Begin bug 16836

snips

Larry Qualig

Obscenities I can deal with. What bugs me isn't that, but rather, the folks who are *willfully* ignorant. You know, the ones who "try" something, have it fail, then refuse any and all attempts to help them, preferring, instead, to do things the wrong way and whining that it doesn't work, that sort of thing?

I got so peeed off at DFS that I killfiled him again, for just this reason. He actually has the brains to learn, he simply prefers not to. It's not his incessant trolling that bugs me, it's his *choice* to not learn, to remain forever ignorant, of even the simplest things. Honest stupidity I can deal with; if you *can't* learn, that's a disability. His isn't, it's a choice he makes, to not learn.

I don't know I'd qualify COLA as "a technical newsgroup", though it is certainly moreso than many. Be that as it may, why would one show up here at all, if one isn't at least willing to learn something?

What I find interesting is that the Winvocates - reasonable or otherwise - never seem to really grasp that most of us Linvocate *were* Windows users, often for a hell of a long time. We *chose* to switch.

Take me, for example. I've been using Windows since before the days of 3.0. I've been writing code - a hell of a lot of it Windows code - just as long. That means I've been using Windows longer than a lot of the winvocates have. Yet now, Linux is my OS of choice, not Windows.

Is it that I couldn't continue to use Windows? No. Is it that I couldn't continue to develop for Windows? No. Is it that I couldn't afford Windows? No. So why would I switch?

Obviously, I have my reasons. Those reasons, for *me*, are largely technical ones. Others switch for more "political" reasons. Others for more "social" reasons. Doesn't really matter, the point is, those of us who switched do have our reasons, and for us, Linux is a better option.

The Winvocates who attempt to point out supposed failings in Linux, such as its small market share, or some flaw discovered in the kernel or an app, fail to grasp this concept. We are well aware that no system is perfect, we don't expect perfection. We expect something that meets our needs, our requirements, our preferences, and Linux does so - better than the alternatives do.

Take, for example, security flaws. Both Windows and Linux have them. Such is life. We all know this, we all accept this. For those of us who are interested in security in our systems, though, the question is not which system is "secure", as an absolute, but rather, which system, on the whole, averages more secure, while still meeting our other requirements?

One particular Wintroll around here has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to count past three by comparing Windows issue notifications and Linux issue notifications. He fails, repeatedly, to grasp two important things: first, that the Windows notifications encompbutt Windows itself and a trivial number of attendant tools, whilst the Linux notifications generally encompbutt hundreds, even thousands, of applications, servers, and the like, and second, that the Linux notifications he persists in posting are often duplicates - the same issue is being reported six times because there are six different distros being reported on.

Even with this, though, he's shown, repeatedly, that the issue rates are approximately equal between the two systems. Stop and consider that; one list deals with a trivial handful of things, the other deals with hundreds of things *and* often duplicates the results... yet the reports show a nearly equal rate of issues.

Taken on a basis of "issues per application", Windows is a clear loser, by a hell of a large margin, as supported by the Wintroll's own postings - yet he persists in crowing about this because he sees "50 Linux issues" without ever bothering to consider what that really implies.

Said person has, indeed, had this pointed out to him on several occasions; once one removes the duplicates and compares the actual issue rates on a per-package basis, the Linux issue rates he crows about as being so staggering are actually tens to hundreds of times *less* than the failure rates in Windows... and that's not even including any such issues in Windows-land which we never hear about because the sources to most apps are closed and the vendors, on the whole, don't seem interested in publishing lists of their bugs. Yet it is, for reasons incomprehensible, Linux which, in the Wintroll's eyes, fails in this comparison.

No system is perfect. All systems have bugs and limitations. As realists, we understand and accept this. What too many of the trolls, and especially the Wintrolls, fail to realize is that the bugs and limitations of the system they prefer are, for many of us, *precisely* what drove us away from those products in the first place.

Then, too, there's the "bang for the buck" issue. Sure, many Linux distros can be had for free - but sales of everything from boxed desktop versions to enterprise server versions are far from non-existant. The question which faces the user, though, is what does he get for his money?

For $90, one can get a decent desktop distro, which includes at least one, often two or three office suites, plus development tools, multimedia production tools, scientific tools, servers, games, a huge set of internet tools, security and analysis tools and more and more and more. For a similar price, one can buy Windows and get... well... Windows. No office tools bundled. No development tools. Bugger all in the way of security tools. Limited internet tools. Basically, one is buying the computer equivalent of a blank piece of paper; you still need to find, download, install and sometimes configure the rest of the applications before you can really do much with it beyond email, web browsing and MSN chat.

Often, that means spending more money, say by purchasing an office suite. If not, it means largish amounts of time spent finding, downloading and installing the additional applications. Either way, it is a net loss, in money or in time, to accomplish something which, had they chosen Linux, they'd already have.

To make matters worse, though, the system delivered isn't *just* a blank piece of paper... it's a blank piece of paper which the creators have imposed limits on. You can't run a really functional server on it, for example, unless you buy the more expensive version. You can't connect to a domain unless you buy the "professional" version. Some networking applications are hampered by the pointless and artificial limiting of connection rates. You can't have multiple users on the system at the same time, except in the most trivially limited sense. Apparently, from the EULA quotes posted recently, you can't even use remote desktop tools except for one or two specifically pre-authorized by the vendor, unless you buy more licenses. If you run the more expensive server version, you still can't do a lot of things unless you buy additional licenses, then still more to run certain of the server programs.

In terms of "bang for the buck", it's ridiculous. It's about like having the option to buy two cars, for about the same price, but one is a fully-functional Lexus, and the other is simply a frame, which, if you buy enough additional options, you can buttemble it yourself - into a Yugo.

That's not to say Windows doesn't do some things right; it does. It may, in fact, do some things better than the alternatives. One ongoing thread here suggests that, to some people's eyes, the Windows implementation of ClearType is superior to the Linux implementation of sub-pixel hinting. Great, marvellous, they may be right. Nobody is saying Windows can't do *anything* right, can't *ever* be better than the alternatives. It can, it is, in some cases. That does not, however, make it universally better, which the Wintrolls never seem to grasp.

It's not enough to point out that Windows does two or three things better. Or even two or three *hundred* things better. That, for most of us, isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not *considered as a whole*, Windows - and more generally, the whole closed-source approach to software - does things better than OSS and its products.

To we who are not using Windows - by choice - the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" with zero room for doubt. We've *used* Windows, and Windows applications. We've seen what it does - and doesn't do. We've had to install, configure, recover, update, clean up, maintain and otherwise care for and feed an endless procession of Windows systems, both our own and those of people around us, friends, family, co-workers, etc.

It's not that we don't know what Windows will do that leads us away from Windows, it's that we *do* know what Windows *won't* do.

The wintrolls - as trolls in general - never seem to grasp this. They whine about trivialities, as if those matter. One whines that he can't install FireFox, despite the fact that tens of thousands, if not millions, have done so before him... because unlike him, they're able to use the simpler, easier tools provided for just such a purpose, or, for the more technically-minded, who want to do things a little more "hands on", they have developed the skills to actually apply the hands-on approach. If you take the technical route without the requisite skills, don't blame anyone but yourself if you fail. Not him, though, he touts this far and wide as a failing of the system, rather than of himself.

It is precisely this sort of thing - willful ignorance - which annoys so many of us. Since it *is* willful, thus not curable, there are but two ways to deal with it. You can simply ignore it, content in the knowledge that the twit is living in a hell of his own making, or you can have a little fun with it: "Yes, we see your problem. It's you."

One in particular - DFS - happens to particularly pee me off, not because he's a Windows advocate, but because he's a dishonest Windows advocate. When he first arrived, he seemed reasonably intelligent and honestly curious. Since then, he's degenerated into full troll mode, refusing to - or unable to - apply even the merest hint of intelligence to his problems, and steadfastly refusing to accept any and all attempts to help him, while also intentionally misrepresenting even the most basic things.

Give us someone who likes Windows, and is willing to argue the benefits and merits of Windows, and we're happy to discuss the matter. Give us someone who can't apply even the pretense of being honest and intelligent, and he'll be treated accordingly. If that means slinging a few insults at him, well, so what? Is he deserving of any better treatment?