Bad Linux Advocacy FAQ
(Raymondism FAQ)

 "Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs.
It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions."
Linux Advocacy Guidelines

Version 0.82

Contents

• Why the term "Raymondism" was introduced ?
• Is "Vulgar Marxism" a legitimate scientific term ?
• Can you give an example of Bad Linux advocacy thinking ?
• Can you describe some principles of good Linux advocacy ?
• Why do you object to the current Linux gold rush? After all it helps to produce more open source software...
• Are open source developers volunteer developers ?
• Why the success of Linux is mainly a manifestation of Unix Renaissance that could happen with or without Linux
• Why competition with Microsoft can be unhealthy for OSS movement ?
• Why is simplicity so important for the OSS movement?
• Why you are stressing the value of algorithms, architectural integrity and quality documentation of internals in the  open source?
• What is OSS nobility  and why you stress the fact of stratification of Linux community ?
• Why the postulate about high quality of OSS products in comparison with commercial is partially a myth ?
• Script Kiddies and Open Source or Vanity Fair Rulez
• Why the idea about high level of quality feedback to be partially a myth ?

• What are consequences of considering Open source as a special kind of academic research

• Is recognition the main driving force ?

• Open source and innovation

Notes:

1. BLA FAQ is maintained by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. It is partially based on e-mails received by the author after the publication of two papers in First Monday:

   • Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research
   • A Second Look at The Cathedral and The Bazaar
      

2. Those who are extra-sensitive to any criticism of open source/free software ideologies and practice might do well to avoid reading the FAQ. See also:

• Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research,

• An Annotated Webliography on Open Source Software Development Problems

• Problems of Open Source Software -- an Annotated Chronicle

• Softpanorama Copyright Links -- contains some discussion of various Open/Free Source licenses (actually there are more than 50 of them).

• Softpanorama Humor Archive. Unique Collection of Open Source Related Humor

• Free Riding on Gnutella

• Slashdot The New Linux Myth Dispeller -- paradoxically this discussion contains a lot of sound critical judgments about bad Linux advocacy. See for example Be-fan posting and subsequent thread (I will list only the first post; some interesting counterarguments can be found in subsequent posts)

  • Wow! Pro-Linux FUD! (Score:5, Informative) by be-fan on Saturday August 19, @03:15PM EDT (#86) (User #61476 Info)

    To be fair, the site is fairly objective. However, I have to bop them on a few points. 1) Linux may not be a nightmare to install, but it is still a nightmare to configure. The main problem is not so much that configuration is very text oriented, but it is not consistent. Some stuff is configured through user-space programs (hdparm and ifconfig.) Other stuff is configured through text files. Some stuff is configured through scripts (the old rc.modules style) others are configured via stuff like modules.conf. Often, there is little feedback if you do something wrong. I still don't know what I'm doing wrong configuring ALSA. 2) Linux multi-tasking. The site implies that Windows uses cooperative multi-tasking. That is simply not true. Windows95 and Windows NT all use preemptive multi-tasking and in fact multi-task SMOOTHER than Linux. It is not so much a performance thing as a "feel" thing. The default quantum in NT is around 20 milliseconds or so on workstation, 50-100 on server. The default quantum on Linux is 50 milliseconds (newly lowered in kernel 2.4). So on Linux, each app gets a longer time slice. While this may be more efficient, it degrades interactive performance (i.e. the "feel" of the system.) 3) Linux IS too huge. In order to get the same experience as one does with Windows, you have to use KDE or GNOME. Otherwise your competing a product with more features against one with less features. Also, if you don't use GNOME or KDE, some of the other "FUD" becomes true. To get a Linux system comparable to a Windows NT system, you have to have GNOME+KDE(both so you have full compatibility) +Mozilla+X+kernel. Not to mention the multiple versions of glibc and all the additional (often redundant) libraries all the apps use. In terms of memory usage, Linux blows NT4 out of the water (a bad thing) and is quite close to Windows 2000's bloat. 4) Linux IS playing catch up. Most new kernel features (journaling FS, new automounter, LVM, etc) have all been implemented on previous operating systems. Not to mention the fact how much KDE and GNOME are playing catch up. 5) Other OS kernels do NOT load everything at the same time. I don't know how they got this? Most of Windows is built out of DLLs which can be dynamically unloaded. Most UNIXs had modular kernels long before Linux. Microkernels like BeOS can turn off entire subsystems if they are not needed. 6) Linux DOESN'T take full advantage of hardware. Linux doesn't support DirectX, and thus automatically lacks support for a lot of hardware features that are in DirectX compliant hardware. The main reason was because transparent usage of hardware was a major design consideration for DirectX. It is based on the concept to support many different hardware features, have all applications use them, and then emulate those not supported by hardware. When the hardware supports new features, all apps and the OS automatically take advantage of them. Also, X doesn't have as complete a support for many graphics operations that are possible in DirectX. 7) Linux threads aren't all they are cracked up to be. I have seen tests show that NTs threads not only take less time to create, but switch significantly quicker. Also, the sites makes excuses for Linux's lack of threaded applications.         FACT: Multi-threaded apps are better. They may have slightly more overhead and are more complex to write, but it really pays of for those with SMP machines. It also pays of in today's systems because of the increasing number of CPUs in the system. Not only due to SMP, but the specialized chips systems use. Graphics cards can do operations independent of the CPU, so for most graphics apps, it makes a lot of sense to have an independent display thread. Thus, the main-thread can do things while the graphics card is busy working. Same thing for 3D audio. Instead of blocking the CPU waiting for the sound card to finish working, spawn another thread and have them process together. The trend is moving towards PCs with more and more independent chips, and there is no excuse for writing single threaded applications.         FACT: Threading on NT doesn't use cooperative multi-tasking. Where did they get that? Threads are preemptively threaded just like applications.         FACT: Linux doesn't use threads nearly as often as it should. By having the kernel and libraries heavily threaded, and with fine-grained locking, performance really improves. However, BeOS hopelessly outclasses both in the threads department. The same tests that show that NT threads switch quicker also showed that BeOS threads switch 10x quicker (that is due to the different model BeOS uses for threads. I can't find the article at the moment, but I'll post it when I do.) Also, the kernel, servers, kits and apps are heavily multi-threaded. The API encourages apps to be multi-threaded. If you've used BeOS on SMP machines, you know how important multi-threading is. 8) Linux really isn't that fast, depending on what you do. For server tasks it is undoubtedly a speed demon, but for desktop tasks, my NT4 machine (not to mention my BeOS machines) FEELS faster. Screens have less visible redraw, apps switch quickly from one to the other. Not to mention the fact that anything media oriented does much better on Windows than on Linux. (This is partially due to the APIs. X is really not great for fast display, OSS isn't really great for complex sound, the X input system can't compare to DirectInput, there really aren't that many MIDI APIs to speak of (at least those comparable to DirectMusic) and (as of now) 3D is STILL slower than on Windows. 9) The Linux desktop IS clunky. It's very attractive, but the Linux guys need to steal some ideas from the Mac instead of Windows. Can't fill a niche in the Linux software line? Then go help at www.beunited.org , where every developer counts.

History

In version 0.81 connection between Raymondism and groupthink was added.

In version 0.8 the following questions were added:

• Linux and other OSes (VMware, BE OS, FreeBSD, NT)

• The Tragedy of the Digital Commons: Free Ride on Free Developers

In version 0.7 the following questions were added:

• Script Kiddies and Open Source or Vanity Fair Rulez

• Open source and innovation

Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Created June 1, 1998; Last modified: March 12, 2019