Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Are Linux Zealots Terrorists? 812

pair-a-noyd submitted this one choice piece of flamebait, I'll just quote it ".. I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation with SCO or their employers. I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because zealots do not consider the repercussions of their actions" Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far, but he does make legitimate points that the Open Source community has wrestled with in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Linux Zealots Terrorists?

Comments Filter:
  • by RMH101 ( 636144 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:21AM (#7269151)
    Just don't respond, post anything with "M$" in it, or any of the other horde of bits of boilerplate text that ruin Slashdot.

    I'm sure if I check back in 10 minutes there'll be a couple of hundred comments from people who can't help themselves, but really - JUST LEAVE IT BE.


    • Agreed. This is the Enderle-troll, right? He's pathetic, don't stroke his cock by answering -- even in critique. He loves that.

    • by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:40AM (#7269302) Journal
      No, no no no. We should respond, intelligently and rationally. Responding to such garbage with intelligence discredits THEM, not US.

      Just look at the SCO coverage. The most reasoned arguments on /. get modded up to 5, and the media occassionally (not often enough though) picks up on these responses.

      That is a GOOD thing.

      • by eddy ( 18759 )

        No it isn't; you obviously don't know the enderle-troll. The whole point of his existance is to get people to respond, which is why he should be treated only silence.

        With the OP on the top I'd hoped that this could die as a 15-reply story, but I guess it wasn't meant to be.

        Both the submitter and CmdrTaco need a good LART'ing for posting this.

      • Waste of our time (Score:5, Informative)

        by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:57AM (#7269442) Journal
        Let's see: We're Linux zealots, say. There's two possibilities:

        1. We're NOT terrorists: In which case, this article is Flamebait. Responding to this is a waste of our time. Time that can go to improving our ever evolving baby -- Linux. Conclusion: Don't respond.

        2. We ARE Terrorists : (I know, I know,, just assume so, bite the bait for a sec.) Why should we waste our time giving up the game? We don't reveal our hand. Of course, we're a special band of Terrorists. Ones that try to kill IGNORANCE, ARROGANT CORPORATES, BIGOTRY, etc, etc. Anyway, Conclusion: Don't respond.

        TO sum up: Don't respond to this Flamebait. Move on. Learn the lesson not to rely on Slashdot for Meaningful News That Matters To Nerds. Learn that these days, even articles can be Falmebait, let alone Replies.

        Move on....

  • LOL! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cytlid ( 95255 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:22AM (#7269153)
    Yes, Linux enthusiasts are just as fanatic as terrorists. What this moron failed to realize is where terrorist are obsessed on hurting and promoting Fear (uncertainty, and doubt?), Linux zealots are obsessed with making better software, helping people and making the world a better place.

    When was the last time a terrorist helped a little old lady cross the road?
    • Re:LOL! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )
      Of course it is given that the side that you (speaking in the general sense of the word "you") represent is always upstanding and morally correct. And the opposition is always a demonic pit of festering zealots.
    • You would give away good software? You would help an old lady cross the road? You're going to Guantanamo, you pinko, GNU terrorist!

      This is excellent, the jokes about this are going rejuvenate the humor on /., so now we'll have more than just the old "in Soviet Russia" stuff.

    • Re:LOL! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by plumby ( 179557 )
      When was the last time a terrorist helped a little old lady cross the road?

      Probably as recently as a non-terrorist. Many 'terrorists' are pretty normal people caught up in situations where they see no option but to turn to violence in order to resist what they see as unbearable injustice. You may see people who are categorised as terrorists as automatically evil, but what would you do if your country had been occupied by a foreign power for the past 50 years, who treated you as a second class citizen, an

  • Fanaticism is never a good thing, but none the less a fanatic is sometimes requres to drive something forward when no one else will.

    In my oppinion RMS is a bit of a fanatic, but I'd still say the community needs him.

    But claiming that zealots are terrorists, well, that's a bit fanatic, isn't it?
  • by dmorin ( 25609 ) < minus bsd> on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:23AM (#7269161) Homepage Journal
    For the younguns -- Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill. He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi". The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.

    Our generation has a new bottom of the flamebait barrel. When somebody compares something to September 11 in an attempt to bolster their own argument, move on.

    • by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:43AM (#7269329) Journal
      I reject Godwin's law, because Nazi's, Hitler, and Sept. 11 were real events, and comparisons are sometimes valid.

      However, in this case... Heh, maybe I should rethink that :)

      • " I reject Godwin's law, because Nazi's, Hitler, and Sept. 11 were real events, and comparisons are sometimes valid."

        I don't think Godwin's Law was ever meant to apply to non-trivializing comparisons to Hitler. Saying Bill Gates is akin to Hitler runs afoul of Godwin's Law. Saying Pol Pot is akin to Hitler does not.
        • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @09:22AM (#7269705)
          I too reject Godwin's law, but that doesn't mean it isn't insightful on occasion (certainly vis-a-vis a Microsofties compensation for his own inadequacies (both physical, no doubt, and certainly those of his employer^H^H^H^H^H religion, Microsoft, in his comparison of 9/11 terrorists and mass murderers to GNU/Linux volunteers and enthusiasts). Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, after all.

          I don't think Godwin's Law was ever meant to apply to non-trivializing comparisons to Hitler.

          Godwin's law was never meant to apply to anything. It was a joke, a humorous aside mocking the many flame fests that would arise in USENET discussion groups, particularly those of a political bent. It never was "true" in any real sense (many flame fests never invoked Hitler once, even in passing, and many invocations of the lessons of WW II didn't involve flame fests at all), it was merely a clever characterization of many of the more inane flame fests that arose at the time.

          Saying Bill Gates is akin to Hitler runs afoul of Godwin's Law. Saying Pol Pot is akin to Hitler does not.

          Comparing Pol Pot to Hitler is certainly legitimate. How about comparing the rise of the radical right in America, and perhaps even their poster child, Bush, to Hitler? The historical timelines are strikingly similiar, and the rhetoric shockingly so ... does pointing that out constitute "running afoul of Godwin's law" merely because a great number of Bush's contemporaries would take exceptions (I suspect a great number of Pol Pot's followers would take exception to his comparison as well)?

          Or, better yet (and perhaps less ambiguously), lets consider Microsoft and Bill Gates. Bill Gate's comment (or rather, the Microsoft advertisement) of

          "One World, One Web, One Program"

          bears a striking resemblence to Hitler's famouse

          "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" catchphrase.
          (Translation: One People, One Empire, One Leader).

          Does noting that similiarity, and drawing parallels between the mentalities that derived such rhetoric, run afoul of Godwin's law? If so, I would argue that Godwin's Law is, at best, humorous (as it was originally intended) and more commonly a terrible negative, as it is being used to blind us to many of the very apropos lessons of history, insuring thereby that said history will repeat itself yet again, this time perhaps in our very own back yard.
    • Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981?!? Your history isn't even close. Here's the real story [] of Godwin's Law, written by Mike Godwin himself.

  • by PhxBlue ( 562201 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:25AM (#7269177) Homepage Journal

    I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats...

    A zealot will tell you you're going to Hell. A terrorist will try to send you there.

    • A zealot will tell you you're going to Hell. A terrorist will try to send you there.

      At the end of the day these are labels that are used by one group about another. Extremists exist everywhere, even some factions of our government appear more dangerous than some of the groups that we are meant to be scared of. Moderation and open mindness is usually the best way.

      There are corporartions that will make as much noise as the Open Source 'zealots', but since they have the money and the influence, they can do
    • Mod parent up. This is the only appropriate response to a troll like this: dismissive humor.
  • by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:26AM (#7269179) Homepage Journal
    The English magazine Private Eye [] has a section called Warballs [] which pokes fun at the medias desire to relate anything and everything to Sept 11. Just another instance of lazy journalism.
  • what they're talking about

    they'll probably blame it on the music [] I listen to....
  • Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Infernon ( 460398 ) *
    Who the hell is this guy?
    I've worked in the IT industry for about five years now. I've met all kinds of people who worked with many different kinds of operating systems. Programmers, sysadmins, netadmins, whatever... All of the open source gurus that I've encountered (every single one of them) have been respectful of other OS's. Not one of them is a huge M$ fan, but I believe that it's more because of M$'s business practice than anything else. With the exception of one BIND admin, these are very friendl
    • All of the open source gurus that I've encountered (every single one of them) have been respectful of other OS's. Not one of them is a huge M$ fan, but I believe that it's more because of M$'s business practice than anything else. With the exception of one BIND admin, these are very friendly people who are willing to teach those who are willing to listen, not shove their OS preference down the throats of others.
      Who the hell are these zealots, Mr. Enderle? What world are you living in?

      You haven't visite
  • by epseps ( 39675 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:28AM (#7269192)
    What could have been a valid critique of a technology movement devolved pretty fast when the comparison to terrorists was made.

    How many people have Linux "Zealots" killed in the past year?

    *crickets chirping*

    One would think that after 9/11 we would have a real definition of what a terrorist is and what they do. Instead what we have is too many people willing to use the word "terrorist" as it suits them and their goals.

    Pretty stupid.
  • This goes without saying. It's easy to equate the two because they're both typically used as slurs. This is like coming up with the theory that all assholes are motherfuckers. Hmm, it could be the case. Who's to say for sure. It certainly looks like something that could use some statistics to clear things up.
    According to recent scientific research by scientist it has been proven scientifically that over 82 percent of assholes are also motherfuckers. In a similar study it was proven to .9937 degree of ac
  • Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far

    That's odd. I was in Far just last week, and I didn't see a single zealot anywhere.

    Oh, by the way, you forgot to capitalize Far.

  • by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:29AM (#7269208) Homepage
    Sorry, when people go WAY too far, they are just using whatever as an excuse or cover.
    They likely aren't representative of the group, and their actions may be distasteful to the group they claim to be a part of.

    I think it is truely offensive to say Sept 11 was a religious act, any more then child molesting priests is a religious act.
  • Sure, as of right now no one is thinking about blowing anything up, but we still live in a pretty palatable world, quite unlike some of the religious terrorists who live a life of persecution.

    Imagine a world where everything you believe in is being destroyed and you have precious few options.

    Having trouble? OK, try this: DRM is in full swing and you have to pay per use of every piece of media, software, etc. etc. CPUs and BIOS have been hardwired for DRM, and Windows is the only game in town. Bye Bye
  • Who are these 'zealots'? I've never come across one. Their main existence seems to be as straw men for lame Slashdot posts to argue against.

    RMS may be a zealot but he doesn't match the template given in the article (eg, Microsoft is not the Great Satan) or many of the beliefs attributed to him in Slashdot postings ('all software has to be GPL not BSD-licensed').
  • by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:31AM (#7269232) Homepage Journal
    /. just melted the server this rant was on... So I guess Linux Zealots may be "terrorists" after all!

    I can see the scene from here:

    *sound of melted plastic bubbling from the crater that once was a web server*

    User: Oh my gosh!! What happened to that server??
    Admin: Your rant against the Linux Zealots was posted on Slashdot.
    User: Oooops.
    Admin: The server was slashdotted by 500,000 angry Slashdot readers. 45 seconds after the post.
    User: Oooops.
    Admin: (points silently to the spiky 5ft cluebat hanging on the wall behind his desk)
    User: Oooops?
    *loud thump*
    User: I told you so! Linux zealots are terrorists!
    Admin: Maybe, but I feel better now...
  • No (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chegosaurus ( 98703 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:34AM (#7269260) Homepage
    But an awful lot of them are idiots.
  • If there isn't some aspect of extremism, the real problems never get laid out. Though we are far from perfect, we are much closer to perfect than we were before a bunch of ball-busting, man-hating , feminist zealots pushed the issues onto us testosterone types.

    Where would the women's movement be without it's radicals (zealots).

    Our society flatly rejects violence, whatever its cause. Most violence is not caused by zealots.
  • I'll kill them! I'll kill them all!


    Seriously, that is just absolutely hilarious! I think it's pretty obvious how much the anti-OSS folks are grasping at straws.


  • I think it's pretty funny that he's comparing one userbase against a corporation's practices/products. He should write an article on trojans, spyware, security, and operating system resilience and bring out the true windows users. You know why I like Linux? More than often, you have to read the docs to set stuff up. That shows initiative on the user's behalf. When windows users rtfm as much as linux users and get a clue, then we can compare the userbase.

    Within both camps there will be idiots. Those t
  • >I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.

    I strongly belive that if september 11th showed us anything, it was that the best way to FUD against any person or movement is calling him(them) "zealot" "terrorist" or "fanatist".
  • I'm amazed. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:39AM (#7269295) Homepage
    I'm really astounded that something like this has made it to the front page. I would think Taco would be able to resist posting something like this over all the years.

    I mean, holy crap, this will go down in troll history. This guy will flip out when he sees he made the front page.
  • Wow. This is actually a very rare piece of journalism, one which is entirely constructed of ad hominem and straw man arguments, while containing no actual content whatsoever.

    I guess just creating arbitratry categories of people and then fancifully ascribing to each whatever comes to mind qualifies one as a "Principal Analyst".

    Maybe time for a career change for me...

    <job application>In my experience, there are three types of Republicans, which I'll call "Pro Republicans", "Priest Republicans", a
  • Say you don't agree with what they have to say. You define them as a terrorist and lock them up indefinitely.

    Recent anti terrorist legislation has made this entirely plausible in the UK.

  • Linux: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalistic monopoly.
    Terrorism: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalist society.

    Linux: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.
    Terrorism: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.

    Linux: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" operating system.
    Terrorism: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" group.

    Linux: Attractive to those looking to destroy Microsoft and the software industry.
    Terrorism: Att
    • "Terrorism: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalist society."

      No it's not. Why do so many people assume that terrorism is some new entity that only just sprung up to object to the US' foreign policy of the last half-century?
      Please get a dictionary, and a history book or two, even if your post is in jest ;)

  • ...terrorism to the Linux community and SCO.

    Linux "zealots" would have studied the twin towers, found a way to improve them and a community to do it in their spare time, opened their work for everyone to see (a "nothing to hide" philosophy), and done it for little or no money, perhaps charging only for future consultation.

    SCO would have claimed the towers were theirs for some strange reason, provided no proof (except for maybe the toilets looked the same), worked in secret (much like terrorists!) and th
  • My impression is that the vast majority of folks who are critical of my own columns have actually done a very good job avoiding actually reading them.

    I actually RTFA, and now I feel all dirty. Why are we giving web traffic to trolls? I'm well aware of the perils of having made up my mind and moving forward with a plan. The more you're committed to an action, the more flexibility and freedom you lose.

    I'm not perfect. I make mistake, I go to far, I don't plan far enough ahead, and I make the wrong cal

  • by bigberk ( 547360 ) <> on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:45AM (#7269342)
    The article certainly isn't news... it isn't even informative. What point is it trying to make? That the predominantly young, technically well-educated, and academic community that is the user base of the open source movement is 'dangerous'? Bullshit. Ignore Rob Enderle of TechNewsWorld so he can't afford his crack any more.

    You know who I think are more like terrorists? Religious fundamentalists of all kinds (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, whoever); politicians that are secretly fascists, who want to take away Americans' rights (Cheney comes to mind); and companies that are so large that they can manipulate the government, to the detriment of citizens.
  • So many ppl accuse this of being zealotry. That is pushing Linux everywere and trying to get people to simply open their eyes. Yet, tt is nothing more than a grass root marketing. The only difference is that the Linux world can not afford to buy off magazines, editors, politicians, or judges.
  • While I think zealotry is never a good thing (maybe except with regard to porn ...erh, nevermind), there is a fundamental difference between the "normal" terrorist and the "normal" linux zealot.
    Terrorists are usually a (zealous) member of a religion which regards the rest of us as infidels, barely higher than pigs, if that. To them, the infidels, and ALL infidels, must die.
    I don't think this compares to a linux zealot at all. I have yet to meet the linux geek that wants to kill windows users (for real that
  • Enderle Group (Score:3, Informative)

    by Valar ( 167606 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:50AM (#7269382)
    Remember. This is Rob Endlerle "of the Enderle Group", which as it turns out, is a one man consulting job, aparently payed to write nasty articles about Linux. Remember the last one? The one that claim Microsoft is indeed more secure and an overall better server platform than anything else. He addressed security concerns using such advanced techniques as "block port 80" (which was eventually changed...). It is a payed troll, ignore, continue.
  • When a piece of flamebait like this appears we blindly click on it fullfilling the dreams of the person who posted it, only hoping to generate clicks and keep their job another week...
  • Not only do I have a Samba/LDAP/Postfix server in my house, I also smoke weed. If the pot-smoking doesn't make me a terrorist, then the Linux server MUST seal my fate.

    See you guys at Guantanamo! Maybe they'll give us all adjacent cages...
  • by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @08:58AM (#7269450)

    He actually makes some very valid points:

    • Much (not all) Slashdot (and pro-OSS) discussion never actually references sources, preferring to stick to anecdotal second hand knowledge - "Windows always crashes" etc.
    • 'Linux Priests' can be blinded to flaws in OSS by their love of OSS in general. I'm guilty of this myself. Blind belief is never a good thing - admit flaws and fix them, don't just flame/ignore people who point them out.
    • His use of zealot is different from what a standard slashdotian would use it for. He means the real nutcases (check out arstechnica openforum battlefront for examples).
    • He doesn't call zealots terrorists. He says that the nutcases are dangerous to the OSS cause, just as islamic terrorists are dangerous to moderate Islam - the nutcases get the press coverage and we all get tarred with the same brush. Take the DoS attack on SCO, for example. That didn't do anyone any good and gave the other side ammunition to use against the Linux community
    • by Population ( 687281 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @02:06PM (#7272933)
      Here's a direct quote from it:

      "I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats."

      Whatsamatta? You no speeka de English?

      Terrorists kill people. They kill PEOPLE.

      And he has a hard time seeing a difference between someone killing someone and someone arguing with him?

      I think that qualifies as an "idiot".
  • There's no such thing as an Open Source community. There are only bunch of peoples/companies with very different (even diverging) interests, working sometimes together on some particular projects.
  • Are Christians any better than [insert terrorist-like group here]?
    Seriously, let's take a bunch of die-hard, religious Americans, and compare them to some of these militant religious folks over on the other side of the world. Hell, why not take some of those die-hard Cubs fans that are screaming for the death of the guy who caught the fowl ball in game 6--they seem to disregard life and society and think the damn world revolves around their sucky team. I'm certain there's some parallels in each of these ca
  • pair-a-noyd submitted this one choice piece of flamebait

    Just because you don't agree with someones opinion doesn't necessarily make it flamebait.

  • by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @09:06AM (#7269513) Homepage
    It has become fashionable to label everyone who has an extreme point of view on nearly any subject a "terrorist."

    Make no mistake about this -- Linux advocates are not terrorists. They are zealots. By definition, a zealot is a fanatically committed person. That could describe any number of people -- Cubs fans, religious folks, car enthusiasts, bikers, and yeah, Linux fans. Do any of the aforementioned folks necessarily blow up people, depriving them of life or liberty in order to propogate their aims? No. Therefore, they are not terrorists, they are zealots.

    It bears saying that it is extremely provocative to label someone a 'terrorist' and the term is akin to calling someone a Jew in 1930's Germany, or a Communist in 1950's America. In the case of Linux "terrosits" the idea is specious and slanderous on it's face: the writer is imply because some people go over the top and do things that embarass a larger group that they are the equivilant of murderers.

    Get real.

    • Disagree with someone but don't want to use reason? Try these labels, they are time tested!

      ~30 AD-1800: Heretic/Heathen (West)
      1775-1782: Tory (US)
      1789-1799: Royalist, Jacobian (France)
      1862-1864: Copperhead (US)
      1865-1877: Carpetbagger (US)
      1890-1920: Anarchist
      1918-1991: Communist/Commie (West), Counterrevolutionary (East)
      2001-?: Terrorist

      More to follow, I'm sure!
  • by fanatic ( 86657 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @09:18AM (#7269651)

    Why didn't the story mention that this is the fool Enderle? I don't even bother to read his stuff anymore, he's so full of shit.

    He lost his gig as an "analyst" with giga for writing in public that he is just someone whose opinion is for sale. Now all he can do is stir up shit to grovel for eyeballs.

    Don't give adverstisers your eyeballs for this one.

    Enderle is so far over the top that even PHBs (I hope) will see this for the nonsense it is.

  • RTFA (Score:3, Redundant)

    by cyberlync ( 450786 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @09:26AM (#7269759)
    I know this is slashdot, but you really need to read the article before you post. The above comment was taken very much out of context. Don't get me wrong this guy is no friend of Linux or Open Source but he is not the contrarian idiot this slashdot posting makes him out to be. So just take a second and read it before you post.
  • by erat ( 2665 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @11:10AM (#7270877)
    I agree with one of the folks who posted about an empty slot between "pros" and "priests" (some "priests" actually do back up their biased opinions with facts, see ESR for one example), and although I disagree with the "terrorist" comparison (I do, however, believe that someone at some point is going to pull a majorly stupid stunt in the name of advocacy), I think the author of the article makes some fairly accurate statements about today's open source advocates.

    I say that as a reformed "priest" (and one time "zealot"). Now that I can sit back and objectively watch the open source community react to stuff like this I am shocked by some of the stuff I read/hear, more often than not because I've uttered such things myself in the past. Sorry, folks, but some of you truly are creepy people... Not all, but some. You know who you are, too.

    And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom. Personally, now that I can think more clearly on such matters I prefer to get BOTH sides of a story before forming an opinion, thank you very much. I recommend you read Animal Farm some time and see which side of the farm you philosophically relate to the most. I'll spoil the ending for you: when all is said and done, the animals on the farm can't tell the pigs from the humans.

  • Whenever they read an article with the word 'terrorist', especially in American-based media, mentally replacve the word with 'communist'. If the resulting story sounds like a bad example of 1950's propoganda, then you have just spotted an example of modern propoganda congratulations.

    Are Linux Zealot's Communists?

    Yeah, I thought so.


  • by ReelOddeeo ( 115880 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @01:35PM (#7272618)
    Want to see a true zealot? Play the Steve Ballmer monkey boy video. Or the "I Love This Company" video.

    Why do people automatically assume that the zealots are all on one side?

    Why do zealots on the other side assume that having passion about anything is wrong? (Unless it is the same passion that they share.)

    Why does the article begin by stating that a Pro (not priest or zealot) is platform agnostic? So you can't be a Linux Pro and have a platform preference? Would having a Microsoft platform preference automatically disqualify you from Pro and put you into Microsoft Priest or Microsoft Zealot?

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • by aphor ( 99965 ) on Tuesday October 21, 2003 @02:53PM (#7273531) Journal

    This topic is SO OLD...

    The most dangerous party member.-- In every party there is one who through his all too credulous avowal of the party's principles incites the others to apostasy.
    from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.298, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!