On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 10:23:59AM -0600, Richard Troth wrote:
> Linux is about freedom.

I think I may offend several people here, and shock the trousers off of
Rick, but...

For me, during work hours, it really isn't.

Now let me unpack that a little.

Yes, I *am* a card-carrying penguinista.  Yes, I devote a fair amount of
my free time to developing Free Software (not always Linux-related;
indeed, my recent obsession has been development for the Atari 2600).
Yes, I largely believe in the philosophical goals of Free Software,
although I find both RMS and ESR unappealing in different ways.

However, these are why I use and support Linux on my own time.

When I'm at work, I use and support Linux because--and when--it offers
the best available solution in terms of functionality for the price.  I
have no problems recommending a non-Linux solution when that meets the
set of problem criteria I have more closely.  I have no problems
recommending proprietary software if that would be the best solution
within the constraints of the problem.  (Obviously, if one of the
constraints is "$0 software licensing budget" that ain't gonna happen.)

I am delighted--both personally and professionally--that Linux has grown
up to be very nearly as stable and featureful as older,
better-established Unices (and possibly more so; but, as Bill Bitner
would say, "it depends"), and all in all it has a lot less brain-damage
than most of the commercial Unices I know.  Maybe this is because,
although my early Unix experience was on SunOS 4, I moved to Linux
shortly thereafter and never really had to get comfortable with a pure
SysV-derived system.  (As an aside: anyone who persists in maintaining
that there is a significant difference between Linux and Unix is either
being unnecessarily pedantic and driving the discussion below the user
interface and below the API level to internals about which very few of
us need to care, a recruiter or HR person who is attempting to fill a
buzzword-based position with little-to-no understanding of what the
buzzwords mean, or someone trying to sell you a proprietary Unix
solution.)

But fundamentally, my issue here is that, in my professional role, Linux
isn't about freedom.  It's about efficacy.

Does this have anything to do with Rick's overall point?  No.  And in
fact, I basically agree with him: make your tool as generic and portable
as possible while still retaining all necessary functionality.  To do
otherwise is to fall into the old "All the world's a Vax" syndrome,
although these days you see it much more frequently, often from
programmers who ought to know better, who are making the assumption "All
the world's an Intel Red Hat <some recent version> machine."

In fact, if I may distill Rick's argument down some more: if you're
writing code for anyone other than just yourself, school yourself to be
aware of the assumptions you're making and the implicit dependencies
they create.  And then work to get rid of all of those you can without
harming the functionality of your software.

Adam

Reply via email to