Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference

You may have heard about Linux - a hobbyist operating system based on the shareware principle, has been making waves in the hacker underground and in the periphery of large corporations for around five years now. Linux is a competent operating system which can even be said to compete with professionally designed OS's such as Microsoft Windows XP. Nothing remarkable there, after all the market place for other goods has many examples of competing products which are all but identical to the casual observer.

What many people do not realise is that to some of its advocates, Linux is more than a simple tool to get a job done. To these extremists, Linux represents a philosophical almost religious belief system - a way of life based around "open source" and "free software".

You may have encountered one of these Linux evangelists at work. They make themeselves known by constantly berating Microsoft products, and blindly praising Linux. Their belief in the power of Linux is akin to the Muslim's belief in Allah. In fact, fundamentalist Islam and hardcore Linux zealotry are two sides of the same coin. Press a Muslim as to why he or she is a Muslim, and they will suggest you read the Qu'raan. Ask a Linux apologist why Linux is better than the alternatives and the explanation you are most likely to hear is "Linux Rocks - Micro$oft Sucks"

The Linux Zealot typically displays an irrational hatred of Microsoft, a complete conviction that his choice of operating system is the only valid one, and a scathing patronising contempt of anyone "stupid" enough to use "windoze"*.

What causes this mindless OS bigotry? you may be wondering. Well, the father of modern psychoanalysis - Professor Sigmund Freud proposed an idea which he called the "narcissism of minor differences". Put simply it means that people hate other people who are very similar to them. This similarity threatens their sense of individuality, their sense of self, causing them to react in a hostile manner, which seems to become more hostile, the closer the similarity.

We can see this effect in conflicts all aroung the world. From the (white, Christian) Catholics and Protestants in war-torn Northern Ireland, to the (white, Christian) Serbs and Croats in the former Yugoslavia, to the (Monotheistic) Muslims and Jews, semite brothers in hatred.

In the same way that Arabs and Jews differ very little in genetic make-up and yet almost every single one of them hates the other with a passion, Windows and Linux have very much in common and yet their supporters fight tooth-and-nail over which one is "best".

No doubt a qualified psychologist or doctor could come up with all kinds of elaborate theories as to why the Linux Zealot behaves the way he does. One theory I have is that the Linux Zealots have small penises and belittling others for their choice of operating system is their way of 'getting back' at society and the world for their unfortnate genetic inheritance.

Another possibility is that due to the aforementioned hygiene problems the typical Linux Zealot cannot get laid, and subliminates his frustrated sexual energy into blaming Microsoft for all the evils of the world.

But I expect you have heard enough of my amateur psychology, I am interested in what you, the adequacy readers think. Why do these Linux advocates get so riled up about something so utterly insignificant as choice of OS ? Surely they cannot all be mentally ill ? (however intuitively obvious that answer might be)

*Windoze, Micro$oft, Microshaft, Winblows, etc are all terms used by Linux Zealots. If you recieve an e-mail containing any of these terms, you can be sure you have a Zealot on your hands.

	I am a former Linux Zealot (none / 0) (#1)
	by mfk on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 07:49:21 PM PST

	I started sniffing Linux crack in May of 2000. Back then, I was still using a misconfigured version of Microsoft's Windows 95, and I thought it was Microsoft's fault - silly me. PC World's May 2000 issue just arrived, with a special article on Linux - and GNOME looked COOL! Linux has got to be better than Microsoft! Now, I would have dismissed it as a passing phase - but I then went to work at a company that was practically nothing but Linux zealots. My fellow co-workers were waging a holy war over which distribution I should have chosen - and I eventually went with the hippiest distro of them all - Debian. Now I was skipping the crack and going straight for the opium injection - my OS preference manifested itself on my family's home computer, my computer, and I constantly preached the benefits of Linux. About eight months later, my patience was wearing thin with this so-called 'OS'. The constant elitism, coupled with the complete lack of a standard desktop environment was troubling. Indeed, the nutball RMS "forgiving" KDE users of their sins should have given me a clue that I was using a OS made by crackheads I tried to dismiss it all, but Linux's inferiority proved itself further when a certain de Icaza decided to replace a stable, perfectly working file manager for GNOME with a slow, bloated monstrosity Thankfully, Eazel died out before they could do further damage. It became clear that Linux was not the OS for me after a certain Lunis Torvaltyos decided to replace a perfectly working VM subsystem with a half-finished, bug-ridden incomplete one - in the 2.4 tree I am still recovering. I installed Microsoft's Windows XP and was relieved by how easy it is to update drivers, and the standard GUI interface, and its broad support for software - and games

	Fianlly, some truth! (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 08:13:59 PM PST

	I think they get riled up over OSs because of their `free information' ideology (which I don't necessarily condemn). I would agree that many Linux Zealots have irrational behavior, especially those who bash Microsoft, yet support other, equally proprietary companies. Zealots don't annoy me, only hypocritical zealots do. That's why I enjoy controversial sites like Adequacy.org, even if some authors imply that they like living in reality boxes.

	You forgot something. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by poltroon on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 09:12:19 PM PST

	OS X If the battle of linux zealots against windows users is like Protestants against Catholics or Jews against Muslims, then OS X is surely akin Zen Buddhism.

	hmm (none / 0) (#4)
	by ism on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 09:32:48 PM PST

	So OS X is some mystical Oriental hullabaloo that white people go gaga over? I just laugh at all the crap white people are willing to swallow just because it comes from the Far East... power beads, Feng Shui, and Zen... etc. Sometimes I wonder if Afghanistan was geographically more eastward, if white people would start wearing turbans as fashion statements and get tattoos in sanskrit that say "strength." Imagine how stupid a tattoo looks when it says "strength." When you get a tattoo in Kanji, that's what Japanese people see. That's why they're laughing. At the stupidity of the white devil.

	The greatest innovations of white people... (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 01:44:37 AM PST

	Polka and Country Music Oh and yes I am white.

	one more thing (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 04:13:52 AM PST

	You forgot riverdance

	you worthless ass. (none / 0) (#12)
	by nathan on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:40:58 AM PST

	Virtually all of the great works of civilization have come from Europe. Take your racist garbage elsewhere. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	You mean (none / 0) (#13)
	by jvance on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 08:54:05 AM PST

	great works like agriculture, iron working, and writing? -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	No he means (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by dmg on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 09:32:41 AM PST

	Cultural masterpieces such as this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this I could go on and on but I don't need to. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Akumu (none / 0) (#56)
	by Akumu on Tue Mar 5th, 2002 at 12:21:24 AM PST

	Yes, they laugh; they laugh so very hard. Of course, they may very well be wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "Spread Beaver: Showing the Vaginal Area" or ""LOVABLE BLACK CAT COUNT ME IS YOUR FRIEND CAN YOU REALLY DO EVERYTHING I WISH I COULD TO BILLIE - JEAN," or maybe even "Super Greeful." So laugh away, lovable Japanese, laugh away. -Akumu

	smelly linux zealots (none / 0) (#5)
	by thegrendel on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 11:52:15 PM PST

	Strangely enough, the "Esko Woudenberg" link at the beginning of your rant reads much smoother than the rant itself. Seems to me that... those who can, write... those who can't, whine. If there's one thing that smells even more rank than an unbathed linux zealot, it's putrid writing. Mr. dmg, I highly recommend Strunk and White's "Elements of Style". Also, you might spend some time contemplating the concept of "professionalism", rather than your navel.

	Doublespeak. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by derek3000 on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 11:56:24 AM PST

	Do you mean hacker as in developers which develope then share the wealth (either freely or commercially through licensing) or the popular definition butchered daily by the mass media? (emphasis added) Is this kind of like how a man who forces himself on a woman is a "black hat" rapist? Have the media butchered the term so that it means something else? I think that you just like calling yourself that to get some attention. If you don't like being associated with that, then why not just describe yourself as someone who programs rigorously? ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	no (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 02:15:11 PM PST

	Have the media butchered the term so that it means something else? I think that you just like calling yourself that to get some attention. If you don't like being associated with that, then why not just describe yourself as someone who programs rigorously? Nope. For many years the term hacker was used to identify the person who developed and innovated. For many years the US government supported hackers. It was hackers that are responsible for the technologies of the Internet. Sure you may say this is old and this is outdated by it worked for so many years. If it ain't broke why fix it. No one dreamed of the innovations of today 30-40 years ago. Should we look for something newer? Yes. Will it be accepted? Maybe. Why should we change? It's not our fault the media fucked it up. Sure it takes, in many cases, an experienced hacker (or admin who understand security) to become a cracker. Just like a locksmith could use his skills to break into people houses and rob them blind. If an organisations of criminals came out calling themselves locksmiths would you tell locksmith to change their name? People often associate blacks/African Americans with criminals. Should they stop calling themselves black/African American? When I say media, I more blame movies than I do news. People associate hacker with people that break into security systems, and write super viruses. I suggest that you read this essay. Here's a snipet: Computer movies suck. Not like I needed to tell you that or anything, but it's true. In an era where PCs are a household appliance, video game consoles sell like hotcakes, and everyone's grandma knows what the Internet is, why does Hollywood insist on making incredibly stupid computer-based movies that insult your intelligence? I don't know. Nobody knows. Only screenwriters or Hollywood suits can tell you. Some of the errors are negligible, like referring to websites that don't exist ("Deep Impact"); other errors are intentional fantasy that are appropriate to the story's vision, and are thus forgivable ("Tron"). But most of them are terribly, terribly wrong--a blatant slap in the face for those who work to improve the public's perception of computers. It's frustrating, it's degrading, and worst of all, it's just plain ignorant. Technophiles can't stand ignorance. (Which should be an indicator to all you Microsofties that you shouldn't call yourselves technophiles.) More? Want an example of good computer fiction? War Games. Yes, the entire second half of the film was silly, but the first half of the film where Matthew Broderick's character computes was very realistic. You can see a real CPM machine, real 8" floppy disks (remember those? Yes, they did exist), a 300 baud acoustic coupling modem (the kind you had to shove your phone handset into), and a character-based serial terminal. And the most realistic thing in that movie was how Matthew's character stole passwords from the school secretary's desk drawer. That is how it happens in real life, not through some super-hacker-password-cracker program. It's possible that a lot of the realism in War Games had to do with the fact that nobody knew enough about computers yet to make it inaccurate. Now every screenwriter thinks he's a geek. Feh.

	shut up nawl (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 06:38:13 PM PST

	No one cares about your little friend's inability to appreciate artistic license. The reason you hackers "suck" on film is because you suck even more so in real life. More? What on earth for? If we wanted a hacker's opinion stated as if it were truth, we'd wind him up and ask for a diatribe on the loudly imagined merits of /etc over the windows registry. Beats sleeping pills. For many years the US government supported hackers. Of course they did. rolls eyes

	Interesting (none / 0) (#6)
	by dmg on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 12:18:21 AM PST

	I wasn't aiming for 'smoothness' I was aiming to get my point across. But as usual, you zealots cannot fault the argument, so you attack the style. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	some minor editting (1.00 / 2) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 01:39:37 AM PST

	You may have heard about Linux - a hobbyist operating system based on the shareware principle, has been making waves in the hacker underground and in the periphery of large corporations for around five years now. Linux is a competent operating system which can even be said to compete with professionally designed OS's such as Microsoft Windows XP. Linux is a kernel. CObined with various other utilities, programs, etc, it becomes an OS, a firewall, etc. It is not based on any principles of shareware. Shareware is limited either by the number of times you can run it, functionality, or date. Then you must pay for it to continue to use it fully. It is also not based on freeware, as freeware does not include the source code nor is it available. I am glad however, that you did point out that linux is utilized by professionals, as well as hackers. However, you fail to clarify which definition of hacker you are referring to. Do you mean hacker as in developers which develope then share the wealth (either freely or commercially through licensing) or the popular definition butchered daily by the mass media? Linux does not compete with WindowsXP. I agree with Red Hat's CEO that Linux is not ready for the desktop nor should developers concentrate their efforts on making it a desktop OS. Well, at least not as their main objective. Linux based OSes are, for the most part, meant for the server room. There is no WindowsXP Server. The next Microsoft Server OS is called Server.NET. What many people do not realise is that to some of its advocates, Linux is more than a simple tool to get a job done. To these extremists, Linux represents a philosophical almost religious belief system - a way of life based around "open source" and "free software". I agree. There are Linux supporter out there that are just wacko. The same can be said of those who will blindly follow Microsoft to the ends of the earth. "Microsoft has never done anything bad. Those court cases where MS was found guilty of blatant theft are blown way out of proportion." Just look out how many people claim adequacy.org runs IIS on Windows when anyone with half a brain can prove otherwise. People often think Bill Gates is a tech genious because he wrote BASIC. What has he done since? He is a marketing genious you uses every dirty trick in the book to get what he wants. Ask a Linux apologist why Linux is better than the alternatives and the explanation you are most likely to hear is "Linux Rocks - Micro$oft Sucks" Ask a Windows luser why the don't like linux and you'll get a similar answer. "Linux sucks because it sucks and that's why it sucks" Or they may say because they read some informative article (that was picked apart for containing opinion based writings on information the was factually inaccurate). The Linux Zealot typically displays an irrational hatred of Microsoft, a complete conviction that his choice of operating system is the only valid one, and a scathing patronising contempt of anyone "stupid" enough to use "windoze". You don't have to be a Linux Zealot or Linux supporter to feel that way about Microsoft. I fealt that way before Linux was even conceived. Of course I have been around since the early days of Microsoft and know all about the many many* court case it lost. Of course usually through interpretation, loopholes, or funny language MS continued with their everyday practices. Another possibility is that due to the aforementioned hygiene problems the typical Linux Zealot cannot get laid, and subliminates his frustrated sexual energy into blaming Microsoft for all the evils of the world. That's their problem. But I don't think that's why they blame Microsoft. Any zealot could come to where I live (in a nice area) or any city like it and get laid. Of course the most all nice areas are usualy populated by rednecks selling meth like they do near where I live. Of course the Windows luser who sits around on his $3000 computer he bought downloading porn all day can probably get laid too. But I expect you have heard enough of my amateur psychology, I am interested in what you, the adequacy readers think. Why do these Linux advocates get so riled up about something so utterly insignificant as choice of OS ? Surely they cannot all be mentally ill ? (however intuitively obvious that answer might be) At least it's better than the half-assed attempts by elenchos. But you still must examine both sides which you fail to do. Windoze, Micro$oft, Microshaft, Winblows, etc are all terms used by Linux Zealots. If you recieve an e-mail containing any of these terms, you can be sure you have a Zealot on your hands. I use these terms to make jokes about things Ms has never fixed. I also write the little story called "The Adventures of Windoze Luser" which was a creation by NAWL and sent to me to post on my website (which was just space I had for sgining up for a free "check anywhere" email address. It's in reference to the Windows/Micrsoft Zealots. I don't use the terms blindly. For example I may refer to <insert security hole here> that hasn't been fixed by Ms in years. Instead they piss and moan that people releaser the information about it publicly. You see even with MS if you bring a security hole or exploit to their attention you cannot post anything about it for two weeks (does not include OSS). MS still bitches about it. Remember the exploit in UPnP? The company that dicovered it gave MS TWO MONTHS. Even then MS bitched that they went public warning people about it. It was then that MS got off their collective asses and did something about it. FINAL THOUGHT Your article is very one sided. It discusses extremists of various beliefs and at time delves into your one stereotypical mindset and bigotry. There are Linux Zealots, Windows Zealots (Windoze lusers), and Mac Zealots (Mac Addicts). There are those of us who support one over the other and will only challenge you if you spread lies about one or the other or lump us all into one group or the other.

	Touch� (none / 0) (#17)
	by JoePain on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 12:08:10 PM PST

	oh man (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 08:50:11 PM PST

	shut up nawl Who the fuck is nawl? No one cares about your little friend's inability to appreciate artistic license. The reason you hackers "suck" on film is because you suck even more so in real life. The essay doesn't specifically mention hackers you twit. It's about movies based on computers. It's not our fault that shithole screenwriters think they know anything. Did you even bother to read the essay? You don't have to be a hacker to know that computer movies suck. Of course you probably don't know shit anyway and probably believe all that crap. I bet you think it's cool when people in the distant future still talk about the Pentium3 like it's brand friggin new. Of course they did. rolls eyes Obviously you have never heard of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), NASA, or the National Science Foundation (NSF). All of these were started by President Eisenhower. A key appointment at ARPA came in 1962 when psychologist J.C.R. Licklider was hired to head a behavior sciences office, an office that would evolve under Licklider's two-year directorship into the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) which would direct the original creation of the Internet. Licklider in 1960 has written a manifesto for using computers to enhance research and research collaboration called "Man-Computer Symbiosis" and would define the IPTO's office's mandate in research funding. As importantly, Licklider's university background encouraged him and his successors to extend ARPA's funding to a range of university projects. One key project was a $3 million per year grant to Project MAC at MIT to encourage the spread of time-sharing computing on the then-breakthrough minicomputer technology. ARPA would fund six of the first twelve time-sharing computer systems in the country, which in turn would help spark the whole minicomputer industry in the 1960s--crucial in the industry and the Boston-area regional economy then but as crucial to the development of the Internet over the next decades. Out of Project MAC would largely develop the early ethos of software and hardware innovation--"hacking" in its early non-pejorative sense before it became confused with electronic vandalism--that launched the computer revolution. It was MIT hackers at Project MAC who largely designed both hardware and software for DEC's breakthrough PDP-6 timesharing minicomputer. They would spend endless hours creating and sharing new software to extend its capabilities beyond the expectations of its creators. Isn't it amazing how the government will still not grant any contracts unless the organisation has a Unix offering? You can read the entire white paper here. Either that or you can read about the contributions made by Douglas Englebart, Tim Berners-Lee, J.C.R. Licklider, and many more when it's published this Fall by Penn State Press.

	Zzzzzzz (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 11:46:51 PM PST

	Oh, look, Nawl has taken his usual self-serving defintions and spun yet another delusional, droning, casually inferred War and Peace treatise rationalizing the importance of unimportant hackers and their failing hackerOS. Now fortified with a NEW! IMPROVED! startling theory of film criticism to incite 0.24% of all computers users into a frenzy of righteous indignation against the conspiratorial hollywood mogul shepherds leading the luser flock against their super intelligent hacker superiors colloquially known as "tech-support". Hacker flics would suck 100 times worse if they accurately depicted the Nawls of this world and their boring obsession with obsolescent computer minutiae. You're terminally uninteresting, nawl, and your glorification of script kiddies isnt convincing. There's a world of difference between academics and the TorvaLunatix who expertly use badly copied perpetually 5 year old Windows technology kludged onto a pedestrian clone of the ancient decomposing flesh of unix. You barely know a thing about computers, nawl -- certainly nothing that cant be learned playing a hypothetical version of Geek Trivial Pursuit, emphasis trivial. What makes you think you're Pauline Kael all of a sudden?

	look look (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 12:22:19 AM PST

	Oh yes and look at you. There was nothing in the essay that suggested it was wriiten by hackers nor that computer movies are about hackers. So what he insulted Microsftites in the essay. Let's start up with a bunch of trash talk about Lunatix and hackers and blah blah blah. As was said before, anyone with a decent knowledge of computers could point out that computer movies suck. And I'm not talking about movies about hackers. I'm talking about them all. I really like the end of the essay where the author makes a reference to the Terminator. What hacker flicks are there? "Hackers" was a piece of shit. Hell people I know with almost no knowledge of computers could tell you that. No but let's let the point made completely fly over your head so you can continue with your simple minded broken record rhetoric. I'm sorry point you seem to be responding to a completely different post. I also noticed that you dropped the other parts of your argument. What's the matter? Did you some real research and found out your a pompous jerkoff that starts typing bullshit without knowing the facts? You sound like an elementary school kid. You can't win an argument so you attempt to change the subject in your favor. "Well, well, you're a doodey head!" I don't need to use big words or quote famous authors. I choose to speak my mind without having to look up and steal every other sentence I want to type. "Oh look, I'm trying to sound like Dennis Miller". Fuck off. And one more thing. Why don't you take your witchhunt somewhere else. I'm sure there are a number Of post that look similar to the one you're trying to respond to. I mean, typing in bold Then responding in plain text must mean it's NAWL, right?

	what facts? Nawl presented no facts (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 01:37:28 AM PST

	NAWL recited some dweeb reading the glorification of hackers back into a revisionist interpretation of history. Nothing he said means a damn thing. As was said before, anyone with a decent knowledge of computers could point out that computer movies suck. You missed it the first time. Here it is again. "Hacker flics would suck 100 times worse if they accurately depicted the Nawls of this world and their boring obsession with obsolescent computer minutiae." Get it? They dont make movies to entertain people whose idea of a good time is theming gnome or futzing with $PS1. Why do you resent movie-going lusers having an innocent good time at your marginal expense? I also noticed that you dropped the other parts of your argument. You think you're participating in an argument between earnest peers honesting defending their intellectual position, do you? It makes you feel all smart inside to remain incorrigibly obtuse, doesnt it? I bet you also think you're registering an argument by blurting out "that's unpossible!" in a darkened theatre or by loudly embarrassing your date with speculation such as "that effect looks like it was rendered on Lunix! We're not leaving till the last credit has rolled." I choose to speak my mind without having to look up and steal every other sentence I want to type. "Oh look, I'm trying to sound like Dennis Miller". Fuck off. [...] I mean, typing in bold Then responding in plain text must mean it's NAWL, right? You may have a point. After all, most hacker lunatix share his inability to resist a tone of misplaced condescension while tirelessly defending their faith with pedantic corrections to irrelevant and intentionally misdirecting minutiae. In fact, if you hadnt protested your ignorance so strongly, I might have lingering doubts as to your identity.

	Alias (none / 0) (#60)
	by Fordi on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 09:32:39 AM PST

	Have you seen this show? Mr. Mitnick plays (of all things) a hacker of sorts. And an accurate one at that. They have him consult on all the new theoretical gadgets and the "hacks" he does on the air. And alias is a damn good show. No, to be honest, if something is boring, don't make a movie about it. When was the last time you saw a movie about particle physicists?

	Linux is better, but I still use Win2k (none / 0) (#59)
	by Fordi on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 09:28:49 AM PST

	And why? Guess what. Linux is a faster system. It is. I've USED it to do the same tasks in less time than in Windows. Not that Win doesn't have its merits. For example, in linux you can do things faster -- if you already know how to do it in the first place. Yeah, my apache server will outperform your IIS server, but chances are your IIS took five minutes to set up while my inexperience with Apache made it take about 2 days. Linux is NOT easy to use, nor should it be; if my Apache server took five minutes to set up, I probably wouldn't have come across all the things I could do to make it more secure, either. Your IIS server is still looking like you just installed it -- and you wonder why you just got hit with a massive DoS. Linux is for servers and geeks. If you're basically an intellectual masochist, as are most good technologists, Linux is your way to go. What breeds Zealots? The hours and hours they spent learning how to use Linux. To them, it IS easy to use, and if you haven't the patience to sit there and learn yourself, you're obviously inferior in the attention span department. You'll find the same thing in the music world. You'll find many, many people who play metal guitar (Windows user analogue), then you'll find the classical pianists (Linux 0wn3r analogue) who can't stand the metalheads. It's a matter of the skillful having no respect for those who can't be bothered. You want my stance? I love Linux, but the truth is I couldn't see using it for anything where I have to interact with it for an extended period of time. Win2k makes life easy. I don't support Microsoft; yeah, I paid for Win2k. But I use StarOffice rather than MS Office. I close their pop-ups. I hack Win2k's resources to remove their logos and disclaimers. I get around the installer licences by hard-removing them prior to installaion. You think that's illegal? What, I don't distribute the modified software, and I do this before accepting the liscence. The agreement there is what makes software modification a breach of contract. I use Win2k, but I will not allow ANY software to have more control over my computer than I do.

	funny thing... (none / 0) (#61)
	by nathan on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 11:04:35 AM PST

	I am a professional classical musician, and I don't hate amateurs (or metalheads.) Without amateurs I am nothing. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	God, you are an idiot, NAWL (none / 0) (#46)
	by nathan on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 04:39:27 AM PST

	Has any movie ever correctly represented anyone's professional behaviour? I suppose you think that Martin Chuzzlewit is a novel about Howard Roark's civil engineering skills. For your edification, allow me to present you with a few relevant jerkcity links. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Damnit, nathan... (none / 0) (#47)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 07:34:41 AM PST

	You always beat me to the punch. huahlulagaghhahaaal....

	Negotiating the complexities of a bike ride home. (none / 0) (#49)
	by derek3000 on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 11:19:51 AM PST

	Technophiles can't stand ignorance. (Which should be an indicator to all you Microsofties that you shouldn't call yourselves technophiles.) I never really considered myself a technophile, and I guess I was right not to, since I love ignorance and use M$oft Winbl0ws. But then again, maybe thinking that the only worthwhile knowledge is related to computers is the true mark of ignorance. I don't know; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, NAWL/Mad Scientist. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Very accurate (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:00:45 AM PST

	When I first saw the title I thought: "Oh shit, there it goes again. One more load of bullshit about Linux. One more shitload of stupid posts from pro and anti-Linux dumbasses." Having nothing better to do at the moment, I decided to read your article. Now I must congratulate you. This is the most accurate description of Linux zealotry I ever saw in fact, it is the most accurate description of any zealot I ever saw), except for the personal hygiene problem, which is totally made up. Well, who knows? I lived surrounded by Linux users (I was one myself) and none of them is a zealot (they use Windows too, in fact they use what they think is the best in a given situation), except one, who is very clean, but I suspect it is because they give him a shower to calm him down every morning in the lunatics hospital where I think he is residing. By the way he is not fat either. I hope someday you'll write something about Microsoft-zealots (Microsofties?) and Mac addicts, etc.

	Errata (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:05:16 AM PST

	Oops! I have lost one "(". There it is. I said I lived surrounded by Linux users. No. I live surrounded by them.

	Linux and windows are for different purposes (1.00 / 1) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 09:47:22 AM PST

	In NO WAY is linux ready for the desktop. It is either A) a hobbiests OS (as in my case. I have a dual boot with XP and Mandrake) or B) A server OS. It is NOT meant to be used for your grandma to write letters to you. That is what windows is for. Generally more advanced users can find many many flaws with windows and less with linux. THose flaws that they do find with linux can be fixed easily because of its open source philosophy. Windows is an operating system designed for idiots which can ONLY be used by idiots.

	You are a revisionist liar. (none / 0) (#16)
	by dmg on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 10:14:07 AM PST

	People are constantly claiming Linux is ready for the desktop. They point at StarOffice, and AbiWord and Konquerer as evidence. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	truth and contradiction (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:02:07 PM PST

	People are constantly claiming Linux is ready for the desktop. They point at StarOffice, and AbiWord and Konquerer as evidence. Linux is ready for the desktop. However, as someone pointed out before, it's not yet ready for everyone. I would say it's more for those that can navigate KDE, GNOME or whatever with little to no trouble. It's not for people that whine and bitch when moving between MacOS and Windows. I hear it all the time. "I don't like MacOS because I can't find this and that." Or maybe "Windows is very rigid and requires too much setup, configuration, and way too many reboots". With only a little bit of time, someone not expecting it too be exactly like the other can pick things up rather easily. This is a typical argument that I hear about Linux as well. People often like to ramble on about the command prompt forgetting that many of the tools are available with a graphical interface. They then say that KDE, GNOME or what not are copies of Windows, blah blah blah. Hello!?! Look at history. Who's copying who? The first Apple Lisa and Macintosh computers or the Xerox Alto. Hell a few developers like Douglas Englebart developed a rather nice (though simplified) GUI in the way before anyone. So who is copying who? People like to site the Taskbar as a prime example. Microsoft? Nope. Remember OS/2 Warp? Remember how MS delayed the release of Windows95? OS/2 was released before Win95 and had a WarpCenter (Taskbar) and LaunchPad (the dock: MacOS) and even had virtual desktops (a current Linux feature). In many ways it was superior to Windows. Microsoft can claim innovation because no one really remembers past OSes (especially younger users). Innovation my ass. OS/2 also had the Object Desktop Control Center. Also these elements in similar form are in GUIs available for unix-variants, but only one or two for Windows. Most are hidden away or not available without third party software in Windows. Linux developers has never really claimed innovation as far as look and some of the feel. It's more about familiarity. OS/2 Warp Desktop Tour

	Bollocks (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 09:59:23 AM PST

	You write: "I would say it's more for those that can navigate KDE, GNOME or whatever with little to no trouble." There's rather a lot more to Linux than navigating the desktop. Grandma had better take a crash course in using Google Groups to seek answers to the inevitable problems as she embarks on a journey of several years' frustration and destruction of data. Just coming to terms with what LILO and GRUB do to her MBR will be a fairly steep learning curve. She had better be prepared to spend in the order of up to a week to install apps, hunting down the dependencies all over the net and even then perhaps not getting something to run that literally would take one minute to install in Windows. Of course she can compile all her apps herself (!) but she'd better be patient because only one in five attempts will succeed. She will certainly broaden her horizons as she attempts to decode error messages such as "no iso.c in /etc/bin/lib/penguin kernel module fstab". If she can capture video from her DV camera via her Firewire card I will walk backwards to Finland and buy Linus Torvalds a beer. I suppose for graphics work she'll use Gimp. I really doubt she'll live long enough to figure out that byzantine, crash-prone monstrosity. I could go on. When trying to use Linux, the desktop is the least of one's worries. Bruce

	grandma shouldn't have to (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 05:30:02 PM PST

	OEone no need for any geekiness on grandma's part. also no need for expensive antivirus or firewall programs, or "utilities" to fix the thing when it crashes. this, and systems like it, is the future of linux. embrace it.