Slashdot Mirror
Red Flag Linux: Real, and Reviewed
Over at NewsForge (NewsForge is part of OSDN, as is Slashdot), Roblimo has posted his impressions of the long-awaited, much-ridiculed Red Flag Linux (English version). It may not be a big seller outside of the Chinese-speaking world (despite the available English-language install), but it's not a hoax, and it's available as an ISO for download. Update from Roblimo: I did not write the NewsForge Red Flag review. Matt Michie deserves all credit for this excellent work.
You are an advocate of free use for software, yet you want to control who uses it?
Why is this so contraversial? Does this perticular distro go through the hands of the Chinese govt or something?
Why yes it does as a matter of fact.
"...certified by the Information-system Product Quality Inspection Center under the Ministry of Public Security of China in June 2001."
From here.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
What's the old saying? "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide?"
It's a familiar modus operandi (or is it operandus in this case?) for Communist governments. And frankly, I feel vaguely uneasy that the average person is going to associate free software with a nation that jails and tortures people for wanting to go to church, or for saying, "Mao bites his farts!" (With apologies to P.J. O'Rourke.)
Am I the only one who thinks he hears a soft chuckle in Redmond? This isn't exactly the P.R. coup of the century, here.
They that would sacrifice their
Haha @ "Global Stallmanism," and is Global Gatesism any better?
Actually that quote from Khrushchev, "Whether you like it our not, history is on our side. We will bury you." Is considered inaccurate and is the fault of our translators. The real quote (considered by some) is, "Whether you like it our not, history is on our side. We will leave you in the dust!" Stating that the Soviet Union was advancing farther than us in technology. Which could be true because of the Soviet's more advanced rocket technology and the fact that they were the first in space.
And IMHO China isn't Communist, it's State Capitalist (much like America was under FDR)
Anarchists and Communists, confused again. It has played over and over again.
Whenever there is a revolution, there are usually two principle revolutionary sides, Anarchists and Communists.
Both have similarities, and both have sharp differences. Generally, they both have socialist ends. But they differ on the nature of government: The Communists want strong central control. The Anarchists want deeply diffused democratic control.
The Free Software / Open Source movement is a case example of working Anarchy. Free Software developers are generally anti-authoritarian, and believe that the people doing the work call the shots. It's generally socialist, in the sense of sharing (but not in the Marx dictatorship sense). Work is done by a series of agreements and shared interest. Many are motivated to get particular things done, or out of a sense of solidarity. There is no ruler that can tell you what to do. Decisions are generally based on a consensus, but there are a few Linus Torvalds, and consessions made for expediency. The work has no chain of command, rather, it works by confederation. For example, there is the overall Open Source/Free Software movement. (We can draw humerous/interesting comparisons with the CNT/FAIR, respectively; One is more practically based, the other more ideologically based.) Above the OS/FS organization (in a certain sense), there is the KDE project. Above that platform lives the KOffice project. Above that lives the KWord, KSpread, and Kivio projects. I imagine that within those projects, there are other projects. And there are documentation projects, and usability projects, and they interact between projects, and they all work together. This is an Anarchist society, with minimal rulers and ruled. It is almost unthinkable that a member of the KDE organizing team would command a member of the KSpread team to do some particular thing, and that thing be done because of "orders from above". This is not to say that people don't argue and strategise and haggle; They do. But overall, the whole thing works. The operating system is a little "poor", and has a sort of "poor man's operating system" feel to it, but this is more than made up in the fun of it.
A communist vision of OS/FS would be state control. Flip the pyramid. OpenSource/FreeSoftware as command structure.
When you hear people saying, "I don't understand, why doesn't the OpenSource community devote most of it's effort to XYZ", where XYZ is something like better graphics, or device support, or something that they see as critical (and could quite likely use a lot more work), they are assuming that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware world works according to a command structure, and that we are working on it because we feel like suplicating ourselves to some "great cause." The reality is that we are not supplicating ourselves to some "great cause". Rather, we are doing it because we want to. This is Libertarian (the 1890's version of the word, which was anarcho-socialist, rather than the modern, anarco-capitalist meaning of the word) beliefs incarnate and applied: By acting on our natural impulses, we can do good. Note that RMS and the GNU foundation has focused on the same. When people assume that we are command structured (authoritarian), but also working for the good of our fellows (socialist), they assume that we are Communist (state socialism). Rather, we are socialist libertarians. Or at least, speaking for what I see of the OS/FS movement, it is based and functions within socialist libertarian parameters. (Much has been written about the anarcho-capitalist ideas that many geeks like.)
This is not the first time that Anarchists have been confused with Communists. If you read the history of the Spanish Civil War, it's usually described as "The Facists vs. The Communists". But there was a third side, and a very powerful side at that. Several towns belonged to the Anarchists, and the Anarchists helped fight (but ultimately, defeated by the German & I believe Italy as well Fascists, commanded by Franco). The Anarchist revolution was very real, and quite extraordinary. But because the Anarchists were socialists, the war is usually just "simplified" into "The Facists vs. The Communists".
Now you know, and... {:)}=
The difference between the two is compultion. That's the same as between any other "system" and Anarchy.
Everyone already cooperates and compromises every day. You deal with the people you wish to deal with, in the ways you wish to deal with them, or you ignor them and go on your way.
That is the essence of Anarchy!
Communist, Socialist, Democrat, Republican, all depend on FORCE to achieve their ends. Each and ever one of them differs only in the ways they rationalize the use of force to achieve the ends which the people in power want. They are mearly different ends which all use the same means.
To those who equate "Anarchy" and "Chaos", I would suggest a few of the articles and texts on the Ludwig von Mises institute web site until you can understand how they're fundimentally different. Human Action may be a little difficult, but do give it a try.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
While the Chinese government could readily be labeled authoritarian, it hardly qualifies as totalitarian.
To begin with, like the United States, the Chinese government is a constitutional government -- something which is antithetical to a truly totalitarian regime. Like its American counterpart, the Chinese constitution proscribes and limits the powers and reach of the government. Conversely, a totalitarian government has no limits (hence the name 'totalitarian'). Americans may take issue with some of the particulars of socialist rule in China, but in fact the Chinese system has more in common with American- (or British-) style government than it does with truly totalitarian regimes, from a parliamentarian law-making body, to an independent justice system, to democratic elections (yes, the Chinese DO freely elect their local officials).
The Chinese enjoy nearly every individual right the American does: freedom of speech, of worship, of belief, of assembly, to own property, privacy, to engage in business. Yes, China limits most of these rights, but neither are they unlimited in Western countries (as every American knows, for example, freedom of speech does not include the right to cry 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house, nor does freedom of the press include the right to slander). The difference is not that Americans possess individual rights and the Chinese don't, but merely that Americans object to some of the ways in which China limits and circumscribes those rights. (The converse is also true. For example, most of the world objects to the fact that America still puts people to death, something considered outside of America to be a violation of the most basic human liberty, the right to life.)
Neither does the Chinese government seek to control all ideology, or every aspect of its citizens' lives, as a truly totalitarian state is wont to do. It is only those who make themselves an enemy of the state (admittedly, as measured by the state itself) who are the subject of "oppressive" measures. In fact, the vast majority of China's 1.3 billion people are left in peace to lead lives which are, on balance, quite free of government control or meddling. I have freely discussed democracy over tea in the tea houses of Shandong Province. I can attend church regularly. My in-laws have a thriving franchise business in Jiangsu Province which is, on the whole, subject to less governmental interference than it would be in, say, San Francisco. To list but three examples.
I am not a Chinese citizen. As a resident of Taiwan I have no love for Beijing, nor any desire to live under the Chinese government's rule. But given the choice between living in China and, say, Iraq, a Talibanesque state, or even fascist Italy, I'd choose China in a heartbeat.
Now, to keep this post on-topic, many people in this forum are confused about Red Flag Linux. Red Flag is NOT the Chinese government. The company which produces Red Flag Linux is a private entity, neither owned nor controlled by the government. The only associations Red Flag Linux has with the government in China is that A) it is partially funded by a venture capital firm which itself is partially funded by the government, and B) has been selected as the "official" operating system of the government -- a rather hollow honour at best, considering that the vast majority of the government still conducts its business on Windows-based machines.
Hmm... sometimes I have a hard time taking the things that guy says as serious. He sits in my book as nothing higher than a politition running for office in the Stalmanism government. I feel at times his words are half empty.
The article to which I am responding is written by a pro-China Chinese
1. Read my post before replying to it. If you had, you'd have noticed that I specifically denied both your assertions: that I am pro-China, and that I am Chinese. I am, in fact, neither.
2. Don't post AC. Do you have the courage to stick by your opinions when your name's attached to them?
3. I especially invite you to spend a year with the Taiwanese.
* The Chinese from "poor, little, scared" Taiwan have invested more than $50 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China.
You might want to take a closer look at home before pointing fingers. China is one of America's largest trading partners, and the fastest growing American export market. 60% of all American shoe imports, for example, come from China. Kodak owns more than half the film market in China. The largest soft drink company in China is Coca-Cola (15 times larger than its nearest competitor). KFC and McDonald's dominate the Chinese fast food industry. The US Department of Commerce estimated that in 1999 U.S. corporate assets in China and Hong Kong were worth $81 billion (compared to $30 billion for all of Eastern Europe), with sales of $66 billion and profits of $3 billion. Of the 500 largest American corporations, more than half have investments in China.
Taiwan ... investments continue to grow at double-digit rates.
As do American. Through the 1990s, US-to-China exports increased by over 16% on average annually. The first five months of 2001 alone were up 20.9% over the year previous.
According to Amnesty International, China is a society that does not honor human rights.
And have you taken a look at what AI says about America? Didn't think so. You could start with its website at www.amnesty.org.
As I have already stated, I'm am neither Chinese, nor a supporter of the Chinese government. I am, however, an opponent of bigotry where I see it, including anonymous Slashdot posts.
Most Chinese in Taiwan support mainland China.
Your knowledge of the Taiwanese is almost laughably ignorant. It was, I suppose, all these "pro-China" Chinese in Taiwan who voted out the pro-reunification Kuomingdong merely on suspicion of its having ties with Beijing. It was these "pro-China" Taiwanese who in the last three Taiwanese elections elected the most independence-minded candidates (just ask Beijing what it thinks of Chen Shui-bian, or the DPP, or Annette Wu). The reason Beijing refuses to negotiate with Taipei is precisely because Taipei refuses to accept "one China" as a precondition for talks.
I'll give you credit for an active imagination, if little else.
... [We] would not care to be associated with the totalitarian and murderous government of Communist China -- unrepentant perpetrators of numerous atrocities against its own people....
As opposed to the American government of course, who commits those atrocites against other countries' people.
When I worked in a computer store, I loved when I asked what OS someone had, only to be told "Intel." The rest of the conversation would be something like: "Okay, do you know what type of CPU you have?" "32 meg." "Cool. And how fast is it?" "5 gig."
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Sometimes I think that if the US had dissent movement which was as strong, developed and dangerous as the one in China, we would respond even more repressively than China does. Fortunately for our government, and unfortunately for our people, the US media has convinced its consumers that it's independent of the government, despite being nothing more than its mouthpiece. The Chinese media has not succeeded in the same regard, and most Chinese citizens know better than to trust it completely. They instead seek a balanced view by comparing local media with stuff from overseas (which the government can't prevent them from seeing, though it occationally tries). Americans, on the other hand, are easy. We don't even bother looking at non-US viewpoints in the foreign media, even though we can. For us, something is balanced when we have seen both the opinion of the reactionary Republicans (FOX news) and centrist Democrats (Washington Post). Still, the real range of reasonable political views is much broader than this. Both of these sources, as well as the rest in the US, are just bitches of the two barely-articulated wings of the same government. In this way, China is far more advanced and effectively less totalitarian than the US. Their citizens are exposed to far more political ideas than US citizens have ever seen.
Depends whether you intend "Chinese" in a political or an ethnic sense. Americans make similar distinctions. When Americans refer to themselves as "American", they mean it in the sense of national or political identity. Ask an American what his ethnic background is, however, and he'll generally give you a run-down of the countries his ancestors came from. That is, a US citizen may take great pride in his German heritage, but he would never identify himself as a German. Conversely, I've never met a US citizen who identifies himself as ethnically American.