3 ms·

>> his argument is basically 'Linux couldn't open a file that everybody else could, but by dicking around with random half-assed documented tools we could do it

by raghava 15y ago

>> his argument is basically 'Linux couldn't open a file that everybody else could, but by dicking around with random half-assed documented tools we could do it anyway!'. May be one could even interpret it like 'there are a lot of software vendors who force their users into proprietary solutions and formats but with Linux at hand, limitations could be worked around to get things done'. Perspective, isn't it?

roel_v 15y ago
No, one couldn't, or at least not from the situation presented here. Look, there are two situations in the example in the OP: - 1. User has 'regular' Windows PC with Office. User downloads file from website, double-clicks file, is on his merry way. - 2. User has Linux PC and an ideological axe to grind so doesn't want to use anything else. User needs to hunt internet for software, turns out not be be so easy, spends hours and finds intense satisfaction in accomplishing something that is considered trivial by other people. User then proceeds to write blog post proclaiming, totally and utterly non sequitur, superiority of Linux because he managed to accomplish said trivial task. The only 'limitation' here is a self-imposed one - the guy refuses to use anything but Linux to convert his data on. That's like saying 'I ran a marathon with a rope of 30 cm tied between my ankles'. Impressive (in a certain way), sure - but why? Why not just run the more efficient way like everybody else, with no rope? If you're going to defend your OS by cherry-picking tasks that are somehow easier or more elegantly done by it, go ahead - the internet is full of them, but hey what do I care, everybody is free to do whatever they want in this regard. But this 'example' doesn't make any sense and confirms the general notion that Linux is for people who like technology for technology's sake and revel in finding convoluted, over-engineered solutions to the most menial tasks. And in that sense, it affects us normal people who just want to get stuff done too, because it causes a negative image for Linux, rather than what I'm sure the author thought would be a positive one; hindering its uptake in contexts where it is superior or appropriate. I'm not saying this guy single-handedly destroyed Linux, I'm just really desperate with seeing this toxic single-mindedness still being so pervasive, after all those years.

by raghava 15y ago

roel_v 15y ago

No, one couldn't, or at least not from the situation presented here. Look, there are two situations in the example in the OP: - 1. User has 'regular' Windows PC with Office. User downloads file from website, double-clicks file, is on his merry way. - 2. User has Linux PC and an ideological axe to grind so doesn't want to use anything else. User needs to hunt internet for software, turns out not be be so easy, spends hours and finds intense satisfaction in accomplishing something that is considered trivial by other people. User then proceeds to write blog post proclaiming, totally and utterly non sequitur, superiority of Linux because he managed to accomplish said trivial task. The only 'limitation' here is a self-imposed one - the guy refuses to use anything but Linux to convert his data on. That's like saying 'I ran a marathon with a rope of 30 cm tied between my ankles'. Impressive (in a certain way), sure - but why? Why not just run the more efficient way like everybody else, with no rope? If you're going to defend your OS by cherry-picking tasks that are somehow easier or more elegantly done by it, go ahead - the internet is full of them, but hey what do I care, everybody is free to do whatever they want in this regard. But this 'example' doesn't make any sense and confirms the general notion that Linux is for people who like technology for technology's sake and revel in finding convoluted, over-engineered solutions to the most menial tasks. And in that sense, it affects us normal people who just want to get stuff done too, because it causes a negative image for Linux, rather than what I'm sure the author thought would be a positive one; hindering its uptake in contexts where it is superior or appropriate. I'm not saying this guy single-handedly destroyed Linux, I'm just really desperate with seeing this toxic single-mindedness still being so pervasive, after all those years.