Is Linux for commies?
All hail the state. Back in the day, commies were not allowed to speak out against the state. You had to praise the state. All artwork was about how great communism was, all music, all journals. You couldn't even get an informative newspaper, because it was always printed full of pro-commusist messages. Conversation? 'Hows Russia?' 'It's great, man, it's got communism.' see? I've picked up a few copies of linux journal, and all it seems to print is how great linux is, why you suck if you use windows. While i have little respect for Microsoft (i thought Win 3.1x was ok.), I am quite often annoyed by linux users' attitude. They seem to do the linux think as if it were a middleclass trend(ie, commie liberals and 'art'.) I ask, where's the real information, and what the hell is up? (heh, Red Flag Linux..)
Not even. Bill Gates is a true capitalist pig, and i applaud him for that. However, I don't see how giving away a free operating system helps strengthen U.S. economy, or any economy for that matter. Linux functions to stop Software competition because you can't compete with 'free' (as in not paying). did anyone read the article about china hacking into the pentagon? I see this happening more eaisily if the whole world was open source. And what in the hell do you mean "russia has never been communist"?
As strangestranger already mentioned Russia is / was totalitarian not communist.
The Soviet Union was also totalitarian not communist.
Certainly they were influenced by communism but they were not actually communists.
I am very much a capitalist pig, am anything but friendly to communism yet I support open source.
Surrealdeal brings an interesting point. There is more than a ferver supporting linux. Why? Because people save money? It seems to be more than that. I don't mind linux and I think there is something to say for Torvald giving it away for free. It appears that Linux vs Windows is a zealous battle with vicious negative threats, (not your statements at all by the way) etc about a bunch of software?! There is more to feelings that deep, than software. I don't get it. Freedom? Choice? Ok... but there has to be something else to it.
I have entertained the idea of trying ubuntu out on one of my machines at home for fun but as I read and look into that stuff, I will have to spend more time, learn more about linux, spend more time and really just have a web browsing machine that I can play media files on. Understand that I am not a programmer, I am a nerd in the medical field and really don't have time for all of that. What advantage is that to me? Windows was made to help organize etc and it worked. No its not perfect, but I coudn't get anything done without it. Isn't that why programmers have jobs? To make it so those who don't can use pc's?
(Russia is/was totalitarian in its form of governement (held by the wealthy.) Communism is a form of economics, for which they were, or were the closest thing to.)
By downloading you agree to the terms and conditions of one linux philosophy, ie GNU licencing. It's all about 'open'. Instills a sense of worthlessness that nothing you make can amount to anything because it will only be recompiled under the GNU. Your only redemption is to 'advance the state of open source', reinforcing helplessness. The thing about commies i hate the most is that commies are about being commies; propaganda has become a lifestyle. And i see that happining in the linux community.
You mention 'deeper feelings'. How many people do you know would like to 'help the world' but don't exactly know how. Like a porn-star that was molested by her father, longing for something. I think that the appeal of linux is that you are supposedly 'helping the world' by perfecting software no one has to pay for because the starving in africa really really need that free database program. It's a delusion.
We do have neurotic teenagers working on linux, don't we now?
riser said:To each their own.
Well I'm just wondering what it says about my political leanings when I'm posting this on an open source copy of firefox running on a capitalist pig copy of XP running on a free (as in price) yet closed source VMWare machine running on very open source copy of Ubuntu.
Observations from my switch to Linux back in 04.
XP crashed and my disc lost data.
I'd O/C'd my machine to the point where reactivating XP was going to require a call to MS
After years playing with Windows from 3.0 to XP and Win2k server I just fancied a change
I support it as I do a good bar or resteraunt. I recommend it to others and tell them that despite the slightly rough edges they have some lovely drinks/food and the prices are fantastic. I can see why people eat McDonalds, they know what they are getting. Personally I'd rather take the risk of the odd dish I might not get on with to the bland taste every time I ate out.
Quote:propaganda has become a lifestyle. And i see that happining in the linux community
I agree with you there. Propaganda is prevalent. It reminds me of when I went to Jordan earlier this year and an Arab man continually tried to teach me Arabic. Then they wanted to tell me about how their grandfather owned the land and how good it all was. Another man told a friend with me that we should move there and live. (NOTE: This is not a racist/hateful statement, I do not hate Arabs, Moslems, Jews, etc. I just didn't want to learn Arabic, the area we were in was nothing different than usual and, no, I do not want to move there.) That is what some, not all, of the linux stuff reminds me of. "Come and move here", and on and on, yet for what gain? I agree with you, just to further this work/agenda/ideal?
I am certainly open to any thoughts that a person who thinks linux is great has, but for objective reasons, not just because one should use it. ( I realize it is used for servers and the like, but I am coming from the standpoint as pc user that does not program.)
Surreal, you've got to be a psychologists wet dream ... If you think Linux is communist like, then bloody Microsloth is 100% Nazi! Hail Bill a little less and have an open mind, you seem pretty bent on this commie thing
Anyway, in the very end, it's up the the end user. No one is forcing you. I ran windows for half my life while, eventually went to a linux operating system, I like it enough that I recommend it to my friends, but I don't force them to use it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I respect that, but I feel your comments have been the lowest sledging we've seen in these forums.
All software has bugs of some sort, with windows, you just pay for them.
yawn. You use firefox? you're a commie. You use XP? you're a helpless commie. Furthurmore, VM?! what, you can't just get a dedicated machine? Or do you miss the familiar sting of MS? Maybey you just play games on it, it which case you are a child. Ubuntu? hah. a 'user friendly linux'. You've been brainwashed into thinking that you need a pretty interface.
@knightrous... I have always admired the Nazis. They pulled off socialism in a hardcore, non-pansy way; and their scientists have always been overly commited to their work. case in point: BMW. case in point: magnetic media, prelimenary atom bombs, rockets, anti-cancer propaganda. Microsoft has bugs, so does linux. A LOT. And that's where the nazi's come in. It's survival of the fittest: If you as a consumer can't debug applications than that is too bad. People really ought to arm themselves with disassemblers and debug programs. If MS has a fault, it's that it's standards aren't open enough. Note standards, not operating system. If you want the red chineese, and ex-soviet states posing a threat to information systems worldwide, than I suppose MS should be a little more open. Or you could use linux. (Or let them buy 3Com.)
surrealdeal said:yawn. You use firefox? you're a commie. You use XP? you're a helpless commie. Furthurmore, VM?! what, you can't just get a dedicated machine? Or do you miss the familiar sting of MS? Maybey you just play games on it, it which case you are a child. Ubuntu? hah. a 'user friendly linux'. You've been brainwashed into thinking that you need a pretty interface.
Far from it. I just happened to be having a play with some networking setups the other night. As for a second machine why bother? Why take up the space and run up the electric bill when I can do it all on one system? Why do I even have XP on there... lowest common denominator. By the way I don't do computer games, not since my 48k days anyway.
As for being 'Brainwashed' far from it. I chose Ubuntu after trying Fedora and Suse and a few other smaller distros. I used to work with a few flavours of Unix and have done my time at the command line. For me it was about a distro that looked like it would be around for a while and which automated a lot of the mundaine tasks. It was like Debian only more polished and there was already a good community there to support me.
May we enquire as to what OS you are running and why you chose it? You seem quick enough to dismiss most things out there I really am curious.
Too mean. i will neither confirm, nor deny, that i use mac os. Though i will say that your tone seems quite elitist. Your primary argument for using linux is that other oses seem too bland, and i must refer you to my previous post where i compared linux users going after linux like a yuppie looking for the next trendy thing. MSG makes things taste better, but causes nerve damage.
What exactly did you expect when you start off with the tone you did. I welcome some discussion about the pros and cons of various systems. They all have plus points, even Mac OS. Indeed I'd quite like a Mac Mini to play with.
You made some very simple mistakes, one of them being to think that access to source code makes a system less secure. Code that is reviewed by thousand of users and which the developers know will be visible to others forces them to make security and robustness part of the initial design and not an afterthought.
Linux has its faults. It is a fragmented system where much effort is spread across far to many distributions for its own good. I make no apologies for having a degree in computing or having spent 10 years+ working daily with computers. If you knew the truth of my situation which is that I simply can not afford new hardware or to pay for an OS then maybe you could see that a lot of my motives for using linux are purely financial, however I'd still not take a Vista box over my Ubuntu system as I just prefer it. Simple as that.
You know people respond to what they find they are presented with. If you want to chill the tone and have a sensible discussion then please just take out the emotion and the insults and we will all gladly share our experiences.
"You made some very simple mistakes, one of them being to think that access to source code makes a system less secure. Code that is reviewed by thousand of users and which the developers know will be visible to others forces them to make security and robustness part of the initial design and not an afterthought. "
IBM has thousands of engineers, with a minumum guaranteed B.S. in computer science, working on AIX, MVS... closed systems. My concern is that open source leaves room for one billion chineese hackers to disrupt vital communications.
How? Please expand on this one as I really am missing it. Yes IBM has some great developers but look at Sun, they have OpenSolaris out there so are they now less secure? No. They are more secure as a result of feedback. Security should be wholly independent of ability to see the source.
You should also consider the shear number of chips that get made in China. If the Chinese government wanted to they could use HW as a more more robust attack vector. Also consider that China is developing its own Linux distro known as Red Flag linux which is being used on many of the government system so if its that insecure the US has just been given a nice way into there networks.
I can see why on initial looks it might appear the way you see it but please trust me on this one. Some of the most insecure systems I have ever used have been closed source. I'm not saying all open source software is more secure but at least an informed and skilled user can have a look to see for themselves rather than placing blind trust in a corporation.
It's like the current cult of firewall and antivirus as the way to lock down systems. Its just one way of doing it and there are others..
Mostly because it empowers the chineese with software, that should be enough. You are essentially giving away technological expertise.
Bad analogy: we helped japan modernize, then they attack perl harbor.
Second: Though several parts of the operating system are open source, it doesn't mean that peer review will help, say, applications. I could set up a sourceforge project, and fill it full of faulty code.
Indeed you could and it has happened before now. One of the reasons I am cautious about what I play with. This is why the puritans of the Linux world do not like binary drivers and the like as the option to review the code is just not there.
As for empowering nations there is a flip side to that which is that it has also enabled the democracy movement in China which has to be a good thing. You have to remember though that China does have a brain itself and has developed much code in house. Interestingly MS famously stole a lot of theirs. Did you know the MS TCP/IP stack is based on BSD? How about the bits of OS/2 they took... It does work both ways.
All software, even that which you write yourself is dependent on trust. The compiler you use could insert code at compile time allowing back doors into systems. The question is really who do you trust? Given that government agencies have before now hinted that Linux is a terrorist tool because they are to dumb to understand how to read a non FAT/NTFS file system I do wonder at times.... You can not stop the spread of knowledge and frankly I think it would be wrong to do so.
Maybe we should ban the export of Linux to china and start a campaign to post them all the used Mac's to hold back their development
Talk about a total troll
Surreal, you don't happen to come from the CPU side of the forums do you If not, maybe you should take up residence up there. Can we get an moderator in here, this is no longer a discussion about Linux, but more of one person discriminating against countries while having a good troll.
Well, Linux_0, the best leaders are the ones who take up the mantle of leadership because it is thrust upon them, not because they seek power. I am certain you would make an excellent moderator since you are a regular at this forum and you have good manners and help others. You would certainly have my vote
Thanks knightrous. I'm feeling well run down today and taken a sick day and that has lifted my spirits somewhat. I'm flattered that people would even think of me as a mod candidate but I don't things have gotten that bad you need to put a chimp in charge. Mind you if it works for a super power...
I agree that Linux_0 would make a great mod. Same with MU. Personally I don't think my Linux knowledge is strong enough to justify the title. Bmourning would also be on my list if he was still visiting... I suspect he's too busy getting BSD running on his toaster.
bmouring already did that years ago
Have a look http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/08/11/toaster-pc-runs-bsd-and-makes-toast
The article states Embedded Linux and not BSD
I was waiting for somebody to link to the ToAsTer
If you've never had a look on that site I recommend it as a good source of interesting projects. One of the slickest I've seen is:
That one just appeals to the chimps sick tastes. There's one on the same site that I just can't seem to find where the guy fitted one into the box that a copy WinXP is supplied in. He then realised he had a copy of RedHat sat there so set it up with a mercury switch so it boots Win/RedHat depending on which way up you have the box. If somebody finds it please post the link as it was a lovely piece of work..
No one escapes the meta-narritive.
Bipartisan controll of the linux forum ensures that linux zealots do not use it to simply promote their agenda.
@knightrous: Linux and commies and china (oh, my!) go hand in hand.
; The better than sliced bread analogy does not apply. One can compare linux to a condement, since some would try to put it on everything. The fact that linux users even bother to call a floppy based linux a distribution shows how self defeating they are. They aim low, and achieve less.
Because we all want to try and run Vista on our phones / routers / PVR don't we. You just miss the point so badly it hurts. Sometimes people do things just for a challenge. A floppy based distro is designed for a very small audience and to do a very specific task.
Have you ever even used a Linux system? Have you ever found yourself unable to upgrade to a new version of a commercial OS? Please if you don't like it fine. We don't hang out in the Vista section saying its better this is after all a Linux discussion forum so what the hell do you expect?
The mods are busy folks and I really don't want to resort to having to ask them to move this to an area where we can have the slanging match you so evidently desire. If you want a scrap head down the other and I'll gladly have one but please leave these nice folks in peace.
surrealdeal said:points: 1. I've used linux before, slackware 3.5 and a bunch of other versions, though they all 'did not satisfy me'
Slackware 3.5 came out in June of 1998 according to Distrowatch. Slack 3.5 compares to current Linux distros as we;; as Windows 98 compares to Vista and MacOS 8 compares to MacOS 10.5.Quote:2. Why not just use asm to program a phone
For the same reason we don't program our computers in assembly as well. They are increasingly complex and run a multitude of programs, pretty much requiring an OS. Doing all of that in assembler would be a nightmare.Quote:3. Linux for embedded designs takes up too much space.
Apparently it is either not too much space or the advantages of using the OS and toolkit beats that of other solutions in at least some cases as embedded Linux is used very widely. Most companies aren't stupid and tend to try to get the best value for their money for software.Quote:4. move bash 'surrealdeal' to community > other
I take it you have not used a *nix shell before. Uh, how about this:
"mv -ax ./surrealdeal /forum/community/other"
First, "mv" is the move command in any UNIX shell I've ever used. Somebody could have linked "move" to "mv" but the actual command is mv. Secondly, bash is the default shell in most terminals. If it wasn't, you'd want to type that in first before any other commands (e.g. mv.) Third, the mv command uses the syntax of "mv [options] file target_dir" so you'd not say "to." And finally the > is a redirect, so whatever you did on the left would get copied to a file on the other side of the >. You could move something with the redirect by doing something like:
cat ./surrealdeal > /forum/other/community/surrealdeal
MU_Engineer said:Apparently it is either not too much space or the advantages of using the OS and toolkit beats that of other solutions in at least some cases as embedded Linux is$ used very widely. Most companies aren't stupid and tend to try to get the best value for their money for software.
Indeed. Linux is everywhere in the embedded world, because it's open source, it has lots of hardware and software support and it's free.
Most people don't have any idea of how widespread it is; just for one example, next time you go to a store and there's a surveillance camera watching you... that may be one of the ones I helped develop, running Linux. Phones, MP3 players, portable navigation systems, in-car entertainment, etc, etc, etc... all may be running Linux.
For that very reason, I think it's almost certain that there are more systems in the world running Linux than any Microsoft operating system. No wonder Bill Gates wants to push people away from it.
It seems, from reading the posts, that there are a few issues that people are not happy with when referring to Linux. I'll start by saying that I have been in the industry for well over 20 years and have watched it change from commodore 64, dos, dos extender technologies, to virtual machines to win286/386 and on 3.0, 3.1, winfwg, winnt3.51, nt4, 95, 98, me, 2k and ultimately windows xp and now vista. My primary OS, by choice, is Linux.
With that said, for a long time I had tried Linux and was very unhappy. One point for about a year I ran Fedora and Suse but quit and went back to Windows for 2 years. Then I went to Ubuntu and have since not looked back.
I repair computers and build custom computers for a living. I own a small systems integrator shop.
The first thing that I read in this thread is that Linux doesn't deserve nor should it have the support of the community that develops it. I seem to read that to even consider it makes it an evil thing because it doesn't cost you money up front.
The second is that the Linux users have no right to voice how they feel because, as with most societies, the squeeky wheel gets the grease and it is only through the zealoutrous activities does Linux get noticed.
Linux folks are getting heard and I think that bothers a lot of people. If you were to read the vast majority of what is written about Windows and Microsoft you'll, especially over the years (including pounding of the drums by the trade journals), have no choice but to admit that the Microsoft fans act in the same manner--they profess the benefits of their choice even to the extreme which generally lacks even pragmatic realities.
I'd say that the issue the original poster has can be resolved by "just getting over it". The Linux crowd is doing nothing that hasn't already been done for Windows in spades over the years. In order to get to where we are today with Windows we had two factors--illegal monopolistic practices by Microsoft, and people yelling at the top of their voices mocking the competition. It took that to get Microsoft Windows to where we are now.
What helps Windows is that it is a complex program that has an endless amount of issues that must be supported. To give up Windows is seen as giving up your hard earned knowledge. Reality doesn't work that way. But people are educated to believe that since they have their certifications and have spent years upon years learning Windows, that switching (or anyone professing an alternative) is a negative rather than a positive.
Linux isn't free, not in the traditional sense. You don't just install it and have it work. You install it free of charge, but the costs are in your time to learn it and in your support of the community once you learn it. People that want to install and don't want to support it can readily pay for support. Personally I make money off Linux (as well as Windows and the Mac). I perform installs and configuration on it and give advice on how to best use it. I do not base my business plan on it but it is there making money for me.
With commercial software you pay for it up front and then you pay for it when you need support. There's nothing wrong with that. But to say that Linux is evil because it is free up front, and it doesn't support capitalism, is extreme.
What is happening is that the original poster is expressing his extreme views in response to those expressing their view (some of whom also are extreme). He seems to want to make anyone that falls within the category of having "used or support FOSS" part of an evil entity.
Linux is becoming a friendly environment and it supports most if not all (and then some) of the features found in most GUI based operating systems. Not only that it has become top quality and literally can do what the vast majority of users need it to do for day in and day out activities.
What proprietary software has available to it is money for marketing. What the FOSS community has going for it is their belief that in the end FOSS will overtake proprietary software.
What you must understand is that 1) FOSS can wait and take the time necessary to overtake proprietary, and 2) it is inevitable that FOSS will overtake proprietary. Once software achieves a certain level of functionality then the issue of acceptance is one of the mind which is influenced by marketing. Once the software achieves that level, users will view choice as being available. When that occurs you'll have nothing but the marketing dollars and/or the zealot out there attempting to influence others (for any given OS--Windows, Macintosh or Linux (or some other)).
What we have today is choice and that's what Linux brought us. Microsoft was getting out of hand. They had adopted the concept that if they put enough "locking technologies" (or rather lock in technologies) the users would not have a choice and they would have to stay with Microsoft. They used DRM, DirectX, and various other APIs to lock the consumer in. When we consider Vista and realize that DRM was being implemented at the API level and it was being incorporated into the hardware provided by manufacturers you can't help but admit that DRM was going to be the next huge lock in technology meant to keep you from choosing an alternative. You can think of it in terms of your investment in consumable data. If your purchases stictly adhered to DRM from Microsoft that content could not and would not run on other platforms. After that builds up over a few years your investment in the consumable data (not just the OS and the Hardware) influences your willingness to switch. If you invest in 2-3 thousand dollars a year into DRM consumable content then when the times comes to make a choice you really don't have one unless you are willing to give up all that prior money.
The thing that bothers me most about all of this is that the OS seems to be central to the argument even though what should be central to any argument is the end user's tasks. It isn't the OS that matters, it is what the end user wants to do with whatever they bought the computer for. The Windows zealots and Microsoft have completely lost that idea. I see the Linux community making these things known to the consumer.
Also, keep in mind that FOSS is not just for Linux. There is plenty of FOSS software for Windows and other platforms. You can get Open Office for Windows, you can get Firefox (and many other browsers) for Windows (and as far as free vs. paid software keep in mind that it was Microsoft that began giving away IE to compete against the "for cost" Netscape Navigator). What it seems to me is that we have some in this thread who are being seletive in their willingness to argue their point and only specifying the negative when it comes to Linux. In reality, the free vs. paid started as an anti-competitive practice by Microsoft. Netscape had to give up their commercial software business instead opting for a different business model in order to stay in business.
In reality, Linux is no more free than Windows is (in the long run) because ultimately everyone needs support and that support is what costs you money in the Linux industry. It is really Microsoft that began practices which were harming the consumer by giving away IE while incorporating it into the OS and then forbidding VARs from adding any alternative. When software achieves a certain level of functionality the one that gets the word out to the most people becomes the winner. During the time that Windows was becoming the de-facto standard we saw that in spades--the zealots professing Windows over other superior technologies of the day. Now that the Linux voice is rising we have a few spiteful reluctant individuals assuming the worse and choosing to spread selective information that is misleading or wholly false in an effort to squelch the cheers of the benefits of FOSS.