- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open-source efforts derailed by 'loud minority'
|
|
Comments (36)
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
> I'm just saying that the kind of abuse of software control we're working against doesn't grant us license to act in any way less than as professional adults.
People need a license to act in a juvenile manner? Since when? Where do you get one? Why does no one tell me these things? And, perhaps most important, how do I report those who don't and who do I report them to?
> ...punching your potential customers in the face is a Really Stupid thing to do.
What makes you think they're potential customers? It sounds to me like there minds are already made up and there's no point in trying to convince them. In such a case I see nothing wrong with voicing the simple truth.
People need a license to act in a juvenile manner? Since when? Where do you get one? Why does no one tell me these things? And, perhaps most important, how do I report those who don't and who do I report them to?
> ...punching your potential customers in the face is a Really Stupid thing to do.
What makes you think they're potential customers? It sounds to me like there minds are already made up and there's no point in trying to convince them. In such a case I see nothing wrong with voicing the simple truth.
I'm with you Dino, The this whole thing is just another way of asking the dissenters to shut up.
@jdixon: Because, as is so clearly the case with this example, the only issue is a lack of knowledge. If someone says something out of ignorance (*not* malice), then they're very likely to be a potential customer once you've helped them along the way.
If you tell them they're idiots for not being as smart as you (and having all the answers about the particular thing you care about that they haven't had the time or interest to research quite so deeply), they're vastly less likely to have any interest in what you're trying to sell them.
"Oh, Open Source? The one with all the flaming children? Yeah. Not interested."
The particular example discussed in the article above is a classic case. This dude doesn't have anything against Open Source at all, he just doesn't have all the answers. Perfect opening to sell him on the idea... until the loud-mouthed, unproductive, nasty (and almost always anonymous) idiots come along to screw up another person's idea of what Open Source is.
If you tell them they're idiots for not being as smart as you (and having all the answers about the particular thing you care about that they haven't had the time or interest to research quite so deeply), they're vastly less likely to have any interest in what you're trying to sell them.
"Oh, Open Source? The one with all the flaming children? Yeah. Not interested."
The particular example discussed in the article above is a classic case. This dude doesn't have anything against Open Source at all, he just doesn't have all the answers. Perfect opening to sell him on the idea... until the loud-mouthed, unproductive, nasty (and almost always anonymous) idiots come along to screw up another person's idea of what Open Source is.
I'm with Dino on this. The reason that open source is catching on is primarily technical excellence and economic value. The rest is noise. The now hugely commercial linux trade shows long ago demonstrated that the perception of linux as a project by "poor, bearded loners" is not relevant. Ask all the back room server managers on Wall Street....
Existing success doesn't indicate a lack of problems. :-)
Nor do existing problems indicate a lack of success.
Is the bar set high by the competition? Yes, but whether we clear the bar by two feet or two inches doesn't matter. Or, to quote a punch line:
"I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
Is the bar set high by the competition? Yes, but whether we clear the bar by two feet or two inches doesn't matter. Or, to quote a punch line:
"I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
Quoting:until the loud-mouthed, unproductive, nasty (and almost always anonymous) idiots come along to screw up another person's idea of what Open Source is.
They're probably Microsoft shills, that's why they are anonymous.
And please, don't get me wrong...
As I said, I would much prefer that everybody behave themselves, but, they don't.
Developers don't behave themselves, just like developers in closed, commercial enterprises. I am constantly amazed by the behavior of grown-up men and women working under actual bosses and collecting actual paychecks.
We don't see most of that because it's intramural combat in the normal case. We also don't see idiot bosses imposing questionable visions and stupid organizational practices, except in the relatively rare cases of fed-up Microsoft bloggers during Vista development.
The difference with FOSS is that it's open, which means people can see your dirty laundry.
As I said, I would much prefer that everybody behave themselves, but, they don't.
Developers don't behave themselves, just like developers in closed, commercial enterprises. I am constantly amazed by the behavior of grown-up men and women working under actual bosses and collecting actual paychecks.
We don't see most of that because it's intramural combat in the normal case. We also don't see idiot bosses imposing questionable visions and stupid organizational practices, except in the relatively rare cases of fed-up Microsoft bloggers during Vista development.
The difference with FOSS is that it's open, which means people can see your dirty laundry.
If you want to see zealotry over an OS, just watch the monkeyboy dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMrhoOHNOrI
I have met a few Linux users who think the point of Linux is to destroy Microsoft. They tend to be in their teens or early twenties, male, and not too mature.
Most Linux users I know use Linux because it meets their needs better than Windows does.
However, I seem to meet many Windows zealots. They become offended because I use Linux in the workplace. They seem to take it as a personal affront.
Its just an OS. If your OS does what you want, good for you. If it doesn't meet your needs, try another OS or fix the one you've got(if you can!).
I have met a few Linux users who think the point of Linux is to destroy Microsoft. They tend to be in their teens or early twenties, male, and not too mature.
Most Linux users I know use Linux because it meets their needs better than Windows does.
However, I seem to meet many Windows zealots. They become offended because I use Linux in the workplace. They seem to take it as a personal affront.
Its just an OS. If your OS does what you want, good for you. If it doesn't meet your needs, try another OS or fix the one you've got(if you can!).
So we are all BFF now? Good.
> ..as is so clearly the case with this example, the only issue is a lack of knowledge.
In this particular case (from the article) we talking about "Australian Taxation Office chief information officer Bill Gibson' and "Standards Australia's Alistair Tegart". These are technical and government positions where the people involved are supposed to know their field. If they're dismissing open source due to a "lack of knowledge", they deserve any criticism they're getting. Gaining such knowledge is part of their job.
In this particular case (from the article) we talking about "Australian Taxation Office chief information officer Bill Gibson' and "Standards Australia's Alistair Tegart". These are technical and government positions where the people involved are supposed to know their field. If they're dismissing open source due to a "lack of knowledge", they deserve any criticism they're getting. Gaining such knowledge is part of their job.
> These are technical and government positions where the people involved are supposed to know their field. If they're dismissing open source due to a "lack of knowledge", they deserve any criticism they're getting. Gaining such knowledge is part of their job.
Becareful wtih this line of thought. Just because they are top in their technical field does not make them a master of all technology nor even knowledgeable of all technology. I don't know what systems the Australian Government runs but chances are they are systems that have been in place for many years and thus the people running said systems are extremely well versed in their environment. They might not have made the time to educate themselves in other systems. For instance, if they have been using Cisco equipment all this time there is no reason to suspect they have any idea that maybe 3com or Nortel would serve their needs better and cheaper (just an example, not saying they would).
So coming at them with negative criticism and put downs does nothing more than to have them dig in deeper, raise their defense mechanisms and turn a deaf ear. They don't hear the benefits of what you are talking about over the screams of how incompetent you think they are.
The old adage holds true, you draw more flies with honey than vinegar. It has taken a lot of time, people and persistent demonstration to bring FOSS to where it is today, and it will keep growing. But that does not mean a handful of vociferous negative-nancies won't retard this growth. Have some consideration and treat people better than you would like to be treated. Effect change through example, not intimidation and derogatory challenges.
Becareful wtih this line of thought. Just because they are top in their technical field does not make them a master of all technology nor even knowledgeable of all technology. I don't know what systems the Australian Government runs but chances are they are systems that have been in place for many years and thus the people running said systems are extremely well versed in their environment. They might not have made the time to educate themselves in other systems. For instance, if they have been using Cisco equipment all this time there is no reason to suspect they have any idea that maybe 3com or Nortel would serve their needs better and cheaper (just an example, not saying they would).
So coming at them with negative criticism and put downs does nothing more than to have them dig in deeper, raise their defense mechanisms and turn a deaf ear. They don't hear the benefits of what you are talking about over the screams of how incompetent you think they are.
The old adage holds true, you draw more flies with honey than vinegar. It has taken a lot of time, people and persistent demonstration to bring FOSS to where it is today, and it will keep growing. But that does not mean a handful of vociferous negative-nancies won't retard this growth. Have some consideration and treat people better than you would like to be treated. Effect change through example, not intimidation and derogatory challenges.
> However, I seem to meet many Windows zealots. They become offended because I use Linux in the workplace. They seem to take it as a personal affront.
I've seen that in the workplace as well. When they understand that you are using linux, they become agitated, and say things like "why don't you just use windows like everyone else?"
To which I can only reply, "Not everyone is using windows, nor should they have to"
I've seen that in the workplace as well. When they understand that you are using linux, they become agitated, and say things like "why don't you just use windows like everyone else?"
To which I can only reply, "Not everyone is using windows, nor should they have to"
> I don't know what systems the Australian Government runs but chances are they are systems that have been in place for many years and thus the people running said systems are extremely well versed in their environment.
These aren't the people running those systems. They're the administrators in charge of those people.
These aren't the people running those systems. They're the administrators in charge of those people.
>These aren't the people running those systems. They're the administrators in charge of those people.
The ATO works like the army (I worked for them a very long time ago). There is a chain of command structure. The CIO is probably from an IT background but is getting strong technical advice from below. ATO is paranoid about security so are likely ultra-conservative about changing a complex proprietary system. These guys comfort levels are very important to them. My guess is that they would laugh to themselves about snotty comments by open source advocates... It won't change their views either way.
The ATO works like the army (I worked for them a very long time ago). There is a chain of command structure. The CIO is probably from an IT background but is getting strong technical advice from below. ATO is paranoid about security so are likely ultra-conservative about changing a complex proprietary system. These guys comfort levels are very important to them. My guess is that they would laugh to themselves about snotty comments by open source advocates... It won't change their views either way.
> My guess is that they would laugh to themselves about snotty comments by open source advocates... It won't change their views either way.
Agreed.
Agreed.
@ montezuma when did you work for the ATO? I was there in 2002.
Tracy: I was there in 1980 ;-)
@ montezuma Bugger, we just missed each other.
I might add, from your description, they hadn't changed all that much.
I might add, from your description, they hadn't changed all that much.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Yeah, sure, people acting like idiots hurts FOSS. I can buy that. Better for everybody to lock arms and sing songs, but...
Hey!
I remember lots of talk ten years ago that immature and loud-mouthed FOSS folk would prevent uptake of FOSS in business.
Hasn't happened.
What will hurt the uptake of FOSS is a lack of FOSS worth having. So long as good stuff flows, good times will roll.