Aren't we representatives of a misunderstood community with few active ambassadors?
Yes.
Should we be quarrelling among ourselves? Don't we (or, some of us) have a mission, defined adversaries, allies?
Even allies disagree on certain points.
Should there be quibbling between allies then?
If such quibbling enhances the knowledge of the person being abused,more power to such quibbling. I disagree with some elitists on this list who believe any newbie question should be answered with hostility,and believe that there's nothing better than keeping GNU/Linux being a hobbyist operating system,hostile to people who are new and want to find out more,abuse distributions which make GNU/Linux more accessible to newbies,but just being part of the same community doesn't force me to stop trying to change their mind.I would like to quibble on these issues,but I don't fancy being called names on public lists,and therefore stay out of the flamewars related to these issues and these elitists.
Aren't we evangelists?
AFAIK,not.
Doesn't that put the obligation of decent behaviour on us? What ambassador acts out of petulance? What sage calls his congregation dolts, or idiots? What example should we be setting?
Irrelevant,considering that we are not,IMHO,evangelists.
Should we call others stupid, lazy, unthinking, when we were such ourselves when we started out, and perhaps still are?
Agree.
<snip>
I hope you will appreciate this communication for what it is-- an appeal to the better sensibilities within all of us, to end the hateful heated repartee we've been seeing over the past few months.
Seconded.
Thank you.
Regards
Suhit Kelkar.
Regards, Easwar Registered Linux user #442065