[ox] [Fwd: [clara] Linux und Sex in Japan]
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:31:18 +0100
Ein kleines Schmankerl: Linux und Sex in Japan.
URL: http://www.post1.com/home/hiyori13/wired/linsexe.html
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
no
compromise PC-UNIX, POSIX (an industry standard) compliant and
freeware.
Freeware doesn't mean it's cost-less (although it is priceless,
literally).
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
project,
which is THE freeware project. Therefore, it is common to refer it
as
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
commercial
OS. So small that it still fits on a single floppy, so robust and
immortal
that users tend to forget how to restart a system, so quick in its
response
to bugs and security holes (typically less than a day). Huge pack of
friendly
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
means
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
estimated
to be a couple of millions.
You should, however be careful with this user number figure. One of
the
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
already
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,
without
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
begin
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
anything/anyone.
Yeah, yeah, we occasionally have who's-the-best argument with other
PC-Unices
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
people
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
forced
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
environment
at home. Some people want to play jokes with xeyes and fvwm95 (this
looks
just like Win95). Would being mainstream have any meaning to these
people?
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,
because
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?"
Wrong
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
growth,
improvement, goals, distribution, way of thinking, in short,
everything. We
are something GNU. Classic industrial models and organization models
are
simply irrelevant. Even newer incentive models have limited power on
us. This
is because we are very disorganized. We are so disorganized that we
can't
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."
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de