I am a firm supporter of free and open source software (FOSS). These days, though, I rarely evangelize about FOSS when face to face. While I will argue in favor of FOSS in articles, or in speeches, I hardly ever do so in casual conversation.
Part of the reason for this reticence is politeness, a sense that inflicting my views unasked is bad manners, no matter what the subject or my interest in it. Another part is my anarchistic inclinations; while I have firm beliefs on the subject, I am mostly content to leave other people to their own beliefs, unless they are trying to denigrate mine or inflicting theirs unasked. However, mostly, my reticence is based on my growing conviction that evangelism is rarely effective.
This conviction struck me harder than every the other night, when we were at a gathering at our neighbors’. Another guest asked what I did for a living, and I explained that I was a journalist who wrote about free and open source software. After warning the other guest that I could talk for hours on the subject, I started to explain. I soon had three reactions that I have grown wearily familiar with from past efforts to talk about FOSS.
One female guest frankly refused to believe anything I said. Microsoft did not own her software, she insisted, nor could it record information about her activities or the legality of her software. GNU/Linux couldn’t be free of cost, either. Nor could it be possibly be less prone to malware and viruses than Windows. She was willing to consider the possibilitiy that the Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens, but not a few facts that anyone with an Internet connection can quickly establish.
The second reaction was from the male host. He regularly downloads movies from – let us say – sometimes questionable sources, and has suffered from malware and viruses in the past. At least once, he had to have his computer purged by an expert.
Yet this man thought that the security built-in to GNU/Linux was too much trouble. In fact, he thought that having separate administrative and user accounts was too much trouble. I had helped him set them up on his latest Windows machine, but he had soon changed them so that every account had administrative privileges. I asked him what was so difficult about taking ten seconds to switch accounts, and all he replied was, “I know you think it’s a foolish decision, but for me the security just isn’t worth the effort.”
I started to ask him if he though having an infected machine and having to spend money on software and assistance wasn’t more of an effort, but then the guest who had started the conversation thread announced that the discussion was boring. From the look on several other faces, I realized that, for them it was.
“I guess that’s a hint,” I said with a smile. But, inwardly, I was thinking: These are people who social activists. They are concerned and can speak with some knowledge about the hardships faced by the average Palestinian in the Middle East, the state of education, anti-poverty measures, and environmentalism. Yet none of them could see that I was talking about issues close to their senses of self-identity and about concrete steps they could take to put their ideals in practice in their computing – not even when I spelled out the connection in so many words. They spend hours on the computer most days, yet they did not care about realizing their ideals in their daily life.
Faced with such massive indifference and disbelief, I could either go into full rant mode or keep silent so as not to spoil the evening. I was tired, so I chose not to spoil the evening.
The encounter was not surprising, nor particularly unpleasant. All the same, it and countless similar encounters have made me keep my evangelism quiet. These days, I state my position only when asked, and stop expressing it when other people look bored.
It’s not that I care so much whether people think I’m obsessional. Rather, I hate being branded as such for no useful purpose.
You have “linux fanbois” (i.e. the Ubuntu crowd) to thank for your fellow guests’ immediately negative reaction. The linux fanboi is annoying, and ultimately unobstructive and unhelpful, to everyone on the planet except another linux fanboi. Nobody else likes them nor wants to have to endure the unpleasant prospect of listening to their prattle. These are the exact same type of people who destroyed OS/2, and the Amiga, before that. They move from niche OS to niche OS, destroying everything they come into contact with. And so it goes.
[…] Stepping away from evangelism […]
[…] The rest of the article can be found here. […]
[…] journalist Bruce Byfield has an interest post today about free software evangelism and why he keeps his mouth shut at […]
Whoo, boy, are you ever not alone! I’m as glib in person as I am on the Internet and can work Linux into any conversation, but don’t. I’m in the middle of Iowa. I have an extremely difficult time just finding people who were familiar with the concept of a computer, full stop.
To explain what I do for a living, (online freelance writing graphics, coding) I might as well say that I’m a witch doctor.
Let those who will be deceived be deceived i suppose. Hard to watch people enslave themselves, but what can you do, put a gun to their heads?
@jg
Is Ubuntu the new monster? Why blaming ubuntu for the reaction of the first guest? I couldn’t hear a more foolish comment.
The reaction was driven by plain, old, solid ignorance. For many people Internet Explorer is the internet. For this people knowing what Linux is (left aside ubuntu) is way above anything they know about computing.
@Bruce
I am very sympathetic with you,. I had similar occasions, and I found myself to feel better by turning sarcastic when such level of obtuse ignorance is shown in my face. I went as far as comparing surfing with Windows on dubious sites as dangerous as having unsafe sex with prostitutes. Free to do it, not my business, but not very smart either.