Nobody Said That!
I should have included this in my recent list of ways Linux is like theology. You can't criticize Linux because somebody somewhere made their own version of Linux yesterday morning before breakfast which is intended to not have that problem; and they think you're criticizing them. But when I mean Linux, I mean the mainstream. I mean the thousands and thousands of open-source OS devotees and all the things that they really do have in common. Yes, there's variety, but they really do have certain things overwhelmingly in common. So do people of faith, from the Ayatollah to a little old lady down the street. More about that in a moment.
There are a lot of people telling me Linux is ready for everyone to use as a desktop system. But when I describe the experience I end up having which is not ready for the non-expert, and complain that the situation has been misrepresented, some other open-source OS advocates will stand up and say "hey, where are you getting that? Nobody's saying that. I never said that. I never heard any Linux supporter tell you that. Nobody said it was ready for you."
Well here's a link to another one.
The title "Five Reasons Not To Use Linux" is satirical. Mr. Vaughn-Nichols successfully debunks reasons three through five, but the first two are perfectly valid reasons not to use Linux. Yes, the install process is relatively painless with some of the better flavors of Linux, but unless you really know what you're doing you have no idea if your BIOS, hard drive or internet access hardware will set up successfully. Mr. Vaughn-Nichols' rebuttals are hysterical: "with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account. Gosh, that's hard." In your dreams, VN. I've used those distros.
He would have us believe the rate at which you use the command line in Windows is commensurate with the likelihood of using it in Linux. This, too, is hysterical. I have never once used the command line in Windows. Two minutes after the install of Linux any non-expert will be asking an expert how to do something and the only way the expert will know how to do it is with the command line.
Don't get me wrong, I support Linux and I can't wait for the day I can recommend it to anyone. What's even better is, I see leaps and bounds of progress in the last few years leading me to believe this day is coming right around the corner. But some folks are so used to doing things the hard way -- the 9 to 5 working on computers way -- the IT professional way -- that I guess they've forgotten what it's like to not be a power user. So it's impossible from that point of view for Linux to not meet a user's needs; because the problem is perceived as being with the user. What they do is not easy or normal and they need to keep that in perspective.
Similarly, a secularist can't criticize faith without immediately being pounced on by religious progressives who made up a new-and-improved religion yesterday before breakfast and now consider it normal. "Hold on," they say, "who said god was authoritarian, or faith and reason aren't compatible? What? When? Huh? What? Nobody said that." Um, how about this: how about almost everybody ever. That's like inventing a new operating system yesterday before breakfast that nobody heard of, and isn't compatible with Debian or RedHat or anything, and makes you start over from scratch.
"I came up with a totally new mental practice and I'm calling it faith. So, don't criticize the mental practices referred to by Christian Supremacists and Iranian clerics as faith! That word is off-limits, or else I couldn't have my own faith! Just oppose their mean and irrational actions!" Where do you think actions come from? Beliefs. If beliefs can't be criticized and weighed and judged, you're fighting the symptoms instead of the disease.
Imagine that I am -- metaphorically -- in armed combat with the Family Research Council or somebody like that. I will never hassle you about your religion or even mention it to you until you run up and pull my weapon out of my hands. If you do that, you know what? If you stand between me and the theocrats, fuck your precious faith. Fuck it in and around the ass region and that vicinity. Do religious progressives have any idea what price they're asking us to pay? Whatever benefit is gained from progressive religion isn't worth leaving unopposed the problems that mainstream religions tend to have in common. That would be a horrific cost. We're playing with grown-ups and the stakes are higher than the games you're playing. When I say "faith" I mean the awful mental sleight of hand and self-delusion that is actually practiced every day by the six billion people who never heard of the progressive religion you made up yesterday. I complain about the shit I have to put up with. If you're not going to help fight that fight, so that you can go on smoking your spiritual weed, at least stop trying to disarm us of the most important weapon: I raise my hand and say "excuse me abortion clinic bombers and terrorists and legislators, faith is make believe."
There are a lot of people telling me Linux is ready for everyone to use as a desktop system. But when I describe the experience I end up having which is not ready for the non-expert, and complain that the situation has been misrepresented, some other open-source OS advocates will stand up and say "hey, where are you getting that? Nobody's saying that. I never said that. I never heard any Linux supporter tell you that. Nobody said it was ready for you."
Well here's a link to another one.
The title "Five Reasons Not To Use Linux" is satirical. Mr. Vaughn-Nichols successfully debunks reasons three through five, but the first two are perfectly valid reasons not to use Linux. Yes, the install process is relatively painless with some of the better flavors of Linux, but unless you really know what you're doing you have no idea if your BIOS, hard drive or internet access hardware will set up successfully. Mr. Vaughn-Nichols' rebuttals are hysterical: "with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account. Gosh, that's hard." In your dreams, VN. I've used those distros.
He would have us believe the rate at which you use the command line in Windows is commensurate with the likelihood of using it in Linux. This, too, is hysterical. I have never once used the command line in Windows. Two minutes after the install of Linux any non-expert will be asking an expert how to do something and the only way the expert will know how to do it is with the command line.
Don't get me wrong, I support Linux and I can't wait for the day I can recommend it to anyone. What's even better is, I see leaps and bounds of progress in the last few years leading me to believe this day is coming right around the corner. But some folks are so used to doing things the hard way -- the 9 to 5 working on computers way -- the IT professional way -- that I guess they've forgotten what it's like to not be a power user. So it's impossible from that point of view for Linux to not meet a user's needs; because the problem is perceived as being with the user. What they do is not easy or normal and they need to keep that in perspective.
Similarly, a secularist can't criticize faith without immediately being pounced on by religious progressives who made up a new-and-improved religion yesterday before breakfast and now consider it normal. "Hold on," they say, "who said god was authoritarian, or faith and reason aren't compatible? What? When? Huh? What? Nobody said that." Um, how about this: how about almost everybody ever. That's like inventing a new operating system yesterday before breakfast that nobody heard of, and isn't compatible with Debian or RedHat or anything, and makes you start over from scratch.
"I came up with a totally new mental practice and I'm calling it faith. So, don't criticize the mental practices referred to by Christian Supremacists and Iranian clerics as faith! That word is off-limits, or else I couldn't have my own faith! Just oppose their mean and irrational actions!" Where do you think actions come from? Beliefs. If beliefs can't be criticized and weighed and judged, you're fighting the symptoms instead of the disease.
Imagine that I am -- metaphorically -- in armed combat with the Family Research Council or somebody like that. I will never hassle you about your religion or even mention it to you until you run up and pull my weapon out of my hands. If you do that, you know what? If you stand between me and the theocrats, fuck your precious faith. Fuck it in and around the ass region and that vicinity. Do religious progressives have any idea what price they're asking us to pay? Whatever benefit is gained from progressive religion isn't worth leaving unopposed the problems that mainstream religions tend to have in common. That would be a horrific cost. We're playing with grown-ups and the stakes are higher than the games you're playing. When I say "faith" I mean the awful mental sleight of hand and self-delusion that is actually practiced every day by the six billion people who never heard of the progressive religion you made up yesterday. I complain about the shit I have to put up with. If you're not going to help fight that fight, so that you can go on smoking your spiritual weed, at least stop trying to disarm us of the most important weapon: I raise my hand and say "excuse me abortion clinic bombers and terrorists and legislators, faith is make believe."