I have been pondering the makeup of the Linux and FOSS (Free Open Source Software) communities and my role in the same. I see myself as an Advocate of Linux and FOSS. I attempt to promote the use of Linux and FOSS as often as I can. While I am also not a proponent of CSS (Closed Source Software) I am not necessarily an opponent to CSS. I think end-users should decide which they prefer to use or use both if they see fit. For example I also like eComStation and the WPS (Workplace Shell) that runs on top of eComStation which at this point is CSS. I will not refuse to use it just because it is CSS. I have friends and family that prefer Apple computers with OS X. That does not bother me either, I applaud them for using a Unix based personal computer. So, it appears I am not a Zealot although some would disingenuously call me a Zealot simply because I am an Advocate of Linux and FOSS. We in the Linux community see this type of supposed slander often in USENET news groups and in online forums.
It appears that many who become users of Linux and FOSS are also Advocates for others to do the same. Why should they not be such Advocates? There is a lot of good software out there under these labels that allows one to get done almost any task one needs to do on a personal or business computer. The only cost in most cases is the cost of one’s time to learn the software. There is also some “garbage” software in FOSS as well but much less than some would claim. Even then, as long as the “garbage” software is FOSS it can be fixed by anyone with the skill and desire to fix it. The same cannot be said of CSS since the majority of people are not allowed to see or modify CSS code. So, are these Advocates of Linux and FOSS truly Zealots? Is Zealotry a Bad Thing™?
What is an Advocate and what is a Zealot? The dictionary definitions taken from dict.org are:
Advocate \Ad"vo*cate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Advocated; p. pr. & vb. n. Advocating.] [See Advocate, n., Advoke, Avow.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal or the public; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.
Zealot \Zeal"ot\, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See Zeal.] One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.
I suppose whether or not Zealotry is a Bad Thing™ is subjective. I can see, based on these definitions, where both Advocacy and Zealotry have a place in the promotion of an idea or an ideal. One must decide for oneself on which side of the question one falls. I still see my self as an Advocate. How do you see yourself?
on Apr 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ah, Lauwenmark (a user of Freenode IRC network) pointed out to me there is another choice than Advocate and Zealot. There is the Diplomat who is neither an Advocate nor a Zealot but is someone who would think thusly:
“I don’t specifically defend OSS publicly, or always plead in favor of (same). I recognize its advantages in a wide range of cases, but I don’t consider it to be the only answer, and I refuse (to) take its unilateral defense.”
Edit Wed Apr 2 18:58:45 UTC 2008: add attribution to Lauwenmark.
on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
[...] another news blog post, use of these wrong assumptions and inclusion of stereotypes (daemonisation as well) receive a [...]
on Jan 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] to say this should go into advocacy news groups. I > respectfully disagree in advance. > > http://blog.eracc.com/ I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. –keith — kkeller-usenet (try just [...]