Demon license?

[Ray Jenson]

It was not my intention to start a flame war, folks. I'm sorry. I didn't
realize what a hot topic this little daemon is, and I really didn't mean to
step on anyone's feel-bads or press anyone's hot-buttons.

I've taken the tongue-in-cheek comments as just that: tongue-in-cheek. I'm
not a "member" of this community, but it still seems I've done more to
further the division than heal it.

I've explained which side I'm on. I'm firmly pro-Beastie. But this was not
the issue I originally wanted to discuss.

I wanted to know whom I should contact regarding the use of Mr. Beast, and
that question has largely been answered.

And now the subject is breaking down into a flame war about whether or not
the iconographic daemon should be changed or not. The facts of the matter
are, I never intended for this to happen, and I offer my solemn apologies
for starting it. Yes, it's all my fault, even if I didn't realize what a can
of worms I was opening.

Please, let's try to be civil! Finger-pointing and ridicule are not proper
tools for rational discussion. They are also, in my experience,
counter-productive (I lost my first wife to this, as well as an enormous
number of business opportunities).

SO, to try to undo some of the damage that I've done and put this on a more
constructive path, I'd like to respond to both Grog and Ted.

Says Groggy:

>Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves something 
>that can contribute to a public face less open to misinterpretation 
>while still safeguarding part of the community culture. I haven't 
>spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I submit that it's 
>entirely possible that there are many like me. Being more vocal does 
>not make you the majority.

Being more vocal does not, in fact, make you the majority, but it does in
practice. Evidence of this include extremist factions like al-Qaida, the
neo-Nazis, and the Sierra Club. These groups are the most vocal
representations of their respective political agendas, but far from
represent the whole. The terrorist organization of al-Qaida, for example, is
one of the most vocal groups in the Middle East, but they do not actually
corner the market on the religion of Islam, or even anti-American sentiment
in the region. They are a vast minority. The neo-Nazis are another example.
They claim to represent the "white race". However, not all white people are
racists, nor all Americans, Swedes, Germans, or any other nationality that
they claim to represent. I myself am considered "white" but I am far from
being anything even remotely resembling a racist. And then there's the
Sierra Club, who claims to represent environmentalism in general. I can see
their hearts are in the right place, but they really don't have a leg to
stand on, with regard to a lot of the claims they generated over the years.
They did, in fact, prevent proscribed burning in Colorado, which has
effectively killed off a great deal of the forests because of the need for
proscribed burns which help distribute seeds of certain foliage.

And now for Ted:

> The FreeBSD Project isn't just composed of the core members and the
> software.  It encompasses that as well as the entire userbase.  If you
> want the userbase to come round to your point of view on this logo thing,
> then you need to handle the userbase with respect.

And so do you, including those whom you disagree with. The entire purpose of
keeping this discussion going is to arrive at a general consensus, benefit
everyone (including Grog), and make a kind of open community forum for being
able to discuss the possibilities. I found your post needling and
disrespectful to Groggy, and while I disagree with Grog's points, I disagree
with your methods. Please try to be more respectful or leave me out of the
includes.

This being said, you do bring up some very valid points:

> So far the userbase has NOT been asked to vote on this topic.

This, to me, points to either a fear of outright rejection or a splintering
of the group into factions. NetBSD, for example, seems to be anti-Beastie,
and I couldn't find one solitary logo anywhere on their site that even
remotely referred to the daemon image. My thought is that this is fine.
FreeBSD can retain the beast, and those dissatisfied with the beast image
are free to develop another BSD version, right? So, if you really want to
splinter the group, by all means push for a change that the majority doesn't
really want.

Okay, now for the general stuff:

It's silly and extreme to divide so thoroughly over something that doesn't
really impact the quality of the OS. The logo for FreeBSD is the daemon, and
this is a "de facto" standard (defaulted to because of its continued use
over the years). To change the logo is to change the entire identity of the
product, in this case. The daemon has served today (now that I know a bit
more about it) to remind me that the way that the system operates is with
different server daemons. These programs are so incredibly useful at keeping
the system running stably that I simply can't imagine not being taught and
reminded of the system's operation. Now that I understand a little more,
I've actually made some progress today, in learning how to configure these
systems to do what I want them to do.

Let's face it: the daemon is actually a friendly image. It's not an image of
Ultimate Evil, like kittens or flaming brimstone, it's an image of service.
It's an image of keeping the daemons under control and in check. It's an
icon that keeps you folks thinking differently. It makes for conversation,
which can be used to sell. Choosing something "safer" will ultimately
detract from marketability. I mean, what would they say if you adopted
something like a dove? They'd have nothing, really, to talk about.

An old marketing adage goes something like: there is no such thing as bad
press. When controversy surrounds a product, especially if it really has
nothing to do with the product itself (as in the daemon logo), it makes
people pay attention. They get curious. They ultimately (as I did) want to
know what makes this thing tick. Then they screw around with it, and pretty
soon they're writing scripts, and then coding. This seems to be the path
that I'm on, although I swore up and down that I'd never, ever write code in
a million years (this with 25 years of computer usage under my belt).

Having something controversial, like a "devil" as your logo (note that I
very intentionally veer away from the usage of "daemon" in this respect),
you ultimately give people who are actually innovators the opportunity to
explore your product by encouraging them to steer away from the conformity
that seems to dominate the lives of most of the population.

I (for one) hope that the logo never changes. I am certainly in favor of
innovation, but perhaps it's time to adopt something innovative. By keeping
the "status quo" in place, you encourage those who think "outside the box"
to explore. Being unpopular doesn't mean that you need to conform. Having
unpopular opinions (Ted, Groggy) means that you're actively innovating, and
innovation is what leads to diversity. Diversity itself is how we keep our
strengths and weaknesses in balance. It's good that you disagree. But
please, for the sake of my own sanity, keep it above the belt and rational.
The superior logic will ultimately prevail. Bringing emotional jabs and
stabs into the picture only serves to drive people away.

Man, I really am long-winded. My BSD employees are right. But you know, I
really can't think of a better way to say what I've said. Simply making it
to the point does not create a convincing argument.

Thanks for your time, folks. I've actually had a grand time most of the day
while learning. I'm grateful for the advice, tutelage, and education. It's
made this entire process worthwhile over the past 24 hours. I've begun
having fun with BSD, which hasn't happened before, because I'm starting to
get an idea of the mindset involved.

This doesn't mean I'm right. It's just my opinion.

Thanks again,

Ray Jenson