Andover News, the sequel: A Well Braziered Bryar 145
About a week ago I posted a rebuttal to a column by Jack Bryar as published in Andover News to this forum." Click below for the full text from knarf-it's not pretty what happened - and check out the follow-up from Jack Bryar, as a cautionary mea culpa.
[From knarf]
Unfortunately, the original header I included with the message was edited out. In this header I stated that the author of the column had already received a copy of the message. A couple of minutes later someone suggested that people mail my rebuttal to Jack Bryar.
Well, they did, it now seems. And they did many more things. Like send insulting messages, flood his mailbox with repeating messages, and other kindergarten-tricks.
In his current column, Jack Bryar apologizes for the errors he made when writing that column. He also points out the difference between the readers of /. and Linux Today. I originally learned about Jack's first column from Linux Today, as did many others. Like me, some of them took up the issue with the author by correcting his errors and explaining the intricacies of the free software model(s).
Then my article arrived on /.
Hell broke loose. I quote Jack Bryar's current column:
After the "/." posting I got letters that began "hey sh**head go f*** yourself with the money you?re taking from Microsoft! What drugs are you on?" (Way too much coffee, actually). One writer, running out of invective finally sputtered that I was another Jesse Berst! (Somebody should be deeply insulted). After reading these things for a while I became convinced that I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker.
Folks, ranting and yelling is not taken as a proof of intelligence by most people. This is supposed to be a forum for "nerds", people with above-average intelligence. Let's make sure we do not spoil the reputation of the free software community by behaving like we just graduated from kindergarten then...
And if in doubt, just query your copy of the Jargon file. Look up the description of `Hacker Speech Style' and draw your own conclusions.
Frank de Lange
Re:G-d forbid anyone show too much enthusiasm... (Score:1)
Thugs.
What will actually happen when the children pull out their little code pop-guns and fire away at grownups is that everyone will see that they are children. The guy who made a mistake will act like a real person and own up to it, and the wee tykes launching smurf attacks will rant and attempt to defend their actions. And all the rest of the grownups will make a quick connection: Linux = freaks. Thanks awfully. I like Linux, and admire what the community is trying to do. But I truly hope this doesn't mean I have to be on your side. The enemy of my enemy may still be a childish prick.
If you're going to attack using computers over something like this, at least have the decency to do it well. Write your own tools. Check your spelling. The zealots here weren't just out of line, they were tacky and graceless. C'mon, forging only *part* of your email and personal info on a mailbomb attack? Pay attention! How tough would it have been to just plug in a random loop through the most popular firstnames over at babynames.com? If a group I'm a member of has to be labelled as a bunch of rude bastards, I'd prefer that we were at least rude bastards with style. You can't defend your OS with a display of poor computing skills.
I'm not complaining about the enthusiasm. The choice to break the law or act irresponsibly is between you and whatever God will have you. But at least show enough pride to make it worth it.
-reemul
One solution (Score:5)
There are also those who defend this behaviour under the auspices of free speech, and that it is wrong to arbitrarily silence them, and they're right.
The solution, as I see it, is not to restrict or remove those opinions, but to demonstrate (by our example) that these members of our society are immature (like children), and just like children everywhere, most will grow out of it with time.
We do this by presenting our own views in a mature, objective manner. We do this by demonstrating that these opinions are the minority opinions, regardless of how many times they are repeated. In cases like the one described here, we should make a point to contact the author / poster in question, letting them know by our example that there *are* adults in this community, whether or not we agree with the posted position.
The simple fact of the matter is that you get back what you give. If you flame, you will be flamed in return. By expressing ourselves in a vitriolic and immature manner, we are essentially saying to those we are trying to reach that we aren't worth listening to, and any position we have, however valid, will consequently be ignored.
Reasoned Response (Score:1)
Re:We'll just get ESR to approve all of our emails (Score:1)
Re:We'll just get ESR to approve all of our emails (Score:1)
I meant LINUS, not LINUX.
Must
Seems pretty civil (Score:2)
----
Re:A little "me too" and a little off topic, but (Score:1)
I think the idea takes a nosedive here... Any time people start getting put into arbitrary categories ('geek', 'suit', 'PHB') no matter how accurate they may be, bad things happen. It's discrimination.
I do think it's very inturiging to think of having posters pre-screened by lots of others, but there would be some big assumptions:
One would be that the masses are correct (and based on windows usage, they're not).
Another would be that what other people consider good, i do. I'm happy to say i don't consider this true of myself now; I enjoy evolving my own taste in things. (perhaps a way around it would be to have adjectives like slashdot's and have them assigned rather than just numbers. A user could then say they wanted 'funny' rather than 'insightful' posts or whatever (obviously it would take lots more words and a complicated system that understood their interrelation).
It would definitely have to be optional.
www.opensense.org vs. massive attack (Score:2)
Open Source + Sensibility = Open Sense
How about a web site where one email can be formed and culled from the cream of all arguments and distilled down to what a majority would like to send?
Have a registration area where people of Open Sensibility can gather and suggest bullet items that can come to a vote with no anonymous ones. Have a core group that have to vote before any email can leave from the announcement area. That one email could serve as the voice of an entire group.
All someone needs to do is register this domain and start writing the backend process to form topic, references areas, bullet items collection, voting systems (like moderators here on /.) and you could have a very loose framework for a group voice that is unified.
It would seem that a reasoned and sense filled email would lend more cred and be easier to handle than 4000 emails bombs.
Also, an area where headers and example flame could be placed for public view could be used to regulate from within and deny access to membership within the opensense community.
Someone has probably thought of this before but I just wanted to throw it out and see who is interested in such a concept.
Feel free to poke at the flaws in this idea
Still... its just a thought... :)
"You cannot uncook Mushoo pork once is has been cooked" -- wiseman
How do we KNOW all of that happened to him? (Score:1)
There's enough *truth* in what he's saying to warrant our belief, but how are we to know that it was nearly as bad as he's saying?
I mean, it's a pretty good argument against the Linux community, isn't it
Excellent idea! (Score:1)
Needless to say, it was a very enlightening moment.
Linus is not a zealot, but a true engineer. I, for one, can only hope to someday become as down-to-earth dispassionate as he has shown all along.
Who's Watching the Watchmen? (Score:1)
We live in a big bad society. If you can't deal with flamers, lamers, assholes, and mouthpieces, you better start sucking on a revolver. It only gets tougher from her on in.
"What Needs To Be Done"? Blah Blah Blah (Score:1)
I love all of this talk about "what needs to be done" about free speech.
If you want to make yourself look like an ass and send this guy a nasty note over linux of all things, as long as you don't break the law go for it. It's a free country.
If you want to send him a reasoned response, thats great too. By time you're done writing it, he'll have a procmail filter set up and you'll be in
The open source movement is turning into a classic elitist/intellectual movement - popular at first, then a small group supresses the freedoms of most everyone else in order to serve their aims. See Russia, 1917, or, Germany, 1933.
Re:What can be done? (Score:1)
Anyway, after talking intelligently, with mostly proper English describing what Linux does well (or doesn't do so well), many now have a healthy respect for it, even if they may never actually use it. Speaking well (and typing well, re-read and spell check what you write!) goes a long way to getting a point across. Inserting profanity all over the place only makes you look like an uneducated bafoon. People will most likely not even read anything else you have to say.
The Four-Sigma effect (Score:2)
Years ago, as USENET was threatening to dissolve in chaos for the first time, an old ARPAnaut told me that what was happening was the "Four-Sigma Effect." It's a statistical fact, he said, that as a population grows, it becomes more and more likely to contain members more than four standard deviations (i.e. "sigma") from the mean. And it is these individuals (the technical term was "kooks") who yell the loudest, longest, and most frequently, leading to the mistaken impression that the whole population has taken a turn for the worse.
Of course, the net provides a wonderful way for kooky folks to find each other (to either join forces or do battle), so an amplification phenomenon occurs, enhancing the basic four-sigma effect.
My point is that this is just a normal aspect of Linux's and Slashdot's popularity. There are now millions and millions of folks on the Linux bandwagon, so it should be of no surprise that a few riders enjoy throwing rocks. The rest of us have to be careful not to let them speak for us, and maybe encourage them to ride elsewhere.
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Was:What can be done? (Score:1)
1) I honestly don't mean to advocate people being abusive with each other. We should be respectful to each other -- period. But not because it'll make people like Linux.
2) If the abusive email came from Linus, ESR, and RHS then it perhaps would reflect on the OS community.
It didn't however and it won't.
3) Bill Gates doesn't have a stellar reputation but Microsoft is widely accepted by the mainstream.
What can be done? (Score:3)
Most of you probably agree with me, that the lunatics are just sadly life-deficient hangers-on who just stumbled across Linux as jihad-material. I have despaired of them ever calming down, however - they are here to stay, and for the sake of my reputation as someone who is NOT a wingnut, it forces me to disassociate.
The fact that almost no one likes Microsoft as enthusiastically as they like Linux is almost a blessing for Microsoft, because their advocates largely end up coming across as reasoned, equitable, and balanced.
Oy.
What's funny is... (Score:2)
passionate? (Score:4)
that's the last time he'll write something bad about the open source community
a small minority of people who regularly read
not a good idea, especially if you're looking for acceptance by the mass media. if corporations get the impression that the linux crew is a bunch of little kids ready to email bomb, smurf, crack, and generally attack all that oppose, (some have already made this assumption) they're never going to seriously consider using it.
of course the people that are doing these things might not want the software to be publically accepted. they like being different and "more advanced" by running a minority o/s. running papasmurf doesnt make you more advanced -- it makes you a script kiddie.
if you're gonna flame someone, at least have the decency to include some arguement in your flame instead of "fuck"ing the hell out of them.
Re:What can be done? (Score:1)
It is merely that on windows, they are dwarfed by the masses who think Word is an OS.
Humiliating (Score:3)
One of the major bogus sides of the expansion of Linux is that it's not really a community anymore. We've gone from a small town feeling to a large city, complete with all the nuts, gomers and unsupervised 10 year-olds that come with it.
Personally, I think something needs to be done to curb this sort of ridiculous behaviour before any sense of community is lost and we start to really alienate the people that we're trying to attract -- businesses, media and developers.
The problem is, what can be done? Well, I believe it's time to start shutting out the troublemakers. Everyone can still have free speech, but we're not obligated to listen to them or provide them with a forum or encouragement. As much as I'd hate to say it, /. is going to have to be the first place to change (it's the most popular Linux-related website, and therefore attracts the most goons; you don't see this sort of thing at Linux Today).
Does this mean more moderation? Probably; maybe even banning the IPs of some of the worse offenders, or some other form of punishment. We need to tell the trolls and the flamers that we don't want them because they're effectively ruining it for everyone.
In an ideal world, everyone would be mature, rational and adhere to the Advocacy FAQ. But its not going to happen. I guess my main concern is that in a year I will switch jobs and suggest Linux to my boss, who will answer back, "No, we don't want to get involved with those kind of people."
----
Grow up (Score:1)
and i'm not saying that religious fervor will hurt the "linux movement" like many others; i don't really care much about the linux movement. i just think that as computer scientists, technicians, hobbyists, etc etc you have to remember that a particular piece of software or hardware is just a tool. once you lose your objectivity and become emotionally attached, you will become limited in your computing endeavors. i don't want to think of the hours and money that i have lost just because "i _had_ to do task X on operating system Y with Z software".
i also have a theory that the flamers and psychos on slashdot are experiencing serious deficiencies in terms of their social lives. if mail bombing unsuspecting journalists on your free time isn't a hint that you need to get out more, i don't know what is. god help us.
keep your cool and keep it impersonal - you will have everything to gain.
cheers,
mani
Giving the wrong impression (Score:2)
I don't want my boss to think I like Linux because I'm just another "Anything But Microsoft" whiner. That's the increasing impression among the uninitiated, however, because of some of these flamers and wannabes.
PS: I just got a Linux box into our NT-only shop. Off topic, but I'm so happy that I won't be getting 3AM pages to restart IIS anymore that I just had to tell somebody....
----
Re:passionate? (Score:2)
Re:Humiliating (Score:1)
For a good chuckle... (On Topic) (Score:2)
Wondered what would happen if 15 year old lamer gets shown that the veil of anonymity on the net is wafer thin?
http://www.planetcrap.com/929372550/
It's an interesting thread. And Open Source related to boot. Go nuts.
Re:I've got it! WWLD? (Score:2)
Just a thought. Not that I don't hold his programming ability and ethics in the highest possible regard.
Re:"What Needs To Be Done"? Blah Blah Blah (Score:1)
Re:We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:1)
There are angry puppies everywhere. Who will we
kid pretending to be saints?
If industry/mainstream doesn't accept us on our technical merit, they will remain that far behind us.
Re:Who's Watching the Watchmen? (Score:1)
A meaningless argument.
The whole point of the society we like to think we live in is mutal respect and obligation, ie:
I have the right not to be murdered in my bed.
In return, I am expected not to murder anybody else in there bed.
As above, so below. Nobody deserves to be mailbombed or harrased - you need to learn to handle the responsiblity of co-existing with people you disagree with. This is the price you pay for not being harassed yourself.
Easy, non?
And please, people - lose the numeric characters in your handle. Do you really think that's going to protect you from the all-grepping Hand of The Man?
The "free speech" defense (Score:1)
I don't understand why every time it is suggested
that perhaps the cause of Linux is better served
by a bit of restraint and maturity someone feels
the need to haul out "freedom of speech" as a
defense for acting like an eight-year old.
Yes, you have the right to say whatever you
like... and we have the right to ask you to
stop behaving like a jerk and embarrasing the
rest of us.
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Was:What can be done? (Score:1)
1) I honestly don't mean to advocate people being abusive with each other. We should be respectful to each other -- period. But not because it'll make people like Linux. Civility seems to be lacking from our society these days. We could do with a good deal more of it.
However, being civil doesn't have anything to do with "making" people like Linux. The way to do that is to present people with facts. There is a good chance those facts will bring them around. If not, then at least they've made an informed decission. But at the same time, it doesn't matter how many facts you have if you deliver your argument while beating the person over the head with a club. The finer points will be missed. All the person will think of is "Hey... this jerk is hitting me over the head". The facts will be lost on them. That is why one should refrain from base harrassment to "support" Linux.
2) If the abusive email came from Linus, ESR, and RHS then it perhaps would reflect on the OS community.
It didn't however and it won't.
You're sitting on a park bench when up walks a Lucranian tourist (fake nationality... I hope). The Lucranian begins to whizz on the bench you're currently occupying and when you voice protest, he spits at you. That wasn't the Lucranian President or any other kind of official. But you now have a rather negative view of Lucranians.
Linus, ESR, and RMS do not a community make. The OSS community consists of them... other coders... advocates... users... everyone who wants to identify themselves with OSS. When one of us behaves is a certain manner (especially negatively) it reflects on our community.
3) Bill Gates doesn't have a stellar reputation but Microsoft is widely accepted by the mainstream.
Bill Gates doesn't have a good reputation? You've been hanging out in the wrong circles. Bill has donated some rather large chunks of cash towards charrity. MS has also put a nice chunk of funding towards research progects that don't nessecarily fall under the MS umbrella. Bill Gates is seen amoung buisness circles as a pretty astounding success. Microsoft is a business role model.
Sure, techheads generally don't like Bill and MS. But then... Bill doesn't have to be liked to get business.
He's got a whole slew of folks who are used to being professionally pleasant. They're hand picked and trained to listen to business and provide them with solutions.... and even more importantly, a warm fuzzy feeling of security in a cold, alien world of technology. Enter... the Marketing department.
OSS has their community. We have just as many knowlegable people as they do. We have a pretty darned good base of code, technology, and future developments. But that's it. We depend on each other. If an unanointed walks amoung us and we dive on him with piranha-like frenzy... his buds aren't likely to follow. Nobody jumps into hostile waters without good reason.
And before we get too carried away, everyone has their pack of rabid jackels. It's just that, unlike us, the MS house has that team of Marketeers with their flashy comforting pamphlets and their soothing promises "...well, WE won't alienate you like those other guys will."
Re:How do we KNOW all of that happened to him? (Score:1)
Without some kind of formal investigation? You don't. However, as the saying goes: Do not multiply entities needlessly. In an industry fizzing with conflict and discontent, he (the columnist) doesn't stand to gain much by fermenting dissent. I just can't see any Machievellian intent here - if you have information to the contrary, print and be damned.
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Was:What can be done? (Score:1)
The author, upon being on the receiving end of pure harrassment suddenly went "Oh! I get it! I wrote an article full of errors!" Devine intervention via email. Suddenly the truth sprung from nothingness... he then went out to preach the Goodness that is OSS.
Not for a second did the author say to himself "man... I say something these jerks don't want to hear and they go ballistic. Their cause must be on shaky ground if they behave this desperately."
Re:passionate? (Score:1)
Im the exact opposite, I am concerned about linux becoming popular just because it brings more people like the above (script kiddies, 31337 h4x0r5) into the community (lowers the quality of the linux user gene pool so to speak).
Re:The "free speech" defense (Score:1)
Quite so.
Freedom Of Speech != Freedom Is Speech
Words have power. With power comes responsibilty.
And no, this isn't the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded room" argument.
Re:We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:1)
It's not a matter of hiding who we are. OSS is not just about "it's not Microsoft". But that seems to be the message getting out there. We should be avoiding that.
If it takes breaking ourselves of an apparently unhealthy obsession... so be it.
Who is "the community"? (Score:1)
What makes you think everyone who has an opinion to express is part of your "community"? Who the hell is "the community"? What a ridiculous crock.
There is no community. Speak for yourself.
We'll just get ESR to approve all of our emails (Score:1)
Yes, freedom of speech means a few rotten apples.
I prefer that to having some "community" tell me what I can or cannot write or say.
When you write a stupid flame mail, you represent yourself. No one else. No "community".
Maybe Slashdot should form a soviet, er, committee for approved opinions regarding linux.
Re:Humiliating (Score:1)
Here's a (partial) solution! (Score:1)
So, send him an e-mail that starts by saying :
"I apologize on behalf of the Linux community for the idiots who are flaming you right now. Hopefully they will someday mature.
However, there *were* several errors, however unintentional, in your article. They were..."
At the very least, you'll show the writer not everybody in the Linux community thinks "pine" is for feeding flames.
Re:We'll just get ESR to approve all of our emails (Score:1)
Ah. That makes amilbombs, ad hominem attacks and puerile behaviour perfectly OK then. I'm glad you're here to remind us, alphanumeric person.
I prefer that to having some "community" tell me what I can or cannot write or say.
It's a free internet. However, what goes around comes around - virtual karma, in this case.
When you write a stupid flame mail, you represent yourself. No one else. No "community".
When it's just you? Sure. Whem it's LOTS of people, each claiming to represent the whole - absolutely not.
The moral majortiy isn't, you recall.
Maybe Slashdot should form a soviet, er, committee for approved opinions regarding linux.
A valid point, in as much nobody wants a Stalinist Slashdot. Equal important is the rejection of muddy thinking.
Re:The "free speech" defense (Score:1)
"Linux Community" is an abstraction made up of smart articulate people, dumb inarticulate people and many, many more shades of gray, or whatever PC color you wish to choose.
Why don't you start a group like "Society of Linuxians Against Pretty Petty Email Replies" (SLAPPER!!)
Whenever a journalist is in distress, you may send him a cooperativly developed missive that will cut him with your (joint) rapier like wit while still within the bounds of dignified decorum.
There is a strong temptation in journalism to typecast and polorize, however. So don't be suprised if your reasoned response is overlooked (or just buried) in favor of Larry the Lip's pornographic turn of phrase. It's and old, old trick "THESE are the kind of scum that are opposing ME! ME! the inventor of the Internet!" Totally ignoring all the reasoned and valid comments.
Businesses have used several operating systems put together by some very young, nonconformist folks.
Why! Because it made them money, or they thought it would!
Why are IBM and many other companies putting money behind Linux? See above. And no potty mouth ranting is going to scare them away from the gold.
Hey, they have been toe to toe with the Justice Department for TEN YEARS!(in IBM's case) and beat them to a draw (Peace with honor, anyone?)
These flamers are probably just young converts that don't know that much about it. Like, ya know, they are for peace, ya know, and like Linux, ya know.
Peas, Love, Linux!
Re:Rasterman? (Score:1)
Re:We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:1)
Re:Humiliating (Score:1)
Does this mean more moderation? Probably; maybe even banning the IPs of some of the worse offenders, or some other form of punishment. We need to tell the trolls and the flamers that we don't want them because they're effectively ruining it for everyone.
But what gets classed as a flame or troll? When I've posted messages either a) pointing out mistakes in knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reactions or b) pointing out that my NT web box has sat up for over a year, without a reboot, some little Linux zealot marks it as a troll, whereas I consider it a factual statement. It's not like I'm even a Microsoft only junkie, we're running Linux for some stuff at work, even Sun boxes (although Netscape web server code bites in my opinion).
So who moderates the moderators?
Re:I've got it! WWLD? (Score:1)
Really? (Score:1)
On the other hand, this is all based on my subjective opinion of what consitutes intelligent discussion, and my (somewhat faded) memories of what Slashdot was like pre-moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
Practical ways to cut this crap down a bit... (Score:2)
1) Develop a "complaint" folder that people who've been flamed by
2) Encourage moderators to pick up extra moderator points (or free gifts ) by taking some time and going through the "flame mail folder" and basically voting on whether each piece of mail is so lacking in redeeming social value as to constitute an "offense" against
3) For people guilty of such "offenses" (as "voted" by their "peers"), an escalating set of punishments could include:
A) "flagging" those accounts people on
B) after a certain # of "offenses"... block the offender from
While there are ways to try to mask your identity when flaming someone to try to avoid punishment on
I'm sure that if he's read this, Rob has already got the code written in his head to implement all this ()!
When he implements this, we can continue to become one of the most successful experiments in self moderating, yet remarkably free information flows around. If we don't do something, the "slashdot effect" could become an expletive...
Steve
Re:Manners (Score:1)
A good idea in theory. Unfortunately, however, at least a small minority of these people would just flame you back and go on as before. Yes, some of them would get the message and stop it, but my guess is that a lot of people that go in for that sort of stuff couldn't care less if you or I or every other person in the world thinks that what they did was wrong.
By way of analogy, look at the idiots that make and spread virii and worms - everybody (else) condems them, the authorities actually hunt them down and prosecute them, and still they do it. Why? Because that's how they get their kicks, and they're not about to let anyone spoil their fun. The same applies to the lame-brain mail-bombers; that's how they try to get their point across, and no-one is going to stop them from being heard.
At best, you'll probably just be ignored; at worst, you'll be flamed/mail-bombed yourself.
Tim
Microsoft FUD - Linux flames (Score:1)
Imagine also, a similar article about NT that said equally dismissive things and was equally independent of the facts. Microsoft would sue, not just send a few juvenile emails.
The one thing is, this guy actually deserves a great deal of credit for his admission of error. He admitted that he wrote something that was bad. I'll check his column once in a while from now.
True... (Score:1)
Flames are the natural form of net communication (Score:1)
really win arguments, I'm constantly amazed by
professional writers who get teary-eyed over email. The internet is a public place. You can say anything you want in public, but don't be surprised when get a response.
I'm still of the mind that the internet is really just a cleverly constructed Eliza program.
internet> Why do you feel the internet is a cleverly constructed Eliza program?
An open letter...no...an open plea (Score:2)
This isn't directed at Linux advocates or anyone else in particular. If this letter is for you, well, you know who you are.
They are everywhere, IIRC, Douglas Adams (a Mac advocate) once referred to some of his Mac-loving kin as "blithering zealots". Perfect. That is exactly the description of many Linux/MS/Mac/BeOS/OS/2 etc. ad nauseum "advocates". The funny thing is...most of the "blithering zealots" don't have a clue.
"Blah, blah, blah...use FooOS," they say.
"Why?" BarOS user says.
"Because anyone who doesn't use FooOS is lame," blithering zealot intellegently replies.
I've been around, in communication with other savvy, bleeding edge computer users, for quite a while now. It's always the same. There seems to be this "blithering zealot" gene. Without exception, there is always someone who will find something (anything!) and cling to it religiously without anything intellegent to back it up.
For those who fit the above description, this message is for you.
Stop it. If you find yourself:
1. NEVER installing a different OS because, "FooOS is better".
2. Flaming anyone who likes another OS better.
3. Flaming anyone.
4. Bashing MS (or any other software company) in response to an article about Linux....
You may have a problem. Step back and think, because you are just like the people you say you hate. "MS lemmings" is a rich term I've heard a lot. Well, ask yourself this: If FooOS started to suck...for whatever reason, are you past the point where you can objectively say, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should start to look for something new." ?
Or, better yet, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should work to fix it."
There is a pattern that I've noticed, and it involves most (almost all) zealots going down with their chosen sinking ship, just like they say their "opponents" are.
Wow...this turned from what I originally intended (an honest to god open letter) to more of a rant. I appologize for that. But IMHO, what I said needed to be said, so I'll leave it at that.
I appologize for the spelling errors that are probably scattered about in this.
Casey
Re:People are mighty brave when it's all text (Score:1)
I don't, and I can see why most people don't either. On IRC (and in other forms of textual communications) I've had lengthy (sometimes heated) discussions about religion, programming languages, operating systems, computers, music, and a variety of other things. In real life, you don't have these sorts of conversations, because when they start getting heated, somebody will start cutting off other people in mid-sentence, people begin yelling, etc. On IRC, assuming you don't have ops and kick/ban the person, each of you has to let the other person finish his sentence, since you have no way of cutting him off or yelling over him.
Plus, there's the fact that I'd never have a heated discussion about religion with a random person I'd never met before in real life. On IRC, it's completely possible, because we're discussing the issues - who the other person is, and whether I've met them or not, is irrelevant.
When crackbaby flies... (Score:1)
These screamy platform advocates remind me of the comp.sys.mac[..].advocacy morons, or even the sad remnants still clinging to the corpse of the (once great) Amiga.
I don't particularly want to be associated with people whose arguments stretch about as far as "YOU SUXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Admittedly, the mass media needs to get a major clue infusion too, but then that's nothing new. Telling one's arse from a hole in the ground never was the strong suit of the Jesse Bersts of this world..
Sadly, morons are ?(and have been) flowing onto linux as a platform for a while. Too many of them use it as a psychological crutch and something to worship. these people would be no loss if they vanished tommorow, since they don't contribute anything. Quite the reverse; they spend hours flaming poor saps in a functionally illiterate manner, and then go on to annoy the hell out of ordinary users by demanding "How can I get X driver for my FarEastTech GrandPants AGP of is??!!!!!?!?!" very loudly. They're a pain.
However, we're a victim of our own sucess in that respect. Everything that becomes popular does, due to the law of averages, attract a lot of noisy idiots. Because they're so vocal, it sounds like there's a whole lot of them, rather than the good old bell curve, which is closer to the truth..
End of ramble..
Re:The "free speech" defense (Score:1)
like... and we have the right to ask you to
stop behaving like a jerk and embarrasing the
rest of us.
Nobody ever said you can't complain about them, just that you can't stop them. You are free to complain all you want, and they are free to ignore you all they want.
Re:We'll just get ESR to approve all of our emails (Score:1)
Hmm, "alphanumeric person" seems like somewhat of an ad hominem attack...or was that intended irony?
When it's just you? Sure. Whem it's LOTS of people, each claiming to represent the whole - absolutely not.
Then each of those people represent themselves. If they happen to all be Open Source advocates, then it shows that a significant percentage of Open Source advocates really are somewhat on the insane side. You can't tell these people "no I don't want you on my side anymore," because I doubt they will go away. You just have to realize that a significant portion of you cause is made up of insane lunatics.
A valid point, in as much nobody wants a Stalinist Slashdot. Equal important is the rejection of muddy thinking.
And who defines "muddy thinking"? I personally consider a lot of what Linus says to be "muddy thinking," so should it be rejected? Hmm...
Re:Here's a (partial) solution! (Score:1)
And what exactly gives you, Mr. Random Linux User, the right to speak on behalf of the entire "Linux community," any more than Mr. Random Flamer has that right?
high school is over? (Score:1)
Oh, and I read the column, but I don't agree that the 'slashdot community' should admit to wrongdoing. *I* didn't do anything wrong. Here you are confusing the actions of individuals with that of a group. The 'slashdot community' isn't very organized, but we are, each of us, responsible for our own actions. And this could very well be the work of a "rotten few", but unfortunately users come in a sort of pyramid. At the top, there are the gods, the developers. Below that, you have the speakers, the well-known activists, the kernel hackers, the people who write major applications. Then you have the early adherents, the sysadmins, the people who write small applications... eventually you get to the newbies, and there are a *lot* more of them than there are of the rest of us.
I only really started learning about UNIX in 1994 or so, before then I was doomed to reimplement it on DOS (I wrote commands that worked like 'which' and 'df' and 'du', in Pascal, actually)... I found out about Linux in 1995, and only really started using it in 1996 or so... However, I'd consider myself to be a longtime veteran when I look at the people in the community now... this is that pyramid effect at work.
I read slashdot before we had user accounts, so my user # is 1020. I guess that makes me part of this community for a long time.
I'm sure there are a lot of newbies out there, but judging by their experience, I'm sure I'd consider most of them to be pretty low on the pyramid... The problem is trying to explain this to who they flame, because we can't train them all. Most of them will learn eventually, on their own, but by then there will be far more of them. This is the same thing that happened to the emulator scene, and it practically crumbled under the weight of the d00dZ who wanted their RoMz.
Also, the columnist didn't really fess up, all he said was that he had gotten *one* fact wrong, and exaggerated the rest, and he portrayed Linux/Open Source advocates as either raving lunatic crackers or flaky activists, which I think most of us aren't. Therefore, I'm not sorry he got flamed. Maybe I would be if he tried to revise his article to make it more accurate... Even if I didn't agree with his opinion, I could at least respect him if he got his facts right and tried to have an original thought or two.
Spell checker (Score:1)
O.K., so now he knows how we operate at Slashdot.o (Score:1)
Did I miss something, or did Jack forget to respond to the rebuttals?
Sure, we, the Slashdot front, can be rude at times in our postings. But THAT'S OUR RIGHT AS READERS, RIGHT ??
It's interesting to me that he chose to attack the user base of LinuxOS as opposed to attacking ONE individual (who, nevermind that he had legitimate criticisms).
Re:Fanaticism (Score:1)
Like what?
ESR... (Score:1)
I wonder if that could be a certain Eric we know...
Re:I've got it! WWLD? (Score:1)
"Don't mind the morons and the script kiddies - 14-year olds are a pain in the bum whether or not they can even spell Linux..."
Re:Manners (Score:1)
Very true. In the "old" days I noticed the same trend on IRC. Some people would just run around on channels and stir up a stink just for the joy of it. If we tried to tell them the error of their ways they just got worse - their intent was to piss people off, and us trying to convice them not to was taken by them as a proof that they had accomplished their goal.
I'm not saying that all flamers are like that, but some are. I don't know of any way that we as a community can do anything effectively to stop them giving Linux a bad name.
Re:Humiliating (Score:1)
Geek-grrl in training
"The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working."
Re:I've got it! WWLD? (Score:1)
Bravo!
Open Source product? (Score:1)
(Note: This article, like many of the others before it, was composed using an Open Source software product)
Which open source product? Microsoft Word 97, using Save to HTML? The text of his article badly needs the Demoroniser... it's full of lots of question marks in place of apostrophies.
Just because he didn't pay for it doesn't mean it's free software or open source software.
Re:We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:1)
Geek-grrl in training
"DEATH TO FANATICS!"
Re:O.K., so now he knows how we operate at Slashdo (Score:1)
Yes, being rude is your right as a reader. Many stupid things are your right. That doesn't mean you have to excercise those rights. If he's made errors, you get your message across better by politely but clearly outlining what they were and why they were errors. You don't have to pussyfoot around it, but coming across as polite and articulate and rational is better than coming across as an idiot.
And if you absolutely must flame someone, at least be creative about it. I'm sorry but I would frankly be embarrassed to have to admit that "You ****head!" was the best I could come up with. In fact I wouldn't admit it, I'd either come up with something better or forget the whole matter.
Re:Humiliating (Score:2)
Re:Humiliating (Score:1)
> of the worse offenders, or some other form of
> punishment. We need to tell the trolls
> and the flamers that we don't want them because > they're effectively ruining it for everyone.
I agree, "First!" type people should not be allowed to post. But even if you could find a decent way of preventing that, there's nothing stopping them from reasing the article and flaming the guy...
Re:What can be done?..."loonies" everywhere... (Score:1)
For a journalist to post a factually incorrect, borderline slanderous article about virtually any widely used OS is to invite something similar to what Mr. Bryar experienced -- the difference being more a matter of scale and timing than anything else.
I think much of the "problem" here has much to do with the concentration of enthusiasts around such sites as
Well, I'd like to advise all the careless journalists of the world, whatever they write about: get used to a networked and weblog-stratified world.
Re:What's funny is... (Score:1)
What's not funny is that you're one of the ones he was writing about. He didn't say "sell," he said "distribute." Work on those reading skills, son. The effort will repay itself.
mp
You really don't get it, do you? (Score:2)
Look at the OSS movement more as a guerrilla war; we have to develop a superior product against the onslaught of an overwhelming foe who can change standards as fast as Bill changes his shorts. We need to win people over to our way of thinking, not run in and burn their villages and shoot their grandmothers.
This sort of sh*t alienates potential users, backers, business allies and developers. Call it a war if you insist, but this isn't the way to win. Instead, we should politely provide information, demonstrate that we can connect with people (a collective sense of humor would be a good place to start) and respect other peoples' opinions, even if they don't agree with us.
----
Re:G-d forbid anyone show too much enthusiasm... (Score:1)
Not.
Ackbar, is this really what you want? This goes right against the whole notion of free speech, doesn't it? Or can I say anything I want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the planned Linux World Domination?
Truly spoken as one whose never experienced it. (Score:2)
----
Re:Humiliating (Score:2)
We just need to communicate that some people aren't welcome in our community until they're ready to act like adults. I know people will say I'm stomping on free speech and ask who I am to judge, but we must to something before this brand of fanaticism damages Linux's and OSS's credibility any further.
----
Fanaticism (Score:2)
Hmm...my point...can't we just all get along?
The whole idea behind Linux is freedom, but
if we as a community squash anyone who doesn't agree with our opinions or is misinformed about the facts, we're making Linux that much more worthless.
So please, before you hit the send key next time,
think about what you're saying.
Deepak Saxena
Project Director, Linux Demo Day '99
Re:What can be done? (Score:1)
mp
Re:Fanaticism (Score:1)
Re:Fanaticism (Score:1)
I agree with this. Rather than promote a single OS, the important thing to do is to promote open standards and protocols. This allows for the selection of the best operating system for a specific task without having to worry about proprietary and "extended" protocols.
Upon World Domination they will all disappear (Score:1)
Or maybe they have grown up by then.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
Re:What's funny is... (Score:1)
Well he's got a point - unless Bryar can come up
with a way to nuke every copy of the free(speech)
spellcheckers out there, and find a faster distribution
channel than ftp://your.local.sunsite/, he's
never going to pay for that Z3. Not through
distributing spellcheckers anyway.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Re:We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:1)
Bullshit. A lot of people refuse to buy Mircosoft hardware because it's cheaply made and overpriced. Are you seriously sugesting that that the Microsoft mice are better than the ones made by Logitech for instance? I've yet to see a Microsoft joystick that is better designed than my Nintedo 3d1 PC joystick. Yes, Nintendo designed a joystick for use with the PC.
As for the response to the article, well the person who wrote it got exactly what he devserved, just as NATO gave the Serbia what it deserved. What people like yourself are going to have to accept is the old days of "computer journalism" where a person could write the kind of article slamming something, submit it to a magazine and escape the results of their actions is over with. If a reporter wants to avoid the kind of fallout that people like yourself are bitching about, then he had better damn well be sure of his facts before posting the damn thing in the first place. There's a well-know term for the kind of article that Bryar submitted to Andover News. It's called yellow journalism.
Re:What's funny is... (Score:1)
If he could make a spell checker that can figgure out what I mean with some of my worse mispellings (I'm not talking about teh->the I'm taking about worse things. speaking of teh though, can it figgure out I intentially mispelled that) he can make a fortune. I know there are 100 or so people reading this who are willing to donate to the cause of getting me a good spell checker.
Too bad if any exist they are not really workable.
On the contrary .... (Score:1)
At least
The NOT smart people, who press reply and start flaming away without any proper arguments. THOSE are the ones that need to worry about what happens to their comments
I'm an administrator on a chat-site and I know the way people can react on things they don't like.
Most people will indeed instantly get out the "big guns" (mailbomb, any kind of DoS attack, flame, whatever)
Hmm
The moderation system won't drive off smart people it will maybe even attract more smart people and get them to post comments, because they know that their comments won't get lost in a sea of flames due to the filtering that's possible on the comments
--
Niven's Law (Score:2)
"There is no cause so noble that it will not attract fuggheads."
Linux advocacy proves to be no exception.
Re:www.opensense.org (Score:2)
While this makes the most sense from the point of view of conveying the most relevant information and eliminating redundancy, in practice all this would accomplish in the short-term is to make the signal-to-noise ratio that much worse. Instead of 100 polite emails and 10,000 flames, the authour gets 1 polite email and 10,000 flames.
The loophole is that if the 1 email is from a well-respected entity whose opinions carry weight, it would be useful. Open Sense, if implemented, could eventually gain such weight. However, it won't have such weight when first implemented - this would be a medium-term effect at best, long-term at worst.
OTOH, those of us who write sensible letters could always post to both. That would give the best of both worlds.
As a side idea - it might be a good idea for someone who _does_ carry weight - for instance, Linus - to write a letter to the publisher that both states that the flamers do not represent his views (possibly apologizing), and then politely taking issue with the inaccurate points presented in the article. This might actually accomplish something.
Going to the publisher helps in that the article's authour is probably just ignoring all Linux-related emails. Coming from Linus or another noteworthy and level-headed developer/advocate would give it the credibility to get read.
In any event, if you do get Open Sense off the ground, please let me know. I'd be happy to contribute.
Re:passionate? (Score:2)
>that's the last time he'll write something bad >about the open source community
Or anything at all...
Thats the problem, if we want advocacy we need to nice to those who do it (EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG). Otherwise they go off and talk about other stuff.
I've got it! WWLD? (Score:3)
This about it; can you see Linus flaming the hell out of someone for forgetting to mention that Linux runs on SPARC? No way! So, the next time you're tempted to mail out some giant foul-mouthed tirade against someone who has issues with the OSS movement, ask yourself: WWLD?
Man, I should have some wrist bands made up; I'd make a mint.
----
Re:passionate? (Score:2)
Did you actually ready the column?
It hardly sounds like the work of a "rotten few". This sort of thing seems to go on far to often. It seems that a significant number of Linux advocates lose sight of the fact that with freedom comes responsibility. Be responsible for your actions, kids. He (the columnist) 'fessed up when he did a Bad Thing. So should the slashdot "community".
And anyone who uses numerals in their "nick", or ever writes software with the word "Greetz to:" in the docs should be thourougly minced. High school is over, people.
Not surprising (Score:3)
Oops (Score:2)
We can all help to fix the problem... (Score:3)
This would take away forums that seem to be used mainly to stir anti-ms feelings and (sometimes subtely) encourage flaming.
If we all just back away from talking about MS all the time, several good things will result:
1. We will continue to grow for the same reasons we always did: not worring about marketshare, deadlines, acceptance, etc. These things will come in time if you produce good software. These have always been touted as the linux community's greatest strengths. Let's keep it that way.
2. We will attract people that are interested in free software instead of people that want to feel cool or 3L1te or just hate microsoft. Without a place to read and post anti-ms stuff those people will lose interest and leave. I say good riddance.
Bottom line - it's not out of the control of the leaders in this meritocracy. An example can be set, and would be followed.
A little "me too" and a little off topic, but (Score:2)
In the "off topic" department, I sometime wonder if the growth of the electronic community will eventually increase or decrease civility. I rember reading David Brin's Earth in the late 80s. We had USENET by then, the Web wasn't in existence (except maybe at CERN) and the word Internet meant something to only a handful of us. In that novel, Brin imagined a global network that everyone had access to. (This stuff was very incidental to the story, BTW). Each person had a credibility rating. You would read messages filtering by credibility. I think the Slashdot moderation figure is a very primitive form of this.
What if access to the net was denied to no one, but every other participant on the net could adjust one persons credibility by one point once and only once? (What if this could be applied to sub nets and addresses at the IP level, but I get ahead of myself). What if we could put the real flamethrowers in Coventry (as we used to say)?
Everyone if free to be as abusive as they want, but they would be heard by fewer and fewer people as their credibility fell.
Perhaps persons should be rated in various categories, or a standard system eveloped to build this into a new kind of HTML compatible nntp? I'm not really suggesting anything seriously here, but the issue is real.
In some ways, despite all the evils of television, it has brought a certain increased sophistication to distant and disparate places (and also a certain lack of sophistication as well, but I don't want to go too far down that tangent right now).
The net can do the same, only more so.
Whatever. I'm a programmer by vocation and avocation, so I always seek a technological solution.
For now, I hope that each of us who feels proud to be a part of something Big and Important (open source, free software, the Internet, free speech, individuality) and who gives vent to that through fourums like Slashdot will take a little time to (gently) remind some of our more rambunctious fellow travellers what it means to be civilized.
It's like being back on EvangeList (Score:2)
My thinking then which I still think is accurate:
EvangeListas, remember when the guy from Wired wrote that net access with a PowerMac and a T1 is slower than with a 386 and a 9600 baud modem? And then proceeded to defend that as a factually correct statement? After all, he got tons of stupid mail; therefore he must have been correct...
Manners (Score:2)
The Linux scene has changed a lot in the past year. That's not to say that there weren't crazed fanatics here before, but I do think the ratio has chnaged. Now that Linux is 'cool' and 'alternative' (a brief digression: did you ever notice that by the time anything is called alternative, it isn't, really?) More and more folks are using it because it makes them feel superior.
When someone attacks Linux, these people feel it as a personal insult. After all, if they are only cool because they use a cool OS, what does it mean when someone says the OS sucks? It means they suck.
All in all, though, I am proud of our community. Don't let the insecure, vocal minority of jerks blind you to the fact that a lot of smart, polite, reasonable, and downright nice people use Linux. I see it every day, here, in my user's group, in the newsgroups & mailing lists, and of course, on the ftp sites where the code lives: people helping each other out, sharing what they know with no thought of profit.
I think the time has come for the vast majority of us who believe in that quaint, old fashioned concept known as "good manners" to stand up to the jerks, in a non threatening way, of course. Maybe a quick email here and there (don't take criticism public) saying something like 'I know you probably didn't mean to, but your tone was a bit rude..." and pointing out the fact that good manners are simply a more effiecient way of changing behaviors and beliefs than vitriolic rants.
People are mighty brave when it's all text (Score:2)
Rioting and mob mentality is understandable IMHO if tanks and soldiers are rolling down Main Street USA, but not when somebody says something dumb. Had he said he was going to rape the mothers of all RedHat investors, fine, attack. But he didnt.
If I went full force after every dumb comment made to me in person, there would be a lot less dumb comment makers in the world, and I'd be in prison *grin*.
One last thought: Ever notice that the religious nuts who run up to your car screaming about hell while holding a fistful of pamphlets hold a LOT less credibility than the preacher sitting quietly in a church doing his thing? Not that I'm a religious man, but heh, it's a thought.
I'll shaddup now, but damn people, relax.