Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #25 Tue, 7 Mar 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Frequently Rehashed Topics on comp.os.linux.advocacy V1.1-pre5 (Matthias Warkus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Frequently Rehashed Topics on comp.os.linux.advocacy V1.1-pre5
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:35:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frequently Rehashed Topics on comp.os.linux.advocacy
Matthias Warkus, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1.1-pre5, first posted: January 9th, 2000
This document lists topics that are rehashed with annoying frequency
on the comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup.
______________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
1. Changes
1.1 Since version 1.1-pre4
1.2 Since version 1.1-pre3
1.3 Since version 1.1-pre2
1.4 Since version 1.1-pre1
1.5 Since version 1.0
2. Purpose of this document
3. Where to find the FRT
4. Linux on the desktop
4.1 Linux needs a single GUI.
4.2 We need Foo, Inc.'s single GUI!
4.3 They could kill it with proprietary extensions!
4.4 They could kill it with a proprietary desktop!
4.5 Diversity will be the downfall of X.
5. User-friendliness
5.1 Linux is impossible to install.
5.2 Grandmaternal issues
6. Market share and what comes and goes with it
6.1 We need more market share.
6.2 We need to crush Microsoft.
6.3 If it does not run Office, it is worthless!
6.4 We need a killer app.
6.5 Will it have got to be dumbed down?
7. Licensing issues
7.1 You cannot make money out of it.
7.2 You must give away everything you write for it.
8. The X Windowing System
8.1 X is slow.
8.2 X is brain damaged.
8.3 X is the only choice there is!
9. Linux and Corporate Pangaea
9.1 Apple must support us!
9.2 Will Linux become a monopoly?
9.3 Is Red Hat a danger?
10. Philosophical Issues
10.1 Unix philosophy
10.2 Linux is an underground movement.
11. Being part of the community
11.1 Hey, do not expect me to fix things!
11.2 Why?
12. Resources
12.1 Related documents
12.2 Linux desktop environments and related projects
12.3 Linux office suites
12.4 Alternatives to the X Windowing System
12.5 Philosophical resources
13. Thanks
14. Legal stuff
15. Copyright
______________________________________________________________________
1. Changes
The most recent changes are mentioned first.
1.1. Since version 1.1-pre4
o Copyright changed to include year 2000.
o Remark about Samba added in section ``They could kill it with
proprietary extensions!''.
1.2. Since version 1.1-pre3
o Changed formatting of quotes.
o Added quotes dug up by Sandy Harris.
1.3. Since version 1.1-pre2
o Fixed legalese and removed the trademark symbol from ``Open
Source''.
o Removed references to the Y Windowing System. The project is
probably dead (has it ever been alive?).
o Added section ``Is Red Hat a danger?''.
o Added nice quote to ``User-friendliness''.
1.4. Since version 1.1-pre1
o Fixed spelling errors.
1.5. Since version 1.0
o In ``Purpose of this document'', changed recommended policy of
dealing with frequent rehashes.
o Fixes to the `table of organisation' in ``Diversity will be the
downfall of X.''.
o Renamed section ``Linux on the desktop''.
o The Berlin project is moving along. They've got significantly more
than just a button widget now. Fixed respective phrase in ``X is
the only choice there is!''.
o Fixed British English a bit. Removed contractions. They taught me
not to use contractions. General fixes in spelling and typography
as well.
o The FRT Web page's URL has changed (``Where to find the FRT'').
o Added Michael Benedict's paragraph about zeal and the Linux
community in section ``Why?''.
o Removed section about Intel and Red Hat. This special deal has not
become a frequently rehashed topic, although it looked like it
would one day.
o Added Changes section.
2. Purpose of this document
Ask not what the Linux community can do for you. Ask what
you can do for the Linux community.
This is a list of common misconceptions in the Linux advocacy
discussion. It is posted weekly on the comp.os.linux.advocacy
(c.o.l.a) Usenet group. This document is intended to free bandwidth of
c.o.l.a by explaining some topics that are constantly rehashed; the
people rehashing them are considered somewhat annoying by the broad
majority of the regular posters.
Every newbie on c.o.l.a should read this document. Furthermore, if one
of the topics in it is again brought up by someone without mentioning
any original aspects that have not been discussed before, it is
encouraged to answer them pointing at the respective article in this
list. Mailing this document in its entirety to someone without his
consent is strongly discouraged though. Probably the best way is to
respond with a pointer at the latest re-posting of this list or the
Web page, publicly, so other lurkers may learn the lesson.
Note, though, that the c.o.l.a FRT list is not intended to suppress
criticism in the advocacy discussion. The goal of this list is to free
bandwidth not (not only ;-)) for appraisal, but mainly for productive,
creative criticism of Linux that will eventually be of use to the OS,
the community and the users, as opposed to tiresome re-explanations.
If you do not agree with this document, contact the author about it.
Feedback is welcome.
3. Where to find the FRT
The lastest version of the FRT list should always be available at this
site:
FRT site on mawaspace <http://dev.nullmodem.de/mawa/frt/>
If something is wrong with the site, please contact me, the
maintainer, at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. Linux on the desktop
4.1. Linux needs a single GUI.
We provide mechanism, not policy. (From a design document or
manifesto for the X Windowing System.)
Q: I know something! We must make a single GUI for Linux so it gets
easier to use and we can achieve world domination! Why do we not do
that?
A: Diversity has always been a major strength of Unix (``There Is
Always Another Way''), and it would not be in anyone's best interest
to give it up in Linux. At the moment, there are dozens of major
efforts underway, each creating and developing novel windowing
systems, GUI toolkits and desktop environments that run on Linux.
There is no such thing as `one-size-fits-all' in the Linux community.
Furthermore, there is a definition problem, too. What does ``a single
GUI'' mean?
o A single windowing system?
o A single GUI library?
o A single desktop environment?
o A single style guide?
o A single look?
o A single feel?
The truth is, there is no definition of standardising a GUI that
everyone would agree with. Especially in the constantly growing and
changing world of Linux, there is no chance that such a
standardisation will ever be realised, since it would require phasing
out software hundreds of thousands, even millions of people are happy
with. No one will take decisions off your shoulders in the Linux
world. And no one in the Linux world cares to have decisions made for
them.
Take your pick and be happy, advocate the choice you made, but keep in
mind that it does no good to evangelise that your choice should be the
only one available.
4.2. We need Foo, Inc.'s single GUI!
Q: Is the single GUI Linux needs not the OS/2 Presentation Manager? Or
the Amiga Workbench? Or the RISCOS interface? Or the <blah> interface?
A: Perhaps you have come to Linux since you were previously using
OS/2, AmigaOS or RISCOS, and you felt like these systems had not got
much of a future. You wanted to move to an alternative system though,
and not to one of the ``mere main-stream'' platforms. Effectively, you
are still advocating your old platform and not Linux.
Implementations of the user interfaces of distinct platforms are
always welcome in the Linux world, but please refrain from trying to
make your particular pet desktop environment or style guide look like
it is, or should be, the only game in town.
4.3. They could kill it with proprietary extensions!
Q: Could MS not crush Linux by, say, porting the Microsoft Foundation
Classes to Linux or making other proprietary extensions to it?
A: We learn from history that an emulator has almost never given a
positive boost to the platform it emulates. Most emulators have only
increased the popularity of the platform they run on. If Microsoft
ported their APIs to Linux, the result would be an emulator similar to
Wine. Since they would not have got to reverse-engineer and re-
implement the API completely, their emulator would probably be better.
Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that MS would develop such a Windows
emulator or that it would by any means be harmful to the underlying
core of Linux.
The bottom line is that any proprietary extension to an open
environment such as Linux, be it Microsoft-based or not, will be
soundly rejected by the community. Developers tend to frown upon such
extensions in general, as evidenced by, say, Microsoft's proprietary
`enhancements' to the WWW (Chromeffects, FrontPage extensions etc.),
not to mention Java.
Most likely these extensions would not have any impact on Linux at
all. Surprisingly (although this will probably not surprise anymore
two years from now), it may have more of an impact on Windows than on
Linux. A reader has pointed out that when Microsoft announced planned
extensions to the SMB protocol, major customers who use Samba, the
highly popular free cross-platform SMB server (mostly used on Linux),
demanded that Microsoft keep Windows compatible with Samba (See this
article
<http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/990216/software/software6.html>).
4.4. They could kill it with a proprietary desktop!
Q: Could MS not crush Linux by making a commercial desktop environment
for Linux? If not them, could company <foo> do it?
A: People who bring this topic up are often the same who advocate a
single `standard' desktop environment, sometimes even a `standard'
shell for Linux. They fail to realise that reality is different. If
there was really a push towards such a `one-size-fits-all' desktop,
then such a thing manufactured by a big company could indeed pose some
`threat', depending on your definition. But there is no need for the
Big Standard Desktop.
Note that, for example, the KDE developers, who were (at least
recently) absolutely sure that their desktop would evolve into some
kind of standard, have recognised the need for interoperability with
other desktop environments, e.g. Gnome.
4.5. Diversity will be the downfall of X.
Q: With all these incompatible widget sets and window managers, X
Window will never be a success. Why do you not do something about
this?
A: Widget sets are not incompatible with each other. This is a common
misconception with many Windows or Mac users, who think that widgets,
window management and desktop environments must be an integral part of
a windowing system. This is fundamentally different in the X Window
world. You can use applications with as many different widget sets as
you want in parallel, and it only affects memory usage. Excepting
performance and consistency, there is no reason to try to have all
programs run with the same widget set.
Window managers are incompatible with each other, but this is the
desired effect, since they give the `feel' and to an extent the `look'
of an X desktop. You cannot run two of the at the same time on the
same display (without using special utilities like Xnest, that is).
Anyway, they should all adhere to the ICCCM guidelines.
Here is a what-does-what table that should enlighten you a bit:
| MS Windows 9x/NT | Unix/Linux
===============================================================
Low-level kernel stuff| Kernel | Kernel
Displaying windows | Kernel | X Server
Moving windows around | Apps/`Shell' | Window Manager
`Look&Feel' of desktop| `Shell' | X Clients
| | (WM / desktop env.)
`Look&Feel' of apps | single widget set | different
| | widget sets
Behaviour of apps | Apps | X Clients
As you can see, only the `Shell' (usually explorer.exe, but can be
something like LiteStep) and the applications differ under Windows,
whereas under Unix or Linux, every single component of the system can
be changed without affecting the other Unix/Linux components. Many
feel that this extreme flexibility of X Window fits well into the Unix
philosophy (see ``Unix philosophy'') and is essentially a Good Thing
for those who understand it.
5. User-friendliness
The best design is not predicated on how brain-dead you can
be and still operate it. (David C. Wright)
5.1. Linux is impossible to install.
Q: Linux is impossible to install. Why is nothing done about it?
A: Not all installation experiences are homogenous, major problems
installing an OS can happen with every OS in this world. The best you
can do is inform yourself on the appropriate Web sites and newsgroups,
in books and freely available documentation, so you are well-prepared
when installing Linux. This may significantly reduce, if not
eliminate, your installation difficulties. Currently, you must be
literate in the classic sense to use Linux. That is, you need to read.
You need to read a lot. There is no way around it, and generally, the
community does not consider this a bad thing. For some of us,
installing Linux was a breeze; for others, it was torture. Installing
an OS is often a delicate task, no matter which flavour.
The mere fact that some Linux installations can be more difficult than
others will not have a detrimental effect on Linux in general. All
currently utilised Linux systems (that is, millions and millions) have
been installed, and once someone has installed a system they generally
find that ``it really was not that bad''.
Finally, please take note that nearly every Linux distributor, be they
a company (like Red Hat or SuSE) or a free project (like Debian),
works ceaselessly on making Linux installations easier. For those who
do not want to deal with a Linux installation at all, there are
several companies who sell computers with Linux pre-installed, making
sure that all the hardware components are well-supported.
5.2. Grandmaternal issues
Q: Could my Grandma install and use Linux? I will only bother with
Linux if she can.
A: You are asking the wrong question. Actually, you should be asking
three different questions.
1. Will she be able to install it?
2. Will she be able to use it?
3. Will she be able to administer it?
Probably, installation and usage would be trivial, whereas
administration would not. Unices like Linux are multi-user OSes that
take care to make using the system as easy as possible --- for the
user. They need to be administered, though, if any non-trivial changes
are to be made to the setup. Other popular operating systems avoid the
need for administration by being deliberately impossible to administer
by the layman.
If your Grandma buys a computer with Linux pre-installed and if she is
willing to consult the elaborate on-line documentation and the thick
manuals that come with it, she will probably run it happily, with most
of the administration done by the distribution's admin tools. Of
course, as always, disasters can happen.
The author of this document even takes the risk to claim that she will
probably be happier with pre-installed and well-configured Linux than
with another OS, in the long run.
6. Market share and what comes and goes with it
6.1. We need more market share.
Q: Why do we not do <foo> to get more market share? I mean, we need to
get more market share, do we not?
A: Linux is not a corporation. Corporations need to garner market
share in order not to be swallowed by others or simply to prevent
bankruptcy. Linux, on the other hand, will live on merrily without any
major market share. As long as there are people to maintain and
develop sources, it will thrive.
There is no driving need for Linux to gain market share for much the
same reason as there is no need to forcibly phase out older desktops
and window managers. The plethora of available software is Linux's
strength, and every piece of this software is important, be it popular
or not.
6.2. We need to crush Microsoft.
Q: Unless someone fixes <foo>, Linux will never crush Microsoft. Why
is it not fixed, then?
A: As explained in ``We need more market share.'', Linux does not need
to increase market share. If in your view, Linux is mainly an
alternative to some other OS (typically a Microsoft one), it is OK.
But do not even try to think Linux has been made specifically to
`fight'; or `crush' Microsoft or any other thing for that matter. If
you do, you may easily start to think that Linux needs to behave like
the clone of some particular OS, only better. Then you will not only
be deceived, but will be a nuisance and a destructive element in the
community. Linux needs to go its own way.
6.3. If it does not run Office, it is worthless!
Q: Why do you try to achieve world domination since everybody knows
only systems that MS Office runs on can be successful?
A: Usually, this question is either brought up by frustrated users
that are forced to use MS Office in a corporate environment, or
passionate MS Office fans. Obviously, saying this, they are either
biased, not well-informed, or plain wrong.
There are numerous alternatives to MS Office that are used with great
success on the home PC as well as on the corporate desktop. A couple
of these run on Linux in some way or another. Stating that MS Office
is de facto the only office suite in town is as insulting to the
developers of the alternatives, as it is to their users.
6.4. We need a killer app.
Q: Anyway, there is no killer app for Linux. Why bother with it?
A: Try to see it this way: Linux is enormously successful even without
a big killer app. Perhaps the OS or the philosophy is the `killer'
thing in it? Or perhaps there are just so many applications doing so
many different jobs well, that there just is no need for a killer app
to promote Linux usage? Nearly every non-Unix OS out there has got a
killer app that is chiefly responsible for its success, but Unix and
Linux have never needed one.
The `killer' thing about Unix or Linux is rather the fact that there
is an enormous, open pool of software where the source code is
available in one form or another. Currently, no other operating system
has got a software cosmos that is this big and dynamic.
6.5. Will it have got to be dumbed down?
Q: If the market share of Linux on the desktop increases, will the
Linux OS not have got to be dumbed down for the non-technical users?
Hence, is increasing market share not a bad thing?
A: Market-leading OSes often seem to be `dumbed down' to make using
them less complicated and less dangerous for unexperienced users. Of
course it is arguable whether this can happen to Linux, too.
Simply put, it cannot. It could happen to one distribution of Linux,
but not to Linux per se. It could happen to one interface to the
underlying core of Linux, but not to all available interfaces. Since
there is no corporation or organisation enforcing a single user
interface policy in the Linux world, it is simply impossible to `dumb
Linux down' in its entirety.
The foundations of Linux, i.e. the kernel, the philosophy (see ``Unix
Philosophy''), the community and the licensing model (see ``Will Linux
become a monopoly?'') will stay the same whatever applications and
user interfaces you use.
7. Licensing issues
7.1. You cannot make money out of it.
Q: Come on now. Linux users will never buy commercial software. Why
bother about this OS since you cannot make a buck out of it?
A: Effectively, Linux users are a big market for commercial software
right now, and they prove it each day by buying proprietary office
suites, X Window servers, mathematics packages, commercial sound
drivers, or even commercial games. Whoever claims that Linux will
never be a market for shrink-wrapped software has obviously missed
something or is blatantly lying.
7.2. You must give away everything you write for it.
Q: Since you need to give away all the software you write for Linux,
there will be no major companies developing Linux software. How do
you deal with that?
A: This is perhaps the single biggest lie that is spread about Linux,
and all other free software platforms. Let us make this clear once and
for all: You do not need to give away the software you write for
Linux. For Linux, too, there is lots of software that are licensed and
sold in exactly the same way that the usual Windows software is
licensed and sold. See ``You cannnot make money out of it.'' on this.
Linux itself and most of the software that runs on it is licensed
under the General Public License. That does not coerce you to give it
away though, but merely gives everyone the right to give it away and
enforces that the source code of the software be always available.
8. The X Windowing System
8.1. X is slow.
Q: Why don we not use something better than X since it is so horribly
slow?
A: The perceived or real performance differences of X and other
graphical user interfaces are due to several separate circumstances. X
is a process that runs segregated from the kernel, in user space. This
has got the advantage that shutting down X is always possible, even if
the X server has locked up (which seldom happens). Also, often X
communicates with its clients over network connections, which can be
notorious bottle-necks (someone has pointed out that for `benchmark'
purposes, it is possible to slow X down arbitrarily by making, say,
local client-server connections use TCP/IP or even IPX sockets instead
of Unix domain sockets). Finally, the graphics throughput of the X
server is always dependent on the graphics hardware and how well it is
supported. Other than this, the size and performance of the window
manager, the graphics libraries on top of X and any desktop
environments may affect X performance.
There are people who report X to have fluidly moved opaque windows on
486s where Windows 3.1 was sluggish to the point of unusability. There
are other people who report X to be incredibly slow on computers where
Windows flies. Do not condemn X if the real reason is the network, the
graphics hardware, the lack of support for hardware acceleration or
particularly bloated X applications (applications statically linked
with Motif are notorious for their bloat).
8.2. X is brain damaged.
Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks.
(attributed to John Pike of Bell Labs)
Q: Why do we not use something better than X since it is so horribly
brain damaged?
A: Take a good look at X. Again, if you already have. X has got its
limitations, but it has also got a client/server architecture that
even supports modern networked 3D graphics (with the GLX extension).
Also, consider that X was deliberately limited to be just a windowing
system and not address user interface design in any way (there is a
specification for inter-client communication, though, the ICCCM). If
you still cannot understand why you should use X, please see ``X is
the only choice there is!''.
8.3. X is the only choice there is!
Q: I am sick and tired of X. Why are there no alternatives?
A: There are, or at least there soon will be. The best-known is
probably Berlin, a large-scale project that is in the earliest pre-
alpha stage you can imagine and not yet useable (but advancing), but
very promising in concept. It will even use a uniform GUI toolkit and
a uniform desktop environment, which will make many happy (see ``Linux
needs a single GUI.''). Another alternative is GNUstep, the GNU
implementation of the OpenStep specification, which uses X Window only
as the supporting layer of a Display GhostScript renderer. Some day,
GNUstep may even work without X.
9. Linux and Corporate Pangaea
9.1. Apple must support us!
Q: Do you know that for reason <foo>, Apple must support Linux?
A: This relates well to question ``We need Foo, Inc.'s single GUI.''
and ``We need to crush Microsoft.''. Actually, often this argument is
brought up due to a thoroughly flawed way of thinking of the software
and/or OS market. People often see this market as a zero-sum game
between Microsoft on one side and ``all the others, whoever they may
be'' on the other side. This makes them think that Apple or some other
`opponent' of Microsoft need to `team up' with Linux to `fight'
Microsoft.
Nothing of all of this is true. Linux is not the spearhead of an
`offensive' against Microsoft. It was not specifically made to engage
Microsoft in any competition whatsoever, and those who call for a
major company to somehow grab a hold of the direction Linux is going
are not only underestimating the power of the Linux community as such,
but also denying the right of Linux to go its own way.
9.2. Will Linux become a monopoly?
Q: If Linux gets really popular, will it not turn into another
monopoly like the OS(es) we are considering it to be an alternative
to?
A: Since Linux is released under the General Public License, no one
can grab a hold of it so tightly as to gain complete control over it.
Everyone will always have got the right to simply take the source code
of the Linux kernel and release it on their own. Making a distribution
with it will not be a problem, either, since everything crucial for
making Linux more than a mere kernel is released under a licence equal
or similar to the General Public License (if made by the GNU project)
or the even less restrictive Berkeley License (if stemming from
original BSD UNIX).
Hence, there can be no company controlling Linux at any time. The
misconception that this is possible is usually due to people confusing
Red Hat with Linux. See ``Is Red Hat a danger?'' on this, too.
9.3. Is Red Hat a danger?
Q: Could Red Hat not make part of their distribution proprietary and
thus effectively monopolise Linux?
A: As so often, a couple of misunderstandings accumulate in this
question. First of all, people often think that Red Hat hold an
overwhelming majority of the Linux market share.
Red Hat is not the only company distributing Linux. Other distributors
of English-language distributions include Caldera, SuSE and Debian,
but there are several other distributions tailored for special niches
or even made up and maintained by hobbyists without monetary interest.
Do not forget that nearly every country where English is not spoken
(e.g. Brazil, France, Germany or Spain) has got its own Linux
distributors that do not distribute English versions (e.g. Kheops),
too.
Then, there is a long-standing tradition of Red Hat not to release
anything under a non-free (non-`open source' for those who dislike the
term `free') licence. So far, everything they released was under the
GPL or an equivalent licence, so that not only all of the software
developed in-house at Red Hat, but their distribution in its entirety,
too, was freely redistributable. Indeed, many smaller projects have
based own distributions on Red Hat; the best-known such distribution
is probably Mandrake.
Should Red Hat break with this tradition one day and decide to switch
any of their software to a non-free licence, the last free
distribution released by them would still be available. In no time
flat, other projects and competing companies would fill the niche torn
open by Red Hat leaving the market for freely reproducable Linux
distributions. The author is not aware of any additional software that
could make a non-free Linux distribution so revolutionary that it
could grab a hold of the Linux market. Proprietary additions simply do
not work in the Linux world, as has been proven by the mediocre
success of CDE on Linux. See also ``They could kill it with
proprietary extensions!''.
10. Philosophical Issues
10.1. Unix philosophy
Q: What is this Unix philosophy thing, anyway?
A: Unix philosophy means that applications should be made to do one
task well. Later one may discover that they are fit for other tasks,
too, but they are designed for one task only. This is reasonable
because Unix makes communication between these tools extremely easy.
Unix is an excellent rapid-development and scripting environment. The
tools themselves are not expected to present a user-friendly
interface; that is the job of a front end.
A simple example: If you want to archive and compress a directory tree
under Windows, you usually use a program like WinZip. It is an
archiver, a compressor and a GUI at the same time. Under Unix, there
is the tar archiver to archive files, there are several compressors to
compress tar archives and there are several front ends to both tar and
these compressors.
The Unix philosophy gives lots of flexibility, but to be successful it
relies on well-written front ends, and especially on users that both
understand and advocate it. Screaming for `one-size-fits-all' software
that would do a job where a combination of readily available tools
already works excellently undermines this philosophy.
It must be noted that there exist a couple of extremely popular
multipurpose tools and applications as exceptions to the rule. These
include the nearly omnipotent GNU Emacs and XEmacs editors, some file
managers like the GNU Midnight Commander and especially scripting
languages like Perl, Tcl/Tk or Python. Nevertheless, even they are
aware of the Unix tool philosophy and interface well with tools.
10.2. Linux is an underground movement.
Q: You have been talking altogether too much about commercial things.
After all, Linux is a strike at the commercial underbelly of our
society, is it not?
A: There are people who think Linux is either anarchist, anarcho-
capitalist, anti-American, anti-commercial, communist, conservative,
grass-roots, libertarian, progressive, rebellious, religious,
underground or any combination of these. Simply put, these people need
to get real. More exactly, they need to realise that Linux is not less
and not more than an OS based on a philosophy (see ``Unix
philosophy'') and a licence (see ``Will Linux become a monopoly?'')
offering lots of advantages, and that is supported by an almost
legendary community, but that using Linux is not a political statement
and that no one tries or should try to enforce some ideology with its
users.
The fact that some of Linux's advocates, even some of the Linux
`demigods', are political radicals, is in no way related to the OS
itself, its success or the direction it is going. Again, an OS is an
OS, there are not (or at least, there should not be) any connotations.
11. Being part of the community
11.1. Hey, do not expect me to fix things!
Q: I need to have this done by someone else. And do not tell me to do
it myself! Who do you think I am? A geek?
A: The Linux community is not a corporate help desk. However you got
Linux, you did not pay the community for it. Perhaps you paid a
distributor, and you can turn towards them for support, but do not
think you can coerce the community to do something for you, and do not
be upset if someone tells you to fix your problem yourself.
The community is driven by people fixing their problems themselves.
Unlike the users of commercial OSes, every Linux user becomes a part
of the OS in some way, some more, some less. The typical ``Do I look
like a programmer? Do I look like a geek?'' reaction is ignorant at
best. It is not arrogance of the community if they tell you to do
something yourself. It is the spirit of Linux.
Anyway, if you are lucky enough to have got the money (that usually
means that you are a company), you can always pay someone to maintain,
fix or enhance free software for you. It has been pointed out that,
for example, some Linux kernel developers will happily write a device
driver for you in exchange for a sample of your product, free
technical specifications (and perhaps a handful or two of cash).
11.2. Why?
Q: Why are you being zealotous about an operating system of all
things? Are there no more important things in the world? Who cares?
Is an OS not just a tool?
A: This group is for people who like being zealotous about an
operating system, too. To Each His Own. Of the `zeal' you can observe,
much actually is not about the operating system itself. Neither is it
about `fighting' one or more of Linux's competitors. Michael Benedict
puts it this way:
I am not zealous about Linux. I don't think the majority of
so-called `zealots' are. We like Linux. What we are zeal-
ous about is the community. The community defines us, at
least in part. We exist in a symbiotic relationship with
the community, and through it with each other. One of the
ideas we hold dear, ``the Unix philosophy'', also very much
pertains to us as a community. Everyone does a small part
well to produce something that no one, no few could
together. Sure there have been major players like RMS (--
Richard M. Stallman, Founder of the Free Software Founda-
tion--) , but Emacs (-- RMS' biggest creation, an extremely
versatile text editor--) would be nowhere today without the
documentation and debugging done by countless people. The
often called `rebellion' of Linux users is against the busi-
ness world, which typifies our busy, look-out-for-number-one
lives. In the community, no one is looking out for number
one, everyone just does a little bit to help other people,
and themselves, and everyone benefits. Linux is one of the
few remaining thresholds of community, and it is thriving.
If the community model were able to be expanded globally
(The walk of a thousand miles begins with a single foot-
step), it could easily solve all of the bigger problems.
Not everyone is this optimistic about the way the free software
communities work (or as pessimistic about the way the rest of the
world works). But an overwhelming majority agrees that it is good they
exist. The community is Linux. If the community ceases, Linux in its
current form will cease. And without supporters, even passionate
supporters, the community will cease.
12. Resources
This section is the result of `creeping featurism'. Someone said
helpful URLs would fit nicely into this document, and so it was done,
but this document is not intended to become a resource guide. There
should be a maximum of ten URLs per primary section, although just
three or five are probably much better, and some sections do not need
URLs at all.
Feedback with respect to other URLs that should perhaps be included
is, of course, welcome. But keep in mind that none of the lists of
URLs are intended to be exhaustive in any way.
If any of the links should be dead or incorrect in some way, please
report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12.1. Related documents
o Linux FAQ <http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/FAQ/Linux-FAQ.html>
o Linux Myth Dispeller
<http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/linux/index.html> (defunct?)
o Linux FUD FAQ
<http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fud2.html>
12.2. Linux desktop environments and related projects
o The Gnome Project <http://www.gnome.org>
o K Desktop Environment <http://www.kde.org>
o Squeak <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/squeak> (looks outdated)
o Unix Desktop Environment <http://www.ude.org>
12.3. Linux office suites
o Applixware <http://www.applix.com>
o KOffice <http://www.kde.org/koffice/>
o SIAG Office <http://www.edu.stockholm.se/siag/>
o StarOffice <http://www.stardiv.de>
12.4. Alternatives to the X Windowing System
o Berlin <http://www.berlin-consortium.org>
o GNUstep <http://www.gnustep.org>
12.5. Philosophical resources
o The Berkeley (4.4BSD) License
<http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html>
o The GNU General Public License
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>
o The GNU Manifesto <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html>
o The Open Source Definition <http://www.opensource.org/osd.html>
13. Thanks
Thanks go to (in chronological order):
o Lots of contributors whose names I have not recorded.
o Persona, for the idea for ``Diversity will be the downfall of X.''
and minor bugfixes.
o Alan Boyd, for the ideas for ``You must give away everything you
write for it.'' and ``Will Linux become a monopoly?'' and minor
bugfixes.
o Evan DiBiase, for addressing the licensing problem.
o Stephan H.M.J. Houben, for making me add the trademark stuff, and
for section ``Why?''.
o Matt Kressel, for pointing out that there can be more than one WM
per X server.
o jedi, for pointing out that there is Xnest.
o Pedro Miguel Semeano, for a bugfix.
o Eric Ortega, for improving the general quality of my prose.
o Tony Towers, for fixing the British English and the English in
general.
o Bill McClain, for a bugfix.
o Anthony Ord, for fixing lots of things, especially the commas.
o Sean, for a couple of minor fixes.
o Nish Kohli, for hosting the FRT on the WWW.
o Michael Benedict, for his paragraph on the `zeal' of the Linux
community in section ``Why?''.
o Sandy Harris, for digging up two quotes on X11.
14. Legal stuff
All trademarks and copyrights are property of their respective owners,
unless specifically noted otherwise. Use of a term in this document
should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or
service mark.
Wherever a single company is mentioned in a context that could also
apply to other, similar companies, the text should be read as if these
companies were mentioned, too. No mention of a single company related
to more general issues is intended to refer only to this particular
company. The term `Unix' does not refer to the UNIX(TM) trademark in
this document, but serves as a placeholder for any POSIX-compliant
operating system generally perceived as being a Unix system, including
Linux if it is not mentioned separately. Every term in this document
that applies to grammatically male or female subjects or objects is
intended to apply to all humans of both sexes, unless biologically
impossible.
15. Copyright
Copyright (C)1998, 1999, 2000 Matthias Warkus
Contributions are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
document provided the copyright and this permission notice are
preserved on all copies.
Distribution of this document for a fee is forbidden unless allowed by
the author.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
document under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the
author is notified, provided also that the title page is labeled as
modified including a reference to the original document, provided that
information on retrieving the original document is included, and
provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under
the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this
document into another language, under the above conditions for
modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in
a translation approved by the copyright holder.
Reformatting of this document without changing the text the
reformatted version renders to is not a modification. Neither are
correction of spelling errors or insertion or deletion of whitespace.
In renderings of this document that are not page-oriented, the first
twenty lines of text are the equivalent of the abovementioned `title
page'.
mawa
--
Weichborstenzahnpfleger!
Weintraubenentkerner!
Witzeaufschreiber!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
