Re: [tlug] Post my article on tlug.jp?: Who's view does it represent?

["Jonathan Byrne" <jonathan@example.com>]

On 7/27/2007, "Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com> wrote:


>I am not singling either of you two out, this is in the larger context
>of Dave getting "taught" about writing by people with the same
>qualifications as him

How do you know the qualifications are the same as his? If four people
read something I wrote and they all say "I'm a better editor than you
are and can help improve this" there's a good chance they are right,
especially because the worst editor of an author's own work is
(surprise!) the author himself. That's why professional writers all
have professional editors standing between them and the presses.

>Would you like it if I "helped" you with your code, ad nauseum, after
>you already told me you were happy with it?

Isn't that kind of the point of Free (and maybe even of Open Source)
software that if I put some code out there and call it done and you
think it's very from from done, you can not only say so as much as you
want, but take the code and fix it if you've a mind to?

Now, you can contribute that code back upstream to the author and he may
incorporate the patch or he may just drop it on the floor, and if he
does that and you don't like it, then you can fork the code if you want
to (either privately or in a release to the world).

If you want us to only review the CONTENT (emphasis yours) instead of the
quality of the writing, then I have to alter my position. My position
WRT the writing is "This needs some work, but we can make it good and
publish it."

My opinion on the CONTENT is that it's a faulty premise, supported only
by anecdotal evidence about swapping copies of non-free applications
software, not copies of Windows itself. The "Windows is effectively
free" argument is an accurate one in Viet Nam, China, and other
developing economies where widespread piracy is the norm and it's hard
to find a legit copy of proprietary software even if you want one, but
the majority of the computers running Windows in Japan, the United
States, and other developed economies are running legit copies, not
pirated ones.

Further, even if Windows were free, I doubt that would be the main reason
people keep using it. The big reasons people keep using a thing are
generally that it does what they want, or at least does it well enough
that the pain of switching doesn't seem worth it, it's supported by
the hardware vendor, it's what they know and are comfortable with, it
runs the apps they know and are comfortable with, it's what they use at
work (this is actually a huge reason), etc. Price has little to do with
it. I didn't become a Linux user because it was free (as in beer).
Neither did you, I'm sure. I became a Linux user at first because it
was fun and seemed like something that would be worth knowing, and then
it became my primary OS because it met most of my needs better than
Windows met them.

The argument about free works well when talking about applications (how
long would you have to look to find a home Windows machine that didn't
have any pirated software on it? Or even one that didn't have mostly
pirated software on it?), but not when talking about the OS itself.
However, the main point of the article is that the main reason for
Windows' continued dominance is that it's effectively free for the end
user. I believe that to be completely wrong.

Another countercase is the corporate desktop. The proprietary software
(OS and apps alike) at most companies is licensed and paid for. Yet this
market sector, where cost is a much greater issue than it is for the
home user because they are paying for the software, is also the one
where adoption of desktop Linux has been the slowest. Why? Because the
price is probably the least factor.

So, if we're going to decide based on content quality rather than
writing quality, then my answer will most likely be just "No" because
I think the content is more wrong than right. At the least, we'd need
to put in a header along the lines of "The opinions expressed in this
article are solely those of the author and are not endorsed by TLUG."
Even then, people will probably view our publishing it as tacit
endorsement. If TLUG is going to publish editorials, they ought to be
editorials on why people *should* use Linux, not editorials on reasons
why the don't.

Cheers,

Jonathan