[NTLUG:Discuss] Something to ponder (bad Linux enterprise experience article)

[terry]

Lance Simmons wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:11:58AM -0500, terry wrote:
>  
>
>>Lance Simmons wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>Most of the problems raised have some validity... our attitudes need
>>>>adjusting... I see it even on the NTLUG list from time to time.
>>>>Patience and understanding are key.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>The article spoke of "Open Source" instead of "Free Software" and
>>>"Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux",  so I stopped reading after the first
>>>line.  :)
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>You'll need to explain your self a little better, at least to me.
>>    
>>
>
>My fault.  I was making an overly-cryptic joke about one particular
>attitude of some GNU/Linux users that might need some adjusting.
>Perhaps there really are some people who on principle would immediately
>stop reading an article or talking to a person that used offensive
>phrases such as "Open Source" or "Linux".  I, however, am not such a
>person.  I really did read the article, even though its early use of
>"Open Source" and "Linux" signalled to me that I would probably find it
>uncongenial.  As it turned out, and as several others on this list have
>attested, there was a lot more to dislike about the article than its
>widely shared assumptions about free software versus open source
>software! :)
>
>Of course, it's easy for me to be a purist about free software -- I
>started using GNU/Linux in 1998, and am barely to the point of writing
>elementary (and even then really, really bad) shell scripts!  Actual
>programming will likely turn out to be beyond me, but I hope some day to
>find out.  In any case, since I'm not employed in the IT sector, and
>thus don't have a personal financial stake in whether free software or
>open source is "better for business", I may be missing some deep
>insights that would help me better understand the issue.  Of course, in
>most matters we typically think impartiality allows people to think more
>clearly, but I won't try to pursue that line of argument.
>
>Anyway, sorry for the failed attempt at humor.
>
>  
>
Thanks for the explanation,  I'm sure most of the others caught on, your 
humor was prolly only lost on me.  :)

-- 
Registered Linux User #188099
<><