I can go on for several hours (skip to the third paragraph if you just want to read the question and skip my rant) about how I will never fully embrace Linux, not because it falls short of a great operating system (to some respects) but because it has sprung so many radical disciples in its trail. These guys make me sick with their attitude that everything is MS?s fault. They can?t accept that Linux is a lot less user friendly than Windows and as far as a great desktop environment and its application support, it is easy to understand why not very many people use it. So as usual, when the numbers come out which dictate that few people actually use Linux, they blame this on MS?s contract agreements with OEMs just like they do with any other shortfall that Linux encounters.
Another good example centers around the Microsoft Xbox. From the day the Xbox was released, many of the Linux geeks worked 24 hour days trying to crack the machine (which was recently cracked thanks to a game exploit, took them 18 months). What was their motivation? It was Microsoft?s baby of course and that meant that they had the obligatory objective of destroying it in effort to lessen MS?s profits. In the most apparent example, the CEO of Lindows (another shot at the Windows brand name) offered $200K to the first person who successfully ran Linux on the Xbox without the use of a mod chip. I used to think it was only the Linux geeks out there who had bad intentions but now that I see this CEO acting pretty immaturely about this issue that I kind of wonder if the Linux fanatic just consists of the people who are want to be?s and contribute nothing to Linux (except a good word) like I had always though or maybe they also include many of the people up the ranks on the Linux chain.
The aim of Linux used to be that it was free and of course that is what the Linux fanatics will tell you but that doesn?t seem to be the case anymore. Many Linux distribution companies are operating on razor edge margins and they make it hard to find a download page and do not exactly advertise that their product is free. And why is this? Because the fact is that they want you to buy it and they do not want to give it away free. I use Linux from time to time for servers and such but for most of the stuff that I do, Windows works just fine. Linux and these packaged distributions were and still are supposed to be free (no matter what the companies seem to think) so I don?t feel like I will ever pay a cent for them. If you do not want to work for free, then maybe they shouldn?t work on Linux projects because the symbol of Linux as I see it is a free and open source operating system and that goes for everything that runs on it. Should I feel like I should pay them anything for their efforts? My understanding is that if you work on an open source project, you agree and want to work for free.
Another good example centers around the Microsoft Xbox. From the day the Xbox was released, many of the Linux geeks worked 24 hour days trying to crack the machine (which was recently cracked thanks to a game exploit, took them 18 months). What was their motivation? It was Microsoft?s baby of course and that meant that they had the obligatory objective of destroying it in effort to lessen MS?s profits. In the most apparent example, the CEO of Lindows (another shot at the Windows brand name) offered $200K to the first person who successfully ran Linux on the Xbox without the use of a mod chip. I used to think it was only the Linux geeks out there who had bad intentions but now that I see this CEO acting pretty immaturely about this issue that I kind of wonder if the Linux fanatic just consists of the people who are want to be?s and contribute nothing to Linux (except a good word) like I had always though or maybe they also include many of the people up the ranks on the Linux chain.
The aim of Linux used to be that it was free and of course that is what the Linux fanatics will tell you but that doesn?t seem to be the case anymore. Many Linux distribution companies are operating on razor edge margins and they make it hard to find a download page and do not exactly advertise that their product is free. And why is this? Because the fact is that they want you to buy it and they do not want to give it away free. I use Linux from time to time for servers and such but for most of the stuff that I do, Windows works just fine. Linux and these packaged distributions were and still are supposed to be free (no matter what the companies seem to think) so I don?t feel like I will ever pay a cent for them. If you do not want to work for free, then maybe they shouldn?t work on Linux projects because the symbol of Linux as I see it is a free and open source operating system and that goes for everything that runs on it. Should I feel like I should pay them anything for their efforts? My understanding is that if you work on an open source project, you agree and want to work for free.
Facebook
Twitter