Join us on our own very special Reddit: /r/Linuxers
Trolls.... (Linux related ones)
Page: «4/4
  Go to:

Quoting: Alm888I think the answer is "tribalism". A simple human psychology. We want to be in packs, the bigger the pack of choice, the better. So, most see being in a large tribe to be "better" than being in a small one, even if ones role is the "slave" instead of "free citizen".

Plus, not coping with a society's rules is perceived as "deviation", a decease, and those exhibiting deviant behavior must be isolated or disposed of. And like it or not, using Windows is a norm (as 95% of people are doing so) and using everything else is a deviation. All "normal" people are thinking you are a "freak". The reason for not of them outright bashing you are that most of them can hold themselves, while the remaining "highly impulsive" ones can not restrain themselves from "doing the right thing" of correcting you and putting you on the right path.

"Stop alienating yourself in the society! Just be like everyone else! Just use Windows!" Most of these "trolls" are not "trolling" just to "have fun". They are thinking they are doing yourself a favor.

It is not all "doom and gloom" though. There is a thing called Overton's Window to slowly change the very definitions of "norm" and "deviation". The keyword is "slowly".

That's why I stopped preaching on every corn er about how "Linux is superior" and just started to use it on my work. Now, even die-hard Windows fans among my colleagues can see Linux is not just a "toy for freaks", but a stable and update-free system.
Ah, if only Linux were update-free. Mind you I would rather update moat Linux installs with ease than the bromen mess that has always been Windows Update.

But yeah, I think you are 100% correct about the trolls. Granted I also have always been one to run with the underdog. Then again, I have also tended to think they are the better solutions than their competitor's, but because people tend toward cheap over quality, the better product tends to lose. (Take for example any early version of Windows against the Amiga, or beta vs VHS...) I mean going back in time, the Apple Machintosh didn't even have color displays for a bit after they were first introduced, but because they got into schools and their high price demanded that they clearly must be so much better than the Amiga or Atari ST... yet both of those platforms at times could run Mac software better than the Mac...

dvd 1 Oct

If cheaper always won then there wouldn't be Microsoft/Apple, since libre systems have been around forever. It's more like the one that does the lying (marketing) and law abuse better wins. It's as true in the computing industry as outside it.

damarrin 1 Oct

Hmm, I think when MS DOS came about there was no Linux, only a bunch of very expensive Unixes. Then MS put windows out as the natural successor and people followed suit.

And yes, marketing is EVERYTHING.

Quoting: dvdIf cheaper always won then there wouldn't be Microsoft/Apple, since libre systems have been around forever. It's more like the one that does the lying (marketing) and law abuse better wins. It's as true in the computing industry as outside it.
MS won through back door deals and scummery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIfNIWn2Ad4
Apple only exists because of Microsoft. They were on the edge of bankruptcy until MS was under fire, and tossed some money their way to keep from being a monopoly...

And as damarrin pointed out, Linux came out later. Though there were the BSDs, they weren't in a great state at the time. And 'cheap' to most consumers is 'it comes with the computer'.

Last edited by slaapliedje on 1 October 2020 at 3:25 pm UTC

Alm888 2 Oct

Quoting: slaapliedjeThen again, I have also tended to think they are the better solutions than their competitor's, but because people tend toward cheap over quality, the better product tends to lose. (Take for example any early version of Windows against the Amiga, or beta vs VHS...) I mean going back in time, the Apple Machintosh didn't even have color displays for a bit after they were first introduced, but because they got into schools and their high price demanded that they clearly must be so much better than the Amiga or Atari ST... yet both of those platforms at times could run Mac software better than the Mac...
While I can not argue against "Macintosh vs. Amiga", I think it is actually moot, as both lost to the winner -- IBM PC.

And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.

So, in a sense, the better product won. (Not that it made IBM any good, but still…)

Quoting: Alm888And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.
Wrong! Amiga had also an Open Architecture and a lot better OS on the top

The reason that Amiga "lost", is that Commodore failed with their own PC Clones, and lost an huge amount of money which put them out of business. The hardware and OS was far to superior then what IBM PCs had to offer at this point and for years after that!

Last edited by Chronarius on 2 October 2020 at 9:31 pm UTC

Quoting: Chronarius
Quoting: Alm888And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.
Wrong! Amiga had also an Open Architecture and a lot better OS on the top

The reason that Amiga "lost", is that Commodore failed with their own PC Clones, and lost an huge amount of money which put them out of business. The hardware and OS was far to superior then what IBM PCs had to offer at this point and for years after that!

Not to mention not giving R&D Engineers enough money, spending it instead on vacations, and of course spending time on dumb things (like the A600 when they already had AGA systems). Then there is the 'me too!' of the CD32...
Also, the IBM models were actually far superior to the crap that Compaq and Packard Bell put out. They just made them so much cheaper, so more people bought those than Big Blue.

While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Patreon, Liberapay or PayPal Donation.

We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.