionality in their private source code. Personally, my favourite option is option number 4. As you can see, open source programmers are not working for a common goal of creating capital goods, but they are not forcibly preventing capitalists from using the fruits of their labour. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Who said oss = marxism? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
	by venalcolony on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 07:30:06 AM PST

	You read a marxist economic explanation of the phenomenon of OSS under capitalism; how OSS sees itself is irrelevant[1]. The GPL confers rights and restrictions which are uninteresting to a marxist, politically. Economically, the GPL provides capital infrastructure for widgets. Software itself isnt an economic good because it can be replicated at essentially zero cost, but the widgets are. More software, more widgets[2]. More widgets, more capital. More capital, more capitalism. More capitalism, more commodity fetishes; more innovation to create additional commodities for further fetish; more mulilation of the laborer into a fragment of a man, degrading him to the level of an appendage to a machine, destroying every remnant of charm in his work and turning it into a hated toil, estranging from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as independent power. NOW YOU GOT ME ALL WORKED UP! HAPPY? Copyright -- which encompasses both the Free and Open Source software paradigms -- is, like all rights and grants, a soporific meant to comfort our stay in civil society while civil society continues to alienate us from our human nature. A classical marxist analysis doesnt care about such diversions at all. The wholesale cooptation of amateur and professional technologists into the service of capital is the story, here, and it is exactly what is expected by ruthlessly expansionary capital because there is no other kind of capital. Under capitalism, use whatever license you want. The Big Picture doesnt care. Under OSS, be careful what you wish for. [1] Caveat: despite the marxist tendency to describe the future in historically inevitable terms, I believe that ideas matter and that a single individual can alter the fixed path of future history, as it were. However, IMO, OSS has failed to do so according to its political rhetoric. In fact I think OSS has made things worse if better were defined as less pathological capitalism. [2] In line with capital's current expansion through the imposition of neoliberalism onto the Third World, the poorest inner cities, the basements of unemployed 16 year olds living at home etc, software that costs nothing is the very best way for capital to penetrate as deeply as possible. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	Software is an econimic good (5.00 / 2) (#12)
	by Icebox on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 08:18:30 AM PST

	Software itself isnt an economic good because it can be replicated at essentially zero cost This is obviously incorrect. A look at the shelves of an electronics store will demonstrate otherwise despite the OSS claims to the contrary. Software can be replicated at a very low cost, and that can be done without extensive use of raw materials, but that does not exclude it from the realm of econimic goods. [1] Articifical scarcity is a very real market control. Copyright allows it to exist regardless of the cost of replication or of the personal views of consumers. There have been numerous other methods of maintaing artificial scarcity throughout history, many of which have worked quite well in their time. [2] Resources are expended in the production of software prior to its replication. At the very least, and certainly in the case of OSS, there is an oppotunity cost that may be quite high. [3] Cost is cost, regardless of whether it is 'essentially zero' or not (which it isn't). Otherwise, good work.

	Win98 (none / 0) (#6)
	by John Milton on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 11:49:29 AM PST

	Windows 98 was easier to configure and use than Linux 2002, and if you consider Xserver lockups, it was more stable too. Of course, the hardcore Linux user doesn't consider lockups to be a crash. It's only a crash when you lose your teensy dos shell. I have to disagree with you though. Not all open source software is bad. There is an operating system known as Darwin that Apple works on. It's a good expample of commercial Open Source software. -John Milton

	corrections (none / 0) (#7)
	by detikon on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 03:37:10 PM PST

	Darwin is a kernel. It is the core of Mac OSX and DarwinOS. It's kinda like how Linux is a kernel while GNU/Linux is the OS (GNU system using the linux kernel). Darwin is not commercial open source software. You can download the Darwin source, as well as DarwinOS (PPC and x86) and Apple will never charge you. The only time you pay for Darwin is if you buy OSX. So what is this great example? Appears to me that it exactly the same as paying for the Linux kernel when you purchase a BSD or Linux distribution on CD. What is this linux 2002? What entity markets this particular distro? Do you even know what you are talking about as Linux is not update once a year. I hate running into problems with any OS. Thankfully Ms has done away with the BSOD and replaced it with the friendlier NT style. Rather than being presented with a blue screen full of error message almost no one would understand, NT simply reboots out from under you. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.*

	you've got to be fuckin kidding me (none / 0) (#9)
	by derek3000 on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 07:11:48 AM PST

	i work full-time in an all-nt environment. i've never seen any computer, be it workstation or server, reboot without provocation. i'd like to think that there are more intelligent versions of you floating aroung in your mothers stomach. thank you good night. try the fish. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Really? (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 07:57:13 AM PST

	Back in the day, we used to have 95, 98 and NT boxes reboot for no apparent reason. However, the boxes generally consisted of really cheap hardware, so third-party drivers or other hardware related problems. Also, it was a small shop and the owner of the company demanded that all administrator passwords were "780". Plus every computer in the place was on the internet with only a router in between it and the T1. Who knows what kind of virii, etc were running around on those poor bastards. Oh, and 3+ years later after I've left the company, the administrative passwords are still "780". I've not used this information to do anything, lest you think I'm an evil hacker. My curiosity has gotten the better of me and some of my fellow ex-employees from time to time. Also, that's not the exact password, but it is a 3-digit number.

	Microsoft vs Linux servers (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 07:26:01 PM PST

	At this moment I know the result of this duel more than well. Linux won. After a single night of configuration, where there was enough of time to recompile the kernel, read two newspapers and drink a gallon of fine tea, the entire LAN here is up and running. Before they called me on-site, they had a couple of local "experts" here, some of them proudly bearing their MCSEs. The original server was crashing all the time - from worms to dreaded DLL errors. I am not worrying about problems here now, maybe except hardware failure... Besides, the machine is stable and I can be reasonably sure it will stay working. Which is important, as I will be some two and half hours of flight time away and local techsupport - including expensive external contractors - turned out to be unable to keep up even "user-friendly" point-and-drool system. Microsoft sucks. Get over it. -- The Mad Scientist (returning from his vacatio... err... service trip tomorrow, after almost a week spent in Ireland, setting up servers, making machines work, and surveying offices to prepare infrastructure improving and stabilizing strategy for his next trip - and alot of sightseeing and having great time on company's expenses) (which should also explain his recent absence here, surely greatly mourned)

	Another Reason the OSC sucks balls (none / 0) (#15)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 03:12:48 PM PST

	It's funny how when Linux fucks up, it's the fault of the user despite how competent he is. When Windows fucks up, even if it is clearly the fault of an incompetent technician, it's the fault of Windows. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	check the MS knowledge base (none / 0) (#13)
	by detikon on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 09:22:04 PM PST

	MS system no longer display the Blue Screen of Death. Rather they simply reboot and you hope all the services restart. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.