Hello, My name is Trojan, and I was a Linux user for 11 years.
I've used Linux through tick and thin, I've hated, loved and used it since 1997.
I'm sorry to say that I've lost my taste for anything to do with Linux. Was it the lack of hardware support that made me leave? Was it the lack of video games? Was it the lack of the commercial software? Nope.
I've been a spectator in the Linux community for most of the time I used Linux. I've also witnessed the downfall of it, I've watched it turn into an evil, lying, uneducated, uninformed bunch of users, who have turned something I once loved into a die hard fanatical religion. One can say that it was always like this, but, I would disagree. The Linux user base I knew used to be mostly made up of elitists and computer gurus who kept quiet about what they used, and didn't push it on to anyone.
Not everything has changed though, the user base still has some of the old characteristics, like the fact they aren't normal users by any stretch of the imagination. Linux today is nothing more than a group of Zealots who have no understanding of what they're worshiping. I've seen one too many "I converted my grandmother to Ubuntu" stories, I've seen one too many "Year of the Linux desktop", I've seen too many "Linux is just as easy to use as Windows" articles. It makes me very bitter to see how uninformed people are about Linux, and how completely retarded they've become.
My tipping point was a thread over at Ubuntu Forums, where someone posted our site (linsux.org):
Within two days, I had about 3 death threats, 10 hacking threats and tons of half thought replies to our articles. I began thinking, is this really what I'm part of? Am I part of a community that preaches love and sharing while threatens murder and to hurt anyone whom disagrees? Yes, and it makes me sick to the very pit of my stomach to know that.
I can never get back the time I wasted using Linux, but I can put the skill to use in other ways I guess.
I've learned one thing though, and that's no matter how great an idea is, it doesn't take much for it to be ruined. All it takes is one uninformed, retarded community.
I say this to the people who are considering trying Linux: Don't bother, don't try it, do NOT have anything to do with it. It's nothing more than a cult full of hatred and denial.
I backed up my data, and removed Slackware, Fedora 8, OpenSuse and Debian from my computer today. I've kept my copy of FreeBSD and Windows on there, I haven't figured out what I will move to, though.
Good Bye Linux, and F*** You to the community. You're not worth my time.
I bolded the curiously relevant bit, since it's just such a "OMG Linux on the desktop is right around the corner!" type article that it was started for.
sourceAlso, it's interesting to note how well diehard linux advocates sucking on RMS's teat ignored
this.
returning to the Original Post:
This year nobody can argue because it is already a fact.
Citation needed. *censored* the majority of freaking slashdot visitors are running windows. As I said, if you want to include desktops, tablets, servers, and any other system that requires programmable firmware/software in the form of an operating system, of course Linux will come out ahead; but that's fudging the numbers, and it's not even worth exploring, because Server's have been predominantly NIX-based for years. This isn't a new development. This hasn't been worth reporting on ever, or writing an article about. It's would be like writing an article about "will QWERTY become the most popular layout"?
The article is just a case of Moving the Goal posts. "It's not on the desktop but it's used in other places!" Yes, and it's been used in other places for years. This isn't news, this isn't article worthy, it never was. It's only article worthy to those "freedom fighters" who are convinced that they are fighting some kind of war. This is exactly the reason why I avoid reading ANY articles like that. Particularly since almost any article about Linux by these "magazines" is basically just a load of FUD. take
this for example. it's notable because it doesn't directly compare Linux to Windows, instead it is about 5 things that Linux does better then Mac OSX. That should raise red flags for any critical thinker; any article that fits the pattern "# things that OS A does/doesn't do that OS A can" or something to that effect is practically guaranteed to be filled with nonsense and bias. In fact they do that in the third paragraph: they state outright "as an outspoken fan of Linux", as if that qualifies them in the eyes of the world as anything other than a raving maniac.
I particularly enjoy posts and opinions of the form of SgrA's, that isn't to say they are wrong, but aside from being purely subjective, state outright "I have no idea how windows works but I feel I am in a position to tell people when the OS is hosed". I mean, seriously, malware that formats the drive? Really, I'm pretty sure those Ebola-type computer viruses and malware stopped being created in the early nineties because they were absolutely useless to the virus writer. Nowadays malware is about the writers trying to make money of their product by packaging in adware and other crap and offering to "install" applications on the machines they have control over. There is no reason to become intensely destructive in that case (such as via formatting the drive). In fact in my experience I found early on that a lot of what I did to try to stop an infection would often cause problems worse than the infection. When fixing other peoples machines, it's never occured to me to use gparted, delete the system drive, blame windows malware and then conveniently-and totally not on purpose- happen to have a thumb drive with an alternative Operating System on it. Linux is supposed to be about choice and freedom (supposedly, although I'd hardly classify the GPL as "freedom" but that's another topic altogether), I'd estimate- judging from a number of posts from members here seeking to get Windows back, as well as posts seen elsewhere and having to "fix" the machines that some helpful zealot already "fixed", that a lot of the people using Ubuntu or various other Linux distro's weren't really offered the choice, and instead were basically "forced" into it. If somebody asks "hey, can you fix my PC" you don't see malware, give up and install a Linux distro. That's not fixing the computer, that's being a self-serving douche. They asked you to fix it, not use it as a Soapbox. Now that said, if they express interest in actually running it, then you could engage your zealotry overdrive, but other than that, most people just
don't want to hear it. I mean, really, I use Linux, but if somebody asks me "What Operating System do you use" I'll say windows, because that is the one I use more often. I know far too many self-proclaimed "Linux users" who spend their time using mIRC in Windows XP complaining about how behind the times Windows is compared to Linux... and it's just sad. This is another "subset" of Linux zealots that ironically don't even use Linux. Many of them use windows and just complain. I find it difficult to understand how somebody can recommend an Operating System they have never used, but apparently a screenshot with two translucent console windows where one is tailing a syslog and the other is running a python script is enough to convince them.
If you really want a "free" OS, use FreeBSD; just compare their licenses. The BSD/MIT License is more "free" then the GPL. But that is a horse of a different colour.
