There are Microsoft Serfs, Linux Freaks, Anti-Microsoft Pirates, MacHeads, FreeSoftware Infidels, etc. They all have their misconceptions about their “enemies” and seem to want to inject them into every conversation. I’ve been reading the responses to articles for a couple weeks now. They all devolve into the same old tired arguments, that when they were conceived, my have had a backing in fact. Now, after years of spouting the same facts and figures about software that’s now three versions behind, these groupies have lost sight of the truth and fail to keep up with current software and refuse to take them on their own merits.
I sit here in the middle of the issues, having friends on all sides of these arguments. I don’t understand why it has to be an all or nothing proposition. I like the ease of use of Windows 2000 when it comes to games and peripherals (for the most part). I love Linux and the freedom it gives me to configure it however I want, and the superior collection of software included in the distributions I use. I have a thing for Macs, their design and the fact that OS X is growing on me.
Each platform does what it does. Each company (or group where Linux is concerned) has its strengths and weaknesses (or felonies). I just wish people would lay off the rhetoric and come up with new arguments. Be logical. If you don’t like Macs because you have a thing against Steve Jobs’ mock turtlenecks, don’t say it’s because Macs suck. Come out and say you don’t like Steve Jobs and that’s why you don’t like them. If you hate Windows because of the security vulnerabilities, that’s cool… just state it that way. Ok, that’s enough of that. Don’t be a parrot for propoganda. Think for yourself and get your information from more than one source. When our arguments all start to sound the same, no matter what the question, the dialogue is no longer intelligent or productive. It’s just shouting at the wall.