Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond's Homebrew SCO Poison
What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?" writes "Eric S. Raymond responds to Darl McBride's charge that he's drinking IBM's Kool-Aid in SCO's fight against Linux.
The main thrust: Yes, there is an alliance against SCO, but, like the Open Source movement itself, it arises from lots of folks spontaneously striving for a common goal. 'It's beyond me how [you] can have the gall to talk as though we need funding or marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you. IBM couldn't stop us from mobilizing!' "
Who's ur daddy?! C'mon, say it!! That's right!! Say my name!!
ESR let me know that he's looking for a new slogan for Linux. Please choose one:
a) Linux: Free as in gonorrhea.
b) Linux: Free as in $699 per cpu.
c) Linux: Free as in John Geoghan.
d) Linux: Free as in my balls.
Thanks!
GooooooOO DUPE! DUPE! DUPE!
Their commander, Taco, is soooooo dreamy!
I picked up some implied physical threats. But seeing as Eric's a gun aficionado, it's easy to see why. Hmm, deja vu
. ht ml
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,19049,00
You can't take someone's baby away.
Until they graduate, and they realize that there are better things to do than sit around and code all the fucking time.
That rant pushes the edge of legal. One could definitely consider some of those words to be threats. I just hope they don't come to take him away. He's needed right now.
Remember, this is the Eric S. Raymond who--not too long ago--wrote a long, public rant about how it is his right to kill policemen. Sadly, ESR isn't just the usual UNIX/Linux contrarian, he's a sad lunatic who uses Linux and Open Source as ways to promote his personal agenda and feed his ego. In all seriousness, he's much more of an embarrassment than someone whose words we should be hanging on. We can stop making excuses for him.
SCO was already DoS'ed by an open source zealot. ESR admitted it on linuxtoday.
When to Shoot a Policeman, the last story on the page.
Yes, he is being extremist here, but it's scary that he flaunts these kinds of fantasies. From reading his "armedndangerous" site, he comes across as a lunatic just looking and waiting for an excuse to get to shoot someone. When he goes fully crazy and starts gunning people down in the SCO offices, we'll have his blog to look back on and wonder "Why the hell didn't we see this coming?"
troll, huh? guess an ESR fanboy got mod points today.
Look, people, nobody gives a shit how leet you are. Go do something that benefits mankind, rather than continuing to push it down the shithole to a Minority Report-like lifestyle.
similarly, just because someone works for a big company whose ethics you disagree with doesn't make it ok to threaten them, even slightly.
I think the point with the guns was a bit off, (after all, I have access to the internet, I could download a copy of the anarchist's cookbook and make a bomb, that doesn't make me a terrorist).
He's not in trouble for speaking the truth. He's not in trouble for speaking anything. It's his actions that got him in trouble, but I'm sure you already know that and just want to spread more offtopic Church+State propoganda.
Do not click link! -- Parent is a goatse.cx link. :-(
<ObWarning: anti-Canadian flamage>
Well, I could be charged under any number of laws: assault (because someone was offended), inciting to riot (because violence might break out).
Yes, this is rediculous, and hard to believe, however, without a First Amendment, or equivalent, Canadians effectively have no individual free speech rights. When the Meech Lake accord failed due to lack of ratification by all ten provinces prior to it's sunset clause expiring (shortly before Quebec's "independence day", Fete St. Jean holiday (June 24, a week before Canada's independence day celebration, July 1)), the province made clear that anyone daring to fly a Canadian flag on Canada Day risked getting arrested for "inciting to riot".
There was a case a few years ago that actually tested the principle that truth was a legal defence against libel (It involved a prison inmate accusing guards of torture). The principle held, but that outcome was not at all certain.
I've seen people go into a shop, order something, pay and get a receipt, and then be given something completely different. Upon complaint, and requesting either (a) the correct product as indicated on their receipt, or (b) their money back, they ended up arrested for "trespassing". Technically, this is correct, as trespassing is a criminal offence, and the police are not there to settle civil disputes (though, I would have responded with a charge of criminal fraud), but horrible, regardless.
True, this happens rarely, but that it happens at all is utterly disgusting. That there is no legal recourse when it does happen speaks volumes.
Americans might understand "how can this be?" if they compare the mantra "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" to it's Canadian equivalent: "Peace, Order, and Good Government". the individual Canadian is reduced to a role serving the Borg.
Canada is all about mob rule - democracy unrestricted by any semblence of individual rights. And before you trot out the 1982 patriated constitution, with it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, look up "notwithstanding clause".
I wonder, in the aftermath of the dot-com and telecom, busts in the U.S., how many Canadians like me, had to return to Canada, some of us (like me) with American children, and how many American children are thus forced to live in this socialist shit-hole. I am seriously considering giving my son up for adoption so he can return to the U.S.
Canadians fall into two camps: rats who pervert democracy via rule of the largest mob, or sheep, who are too tired or scared to fight back. It is the latter, I suspect, who have the reputation of being polite.
You could've hired me.
- What percentage of the Founding Fathers were Christian?
- What percentage of the population as a whole was Christian at the time of founding? in 1850? in 1900? today?
- Are there ANY references to God in Constitution of the United States or Bill of Rights? (I'll answer this one for you: no. [1])
- In what years were the words "In God We Trust" added to coins? to paper money? (I'll ansewr this one too: 1865 and 1964 respectively. [2])
So perhaps we have to redefine what you mean by "this nation was created by christians." If you mean that there were some Christians here, sure. Did they found the country? Well, maybe you can get back to me on that after you do some research.../joeyo
1) http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_f reedom/constitution/constitution.html
e ncy/in-god-we-trust.html
2) http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curr
2^5
Oooh, I must have struck a nerve.]
Once you've tasted American-style freedom, you're never satisfied with less. It's a pity Americans do not realize this.
You could've hired me.