Are people understanding the difference between advocating an ideal vs being a fanatic zealot?
I point you to Michael's Kneejerk Reaction Article. Michael puts on the table a very fanatical reply to O'Reilly's comments. And, as an additional whammy, he puts all his ideas in the article, instead of a post (when it was clearly written as if it was a post).
Well, the Slashdot crowd replied with a very awkward reply. They thrashed michael. It wasn't that it was just a zealotous attack against O'Reilly, but it was misinformed, and the community saw right through it.
Looking at most of the comments, it points to all the follies that michael assumed. I found some replies were a little too violent, but most were concise and had the right facts in it.
I, at first, thought this was just an example of "shashdot think" swinging against the flow, but now I'm starting to think that the "Open Source" crowd is mostly advocates that have a solid head on their shoulders. Its the Linux crowd that is full of zealots. Don't get me wrong. There are a TON of Linux advocates that think clearly and see both sides of issues, its just that there are also so many zealots that destroy the reputation of the rest.
Anyone sick of my advocate/zealot schpeels? I can start to limit them to only "when I can't help but comment on them".