Slashdot Mirror
Are Linux Zealots Terrorists?
pair-a-noyd submitted this one choice piece of flamebait, I'll just quote it ".. I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from
terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them
-- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do
significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation
with SCO or their employers.
I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that
zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because
zealots do not consider the repercussions of their actions" Like the zealots he speaks of, he goes to far, but he does make legitimate points that the Open Source community has wrestled with in the past.
Our generation has a new bottom of the flamebait barrel. When somebody compares something to September 11 in an attempt to bolster their own argument, move on.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
The English magazine Private Eye has a section called Warballs which pokes fun at the medias desire to relate anything and everything to Sept 11. Just another instance of lazy journalism.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I think the writer missed out on a big group of people
You are way on the right track here. I don't know if anyone in the professional media can even define "terrorist."
Most people use "fear" as a prerequisite. We fear God and He's not a terrorist. The US Armed forces are "feared" and they are not terrorists.
National armies under command of National leadership cannot be called "terrorists," sorry PLO.
Being outspoken on any issue does not make you a terrorist. Hatred itself does not make you a terrorist, but it is a driving force.
Real terrorists are bent on personal violence, and take concrete steps to act.
I have already written it somewhere else here
Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg _was_ a terrorist, he blew up people!
And noone remembers him as a bad guy, despite the fact that the attempted assasination at 20. July 1944 (and his resistance against the nazi regime in the time before) meets every criteria of terrorism!
I have to bite here. The FSF is not concerned with the dissolution of all the laws that today are bundled together under 'intelletual property'. In fact, they use these laws to their advandage to keep their software free. Perhaps you should look into their philosophy before bashing them for something that they do not really stand for.
If you do not want to read the links, it boils down to Stallman not believing that software should be owned, but a common good. This is already established legal terminology, so nothing to do with communism or taking peoples livelihood away.
Just because people have been making money in a certain way doesn't mean that this method of making money should be protected. People can make money in many ways and should explore other options when one seems to be heading for obsolescence.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
As you were evidently being sarcastic, what would you do? Sit back and let them continue to bulldoze your houses to make way for their settlements?
... and those darn Colonists would have done much better to just sit down to tea and have a nice friendly chat with their British overlords, rather then committing terrorist acts like dumping all that tea in the harbor... lets see now... when you try nonviolent protest and your opponents respond by shooting at you, is that a sign that you're in that 1% of cases?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Whenever they read an article with the word 'terrorist', especially in American-based media, mentally replacve the word with 'communist'. If the resulting story sounds like a bad example of 1950's propoganda, then you have just spotted an example of modern propoganda congratulations.
Are Linux Zealot's Communists?
Yeah, I thought so.
-Shieldwolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Here's a direct quote from it:
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats."
Whatsamatta? You no speeka de English?
Terrorists kill people. They kill PEOPLE.
And he has a hard time seeing a difference between someone killing someone and someone arguing with him?
I think that qualifies as an "idiot".
No. I'm not trying to say all crooks are terrorists. Terrorism is when you do damage (or threaten damage) for political or social gain. That is the defining factor of terrorism, not personal injury.
That definition is totally inadequate. It makes the question of "unlawfulness" paramount. How do you apply that definition to the US's attempted assassination of Castro, or an Israeli soldier killing Rachel Corrie?