I like being an enabler.
This past weekend, a friend called me an enabler. Shock! Horror! Me, an enabler? Bah. Wait. Introspect. Reflect. Assess. Epiphany.
I am an enabler. He spat the word at me with derision and my reflex was to feel offended. Pausing on that word for a moment, I realized his snap judgment of my character was absolutely right. I encourage bad behavior all the time, especially in the people closest to me. However, I also condone good behavior, even in people whose presence makes my skin itch.
Here's why: Every person should be allowed to live their lives in the manner they choose, regardless of the wishes of others. As long as the activity or behavior doesn't interfere with the same allowance for others to do the same. This is something I believe down to the core of my being to be true. (Doesn't mean it's right, sane or feasible, but there it is.)
To that end, if someone I know is drinking themselves to death, I won't lecture at them to seek aid, but if they do, I'll support them through the process as I can. I just think we're all doing what we can to survive until the end. Whatever you path you choose is your own.
Linux…why I run it
and why I don't really give a rat's ass why you run what you do
Arch Linux defines simplicity as 'without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications', and provides a lightweight
UNIX-like base structure that allows an individual user to shape the system according to their own needs. In short; an elegant, minimalist approach.
What this means to me is that my ArchLinux installation will be radically different from another ArchLinux user's installation. This highlights the versatility of a Linux system. This is one of the key reasons I prefer Linux and specifically distributions that give me real freedom: the freedom to run the software I'd like to run. Nothing more, nothing less.
Another reason that I believe ArchLinux maintains the spirit of Linux is their adherence to Code Correctness over Convenience. This is the notion that upstream developers (those that actually write the software) should correct their code rather than the have the distribution apply patches (Gentoo, Ubuntu. That means you). If the distribution patches the code that you're writing, the experience you're having with your computer is going to be specific to that distribution. While this can be a benefit for many, I believe that by allowing upstream developers to maintain their software, anyone running ANY distribution of Linux can experience the same thing. This is one way that Linux can have a consistent look and feel.
I only claim to have experience with the distributions that I've run. I define "run" as: Used as my primary desktop distribution for a period consisting of greater than six months. This rules out distributions I tried but left for some reason. Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE (and OpenSuSE) fall into this category. I have tried each of them, but I always fell back to Debian, Gentoo, or most recently, ArchLinux.
During that time, I have read the arguments (flamewars and not-so-flaming-wars) about which Operating System or distribution is "the best." I would argue that there is no such thing. There is what was best for you and your needs. Then, there's best for someone else's needs. I don't care if you run Mac OS X, Windows or Linux. If what you run helps you get what you want out of your computer, then stick with it.
I no longer evangelize about Linux with the same fervor that I once did. My passion has been tempered by experience. My only preaching now consists of sharing my firsthand experiences with free software and alternative operating systems.
In fact, I am going to delve into Ubuntu one more time, having downloaded the latest beta release of the distribution and installing the live image to my USB thumb drive. This will allow me to try it out with installing over my current installed base.
I am OS agnostic in the sense that I don't give a rat's ass what you run. If it works for you, wonderful. But don't try to convince me that it's the best.
