Message 01948 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT01948 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox] [Fwd: [clara] Linux und Sex in Japan]

Ein kleines Schmankerl: Linux und Sex in Japan.

We have sex, but we also have Linux.
Hiroo Yamagata 
 What is Linux? If you have to ask this question now, you haven't
been paying 
due attention to the computer world. Short answer: It's a full-spec
compromise PC-UNIX, POSIX (an industry standard) compliant and
Freeware doesn't mean it's cost-less (although it is priceless,
It means that you can freely re-distribute and/or change it. Linux
itself is 
just the kernel, which is the core of an Operating System (OS). In
order to 
make it usable at all, you need to add many programs from the GNU
which is THE freeware project. Therefore, it is common to refer it
GNU/Linux system. 

 It started out as just a study project of Linus Torvalds in
Finland. It was 
released on the Net, volunteer hackers swarmed onto it, and before
you know 
it, it achieved a frightening level of perfection like no other
OS. So small that it still fits on a single floppy, so robust and
that users tend to forget how to restart a system, so quick in its
to bugs and security holes (typically less than a day). Huge pack of
users and volunteers (us) that supports it. Initial cost that is
often less 
than zero. Last but not least, it comes with the source code, which
that you can do something about whatever trouble that may arise. As
a result, 
users are increasing at an enormous rate, and the total number is
to be a couple of millions. 

 You should, however be careful with this user number figure. One of
biggest mistakes that you see with articles on Linux is that they
tend to 
apply the idea of market share all too easily. User head count is
knee deep into that mistake. Once you get caught, there's no way you
can get 
the right picture of things. 
 One stupid question that often arise from this mistake goes like
this: "Can 
Linux beat Win95/NT?" 

......Now, what kind of a question is that? If you're talking about 
performance, yeah, we beat Win95 hands down. But, that's not what
you want to 
talk about, is it? You want to talk about market shares. However,
Linux is 
freely distributable. Nobody knows how many copies there are. So,
this figure, it*s hard to talk about "market shares" to begin with. 

 Besides, what's the point? We never wanted to increase "shares."
There's no 
marketing involved, no "business strategy" (we're not "business" to
with, you know). If someone wants to use Linux, fine, we will help
you. We 
will even give you the installation CD (if we have one handy.) Where
we had 
trouble, we will make documentation and packages to cope with them,
so that 
the next guy has less of it. And after several years, what do you
know, there 
are so many of us! Great! But, we are not competing with
Yeah, yeah, we occasionally have who's-the-best argument with other
like FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but nothing serious. 

  Besides, many Linux users are notorious flirts. It is not uncommon
for us 
to be simultaneously engaged in hot and steamy relationships with
four or 
five OS at any given night or day. We even use Microsoft stuff daily
if we 
have to, although we do frown upon some of their "features." Market
share, on 
the other hand, is based upon the idea of a monogamous and exclusive 
relationship between a user and an OS. It simply doesn't apply to
us. The 
point is, our purpose is not to compete or dominate (although we
just might, 
in the end.) Besides, what do we get if we "beat Win95," anyway? Why
want to make these stupid analyst type smart ass comment, we never
had any 
idea. Leave that kind of worrying to Bill Gates. He gets paid enough
to do 
that. For us, it's just computers, you know. 

  "It's nerd stuff, it will never become mainstream." So? Since when
do we 
have to become "mainstream" (whatever that is)? We never begged or
anyone to use it. We use it because we want to. It's refreshing to
know that 
your antiquated PC had the power of a Workstation. Some people
simply got fed 
up with unstable Mac and Windows. Some people need the same UNIX
at home. Some people want to play jokes with xeyes and fvwm95 (this
just like Win95). Would being mainstream have any meaning to these
Sidestream is OK by me, as long as the server doesn't crash. 

"Can Linux survive?" Another idiotic question based on the market
share idea. 
First, Linux hardly ever crashes, so it doesn't give you a chance to
kill and 
get rid of it. If you're using it as a server, yes, the odds are
that it will 
survive, along with your happy LAN. Commercial software may die,
lower sales may lead to less development. Linux, however, is done by 
volunteers. Since the source code is available, someone may resume 
development long after you thought its dead. So, "can it survive?"
question. "Do I want this to survive?" is the correct way to put it.
If you 
do, write codes. Make documents. Help people. You don't have to
stand and 
watch it die like the Mac. 

To sum it up, we're different. Our origin, development, community
improvement, goals, distribution, way of thinking, in short,
everything. We 
are something GNU. Classic industrial models and organization models
simply irrelevant. Even newer incentive models have limited power on
us. This 
is because we are very disorganized. We are so disorganized that we
even decide on how to pronounce Linux (and we hardly ever care). No
theory or 
model can even remotely describe this sort of wretched chaos that is
us. In 
spite of (or because of) that, we reproduce and multiply. How? Well,
as we 
often say, "we have sex but we also have Linux."

Organisation: projekt

[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT01948 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 01948 [Homepage] [Navigation]