The Linux Revolution: What Happened?

From: Alan Connor (zzzzzz_at_xxx.invalid)
Date: 07/31/05 

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:24:20 GMT

Let's check out what's happenning in yonder room.
There are two people there, each sitting in front
of a computer.

One's running Linux, and the other is running Windows.

Which is which? They both have screens filled with very similar
eye-candy and they both have a mouse in their right hands.

They are both watching movies, listening to music (or downloading
either), or playing video games or shopping or babbling inanities
on "chat rooms" or with IM.

You can't tell which is which by just watching them, without
knowing one or the other OS very well indeed. And the differences
that can be perceived from "over their shoulders" are
superficial.

Let's look deeper:

One difference is that the Linux box is somewhat more secure and
stable than the Windows box, although the Windows box is still up
and running well most of the time.

The Windows OS cost more than the Linux box, but most people
still pay for Linux, some more than others.

But the Windows box does do a better job, by-and-large, at these
mindless entertainment programs, with their Linux clones usually
lagging behind in time and perforance.

This is what the Linux Revolution has come to for most
people: Trying like hell to become just like Windows.

It's a crying shame. An utter travesty.

What do the rest of the Linux people do? Use the
Computer-Internet as the most incredible information sharing tool
has ever existed, rather than as a virtual shopping mall.

They learn about the world and its staggering challenges, and
discuss solutions. This is _very_ entertaining. And it is also
hard work. You have to study and think.

When they want to watch a movie, they turn on their televisions,
rent a video, or go to a theatre. When they want to play games,
they call some friends, grab a frisbee, and go to the park, or
find someone to play board or card games with. Real people.

When they want to listen to music, they turn on the FM radio,
where they can find every style of music that exists, in
hi-fidelity, and record whatever they want to record for
later. Or they play musical instruments with their friends
or go to concerts and other live performances.

When they want to talk to someone, just for company, they
find a real person to talk to. Or use their telephone, which
is a lot more intimate and rewarding than a "chat room" or IM.

If the Linux runner in that room had been of the non-Windows-Wannabee sort, you'd be able to tell the difference in the two with
no problem at all.

The Linux runner would be typing, not clicking a mouse, and most
of the time the screen would be filled with plain text on a
simple background.

Oh, there'd be a lot of images too, but they wouldn't be
eye-candy, and you wouldn't see any videos or hear any music
coming from their computer.

All three of these consume incredible amounts of bandwidth and
system resources which in turn demand greater amounts of hardware
(mining/refining/manufacturing/distributing/storing/construction)
and energy, which in turn do un-necessary harm to an environment
already under serious stress.

The idea that the Computer-Internet is somehow non-physical and
doesn't impact the environment, is simply ludicrous. But a lot
of people cling to that delusion with great tenacity.

Then there's the fact that the bandwidth of the Internet, which
is tied to a very phsycal infrstructure, is finite, and when
a minority of the world's population hog most of it for their
mindless entertainment and crass commercialism, others around the
world are left out. They do without a connection at all so that a
bunch of mindless consumers can have a high-speed connection.

Once again: a crying shame. A travesty. Linux should have
nothing to do with it.

It should be DIFFERENT than Windows, not struggling to be
just like it.

Otherwise, what is the fucking POINT!?

AC 

-- 
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/
http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html
Quantcast