Why not Linux?
Evan Leibovitch
evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org
Tue Sep 5 02:53:16 UTC 2006
John Macdonald wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 11:09:52PM -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> v- insert word here
>
>> To assert that people reject FOSS out of ignorance (or stupidity) is a
>> big mistake; to use that assumption as a foundation for strategy is a
>> guarantee of failure.
>>
>
> If the "insert word here" is "all" then, sure, you're right.
> If that word is "some" you're totally wrong.
>
Agreed. My problem is in the universality of the insult that *any*
choice against FOSS is only done out of ignorance or malice, and the
ultimate harm that such stereotyping can cause.
> Certainly there are lots of people that reject FOSS out of ignorance - they've believed the various bits of high profile FUD they've heard and haven't been exposed to the appropriate, often lower profile, anti-FUD.
Agreed. But I would take it a step further that they may not even
believe the FUD themselves, but that doesn't matter if its result suits
their purposes. They can also hate SCO, or be aware that SCO has no
case, while exploiting its actions to avoid consideration of FOSS. They
many not hate FOSS per-se but see it as a threat to their way of doing
things (or their mastery over the realm they manage). This can be
addressed, but not using conventional FUDbusting techniques, since it's
hard to "unprove" a concern or doubt.
True FUDbusting requires two parallel approaches. One is to attack the
FUD and its source, but the other (often forgotten) part is to soothe
the residual confusion and alieve the many "what if" fears. Trying to
comfort someone you consider a moron (or evil) requires acting skills
that I suggest are beyond the abilities of most advocates. This is far
better handled, at the source, by ditching the contempt.
> There are many that reject FOSS out of vested interest.
And sometimes (often, in my experience) that vested interest is not so
much a love of Micorosoft but an aversion to *any* change. They may know
(and even agree) that the status quo sucks but have a long list of
reasons why to cope rather than switch.
I take it as a given that some of the extreme (and high-level) forms of
this will not change until certain people retire.
> Some deliberately and maliciously,
Here's where we part company.
They may be incompetent, or too comfortable, or simply scared to death
of the new -- but few managers are malicious.
Only employees and shareholders in Microsoft, as well as reviewers,
resellers and servicers of its products have true vested interests in
the company's success. The rest "love Microsoft" or "love proprietary",
more often or not, because they're simply adverse to significant change
and are forever looking for excuses and reasons to avoid/deny it.
- Evan
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
More information about the Legacy
mailing list