(Part 1 got too big, so…)

And now for the “yet another distro? it’s because of this that Linux will never conquer the masses!” part.

Every time a new Linux distribution appears – and, sometimes, even at other times – a lot of people – both Linux users and otherwise – say something like the above. That Linux will never “succeed in the marketplace”, because it’s too fragmented, there are too many choices, there’s not a single standard, and so on.

I believe those people are missing the point. To the “average user” — and I don’t mean the average Solitaire / Minesweeper-addicted Windows user, but the average guy/girl who is curious about trying some new OS — there are 4 Linux distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse and maybe Mandriva. If another distro appears, it’s a specialized thing. If you’re a Linux geek, and the distro’s goals appeal to you, you may try it out. But to suggest that it’s causing “fragmentation” makes no sense. As I said, the newcomer will choose from one of those four distros, period.

Sometimes, the critics use a different approach, which I’ve seen quite recently: “there are so many distros, and these guys think that all other distros suck, and it’s they who will create a good one, for a change? What arrogance!”. This is, I’m sorry to say, more commonly seen here in Portugal, a country that seems to despise achievement and hate achievers. Who is anyone to believe he can do better? Who does that guy think he is, to divert from the majority? To create something on his own?

I think that happens for two reasons: the aforementioned hate of achievement, and also the fact that Portuguese Linux users don’t actually believe in Free Software. Sure, we use it, but most of us are quick to call anyone who cares about the ideology “a fanatic” (fundamentalist, zealot, taliban, etc.). Now, a huge part of Free Software is the right to fork – or the right to build on the work of others. Of standing on the shoulders of giants. If someone picks a piece of free software – or even an entire distro – and believes he can do better – even if just for a small number of people’s needs – he has the right to do so. And he’s not harming anyone – including “the community”. It’s possible that others will actually benefit from his work, that some of it will find its way into other distros.

But people call him a “splitter”. What is this, The Life of Brian?

This is, in a way, a reply to something that has annoyed me for a long time now, and which, reading other tech blogs such as those in Planeta Asterisco, I see a lot of.

A recent example (though far from the worst) is this post by Carlos Rodrigues, about the news that the FSF will release a 100% Free Software Ubuntu variant. The accusations – both by Carlos and others – are of two kinds: that those guys are fanatics, fundamentalists, talibans, etc., and the even more common “yet another distro? it’s because of this that Linux will never conquer the masses!”

And things like those are said, quite often, by Linux users (though it’s fashionable for them, these days, to say that Linux isn’t ready for the desktop after all, and use Windows or MacOS X instead, and Linux only on servers… but I digress).

Now, about the first… we all care differently about different matters, right? What is important, even a matter of life and death to some, can be irrelevant to many others. Each of us has different priorities. This is normal.

What I don’t find “normal” – or, more precisely, healthy, or right – is when you call anyone who cares even a little more about a subject than you do, a “fanatic”.

Think about it. Do you consider yourself perfect, or something? Do you care about subject A exactly as much as is correct, and anyone who goes a milimeter beyond that is already guilty of taliban-like fundamentalism? Is the maximum allowed “caring” defined by how much you care?

I don’t care about software freedom as much as Richard Stallman and others, but I understand why it’s important to them. I understand where they’re coming from. And I respect them for it. Others, however, call them “fanatics”… simply for caring a little more than they (those others) do.

I don’t care much about how well decorated my place is, but I don’t call my GF “a fanatic” because she cares about it more than I do.

I’ve always thought U2 was a pretty average band, with some good songs, and never understood how so many people almost worship them… but I don’t call those “fanatics”.

I don’t care the least bit about soccer, but I don’t call those who do “fanatics”, unless they’re actually hurting people or damaging property (and even then, they’re more morons than “fanatics”).

I eat meat, but I don’t call vegans “fanatics”.

Is this so hard to understand? Is it so “cool”, or so “mature”, to not care? (sometimes, the P* members seem to be in a “competition” to be the one who cares the least about everything…) Are people so conceited that they believe they care about everything exactly the right amount? That caring a little more than they do is unacceptable?

Hmm, this is already too long… there is now a part 2, about the “so many distros harm Linux” thing.