failing like never before

The Linux Choice Part Deux

OK, so you've read my article entitled The Linux Choice (or perhaps you haven't), and you're slightly confused by what exactly I meant. I thought, at the time of writing it, that I was being quite clear and succinct but obviously I was not.

(Yeah, so it wasn't very good, but really, did it sound like I was advocating a Microsoft-style development strategy for Linux? I mean, it wasn't that badly worded, was it?)

Just to be clear, I really like Linux and the choices that it offers. My intentions when writing the original Linux Choice, were to emphasize the reasons why so many people chose Linux, thus the title "The Linux Choice." Many people that have had only superficial experiences with Linux (that is to say, have "dipped their toes into the vast ocean that is Linux") tend to be dislike the confusingly huge numbers of choices that they have to make. They want easy, they want something that "just works" (of course Windows never works perfectly). But most Linux users love being able to make their own choices; something that Windows or Apple will probably never allow them to do.

Linux users got fed up with having Microsoft and Apple make all the wrong choices, so they took matters into their own hands. Some people like huddling in the shadows of towering corporations, finding solace in being babied. Others just don't give a crap. And yet many people complain and complain about how bad Windows is but never do anything about it. They never decide to "make their own choices," whereas Linux users (and other open source OS users) do.

A fellow by the name of czarr left me this note on digg:

No, it would not be better. As you point out in the article everyone writes a different version of a program with what they think it needs. Because they can. Basic proven tools are universal like wget, ping, grep. But just like in windows, you'll find hundreds of cd burning tools, text editors ect. Because people who can write programs have a different idea of how things should work. You might run a gnome environment and think that a file manager like Nautilus should be the "standard". Well i run openbox and i think that Nautilus is using too much of my memory so i use somthing lighter. Competition is healthy don't forget that.

OK so, yes, I did say: "Wouldn’t it be better, in short, to make Linux more like Windows or Mac?" BUT IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION! AND THERE IS A BLOODY PENGUIN AT THE TOP OF MY WEBPAGE! Was it so hard to infer from the paragraph following the aforementioned rhetorical question, that I didn't actually believe we should eliminate competition?!?! Yes, I know its often hard to derive tone from the written word. A friend and I once decided that everyone time we were going to be sarcastic while IMing each other, we would enclose our sarcastic statements in <sarc> </sarc> tags. But didn't I state that Linux users found solace in the freedom that Linux offers? Was it not clear, that I liked having choices, and that I associated having choices, with freedom?

And because I'm a little aggravated here, I'm going to vent some steam in a rather illogical manner. Czarr my friend, (And when I say "friend," I don't actually mean "friend," I am using the word as a form of verbal irony.) I don't like Gnome, and I don't Nautilus. You think Nautilus uses too much memory, well golly gee wilikers, it appears we have something in common. As a matter of fact, my favorite file manager is BASH (and yes, I know it isn't a file manager, but I think y'all know what I mean).

Since the horse is now well and truly dead, I see no reason why I shouldn't flail away at it a few more times. I LIKE LINUX, I LIKE CHOICES, I LIKE FREEDOM!

That is all.