Slashdot Mirror
GNU-Darwin: Three Years of Free Software Activism
JigSaw writes "The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free BSD operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founder Michael L. Love wrote an editorial speaking about the roots, goals, problems and just about everything about GNU-Darwin. Free Software is at the core of GNU-Darwin and also anything political that has an impact on digital and even rights. Is this the first truly politically oriented BSD OS?" Nope.
Problem is that for most people, digital activism amounts to bitching and whining on /. and maybe voting for people who have no chance of winning.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well, timothy seems to be suggesting that OpenBSD is a 'truly politically oriented' version of BSD. Yet the OpenBSD site says that one of their goals is to "[b]e as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit." So is it just not possible for a group of Free Software programmers to be non-political?
Maybe partying will help...
When Hurd comes out, we will all be playing Duke Nukem Forever over IPv6.
don't hold your breath
GNU-Darwin is an activist distribution
...
GNU-Darwin has been an ardent defender of digital liberties, and it is a platform for digital activism. Given the current state of things in the US and elsewhere, strident expressions of democratic power are necessary.
blah-blah
We have been prepared to take the Distro off-line a couple of times as a form of political action.
Damn, my skin crawls just remembering it
Seriously, what's this political rah-rah attached to software making? sure free software is about freedom of speech and it's very preferrable for a million valid reasons, but gee, let go of the melodrama-mode button.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Seems silly such an article is written about "3 years" of free software. Since clearly this "free" stuff has been around for quite a bit longer.
I see Darwin as FreeBSD's little brother that just happens to have picked up a nice job working for a respectable corporation. The only reason why anyone really cares about this distro is because Apple does. Not that that is a bad thing.
That GNU-Darwin people decides not to link to "proprietary" libraries is, of course, a result of them using the GNU Public License so extensively-- and now the primary supported Darwin platform is not even supported in this project!
This makes me shake my head and think, "what the fuck?" This project is not only shooting itself in the foot by choosing a platform not fully supported by the OS, but is also screwing over the real meat of Darwin's userbase: PowerPC owners. This move is akin to opening a car garage (in America) whose mechanics are all experienced in servicing American cars, and then changing policy months later, stating that the garage will only work on foreign models.
Where's the fucking logic?
Seriously, am I the only one who is wondering who the Hell is in charge at that project? Kool-Aid Man? This move makes so little sense I can't tell if the people at GNU-Darwin are really that stupid, or if I am waking up in alternate realities every damn morning. I almost kind of hope for the latter.
This is the GPL in action, Mac faithful. Get down and kiss Apple's butt for choosing the BSD license.
Give me a BREAK.
If Stallman were to, as you so eloquently put it, make a "power play" and double-cross Linus, the FSF itself would instantly lose credibility overnight.
Stallman may be bitter, but he's not dumb. HURD is nothing but a curiosity at this point. It is in no way capable to suddenly sit in for the Linux kernel.
I don't see both Darwin and the Hurd surviving in the long run
Errrm, why not? The Hurd seems to have survived the onslaught of Linux over the past few years, and Darwin is the core of a widely commercially deployed *nix. I can't see a good reason for either to fall over, to be honest.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
While I seriously doubt a free os will be able to muster the clout to be taken seriously on theri Antiwar stand or for that matter their Anti DMCA stand. Its very good to see people taking a stand and getting out the message.
This does point out the bigger question of why the technical community is not taken seriously on political issues. If you caught the Diane Rehm show this morning, they were doing a piece on voting systems. While they did have a few C.S. people talking about the problems of electronic voting machines, the election officials managed to stonewall and treat their concerns as non issues. The trick for technical people of any stripe is to make certain that the opinion of their community is heared outside their community. GNU/darwin, free BSD, or linux will only serve as a platform for speaking to those allready within a particular community.
actually hurd is out and is very nice. however it's not exactly usable for most people yet. i wanted to start contributing, but, that plan was foiled when i saw the lack of up to date documentation and realized i have no spare time.
I write code.
Hurd eh ?
I always though the first letter was ROT-12 encoded.
It's not *when* it comes out, it's *if*.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
From the site:
In fact, we did blackout the home page as a war protest in March, and we blackened the whole website, after Apple used the DMCA, but we have never actually taken it off line. Fortunately, the situation has never warranted taking the package collection off line, which would be an even more drastic step, and our actual users have never been affected by these actions. In fact, we received many orders and messages of support as a result of our activism.
While I realize that MOST of the supporters of Darwin may in fact be politically liberal...this is not fair for the [conservative and otherwise] users that are not. I'm not looking to start a flame war, but I believe that inserting his political beliefs into his work project is less than elegant.
Most developers don't have a problem with opposing things such as the DMCA and the abuse of patents that runs rampant. That won't be an issue. It was also said in the article that, in March, the page was blacked out for a time in protest of the war against Iraq. I know the war is something that most Slashbots were quite opposed to. While it may not have been the right thing, there are some good things to come from it. One of which is millions of Iraqis now have freedoms they never enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. For the sake of the Iraqi people, hopefully the war will be a success and Iraqis will enjoy the freedoms that much of the world already enjoys. And hopefully the standard of living will rise in Iraq, too. My point is that some issues don't have a clear cut right and wrong. Taking a side, one way or the other, risks fragmenting the community, alienating developers, and just causing a big mess.
I'd like to think the editorial was right when it stated that the community hopes to pressure SCO into changing its ways, much like the effect they probably had on Apple. Unfortunately, the problem is here that SCO doesn't give a damn about the community. SCO is all about profit, pleasing investors, and making a quick buck.
SEARCHING FOR SIG
SIG NOT FOUND ERROR
READY.
The Hurd seems to have survived the onslaught of Linux over the past few years
How could Hurd not survive? Something that was never born cannot possibly die.
Repeat after me: Microkernels are like pure OO programming, very attractive and sexy on the paper, but obese and slow in the real world.
In the SCO dispute, GNU-Darwin has no stake at all
For a body with no stake at all they have a lot to say about the SCO dispute in that document.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Dubya: Ok, tomorrow we start dropping the bombs if the demands are not met.
General: Sir! We just got the news in! The GNU-Darwin distribution has taken down its website!
Dubya: Oh my god! Cancel the war!!
It should read 'shut the fuck up' - and it's worth repeating. Get lost, you fat fuck.
You my friend are my favorite Slashdot troll. Very subtle, well done.
Very, very Lovecraftian.
Not just you. Most of them are missing for me too.
Theyre not just screwed up they're not found.
The whole article just comes off like a crank piece to me. I'm against the war in Iraq, but if they think blacking out their web site is a real form of anti-war protest, that's pretty pathetic.
Find free books.
Well, I'm not very familiar with Darwin, but now I can say, based on this story, that my mind is pretty closed to it. I would certainly be hard pressed to ever consider it for anything in a production environment.
I don't want politics with my OS. I don't want the distribution site going black because Bush decides to bomb koala bears or even humans for that matter. Call me cold-hearted, but if I'm in a production environment, and I need to deliver a box that's expected to be supported and work as advertised, I don't want to worry if the freaking OS "activists" -- whatever the hell they are, exactly -- are going to pull the Distro (capitalized, no less) because the Malaguan butterfly's habitat is endangered by oil drilling or 250 million U.S. citizens have strong opinions about war.
Screw that. Give me my FreeBSD, which, to my knowledge, is pretty much always available, regardless of what Dan Rather is spewing at any given moment, and give me peace of mind. Hey, I know that's a lot less eloquent than "give me freedom, or give me death", but in my mind, and with some of the pressures I face from clients, I really don't distinguish between the two.
Activists need to shut up and get jobs anyway.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Quick...name one Fortune 1000 company seriously considering a move to Hurd.
Ultimately, it's not Stallmans call over what kernel is used. That's sorta the thing with the GPL. Since it's all GPLed, people can pick what kernel they like. Some folks will jump to Hurd. My own guess is that very few will abandon Linux, at least in the forseeable future.
FWIW...People who want to dispose of the Linux kernel now do have an option. Last time I checked, the Debian/NetBSD folks had something going, tho they has some "interesting" ideas about licenses. I haven't seen a mad rush that direction from either the Debian or the NetBSD camp.
That said...we could use a new toolchain on top of Linux. Not because of any "consipricy" on the part of Stallman and his cabal, but because the GNU compilers are vastly better at portability that optimization. Having something as good as the Intel compiler or the DEC Alpha compiler for ever arch would be nice...
nt
It's fixed, clear your cache. I presume you mean the smileys?
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
We'll see about that.
We need a non-GNU toolchain to put on top of the Linux kernel so that when the Hurd makes its power play, Linux won't be dependent on the GNU stuff.
Why do you think that the advent of the Hurd would be a bad thing from which other systems need protection? Your entire post is an odd rant, for why rail against GNU software if you're a Linux user?I'm disappointed by the lack of progress in the Hurd (it should pick up after the port to the L4 microkernel, however), but if it achieved stability it would be a superior solution to anything currently on the market. The Hurd has a ton of ingenious improvements and renovations in POSIX architecture, and could truly be a better future for *nix users. Of course, I'm not getting my hopes up, it's been ten years and Debian Hurd is hardly usable. But a man can dream.
Anyway, I expect GNU-Darwin to be cannabalised for code after Hurd picks up. This isn't a bad thing, however, since code reusability is a good thing.
I don't know where you come from, but "not exactly useable" and "lack of up to date documentation" doesn't equate to "very nice" in my book...
This guy's a zealot. I don't mind him choosing to do what he does, but I won't ever bother to try out GNU/Darwin because of his zealotry. I prefer a more relaxed environment where BSD, GNU, APSL, or other licenses are not so strongly advocated or political/religious views put forward that I can worry instead about what interests me.
Make sure you vote in the next election. And think before you do.
What for? aren't Diebold machines supposed to do that for you?
I don't know why the fuck this douchebag and his GNU-Darwin hard-on are allowed anywhere near slashdot. Check his homepage if you want. He's a scientologist.
three years of activism! hugalugalugalugalugalugalugalugalugalugalu, yeah bullshit. RMS jacking off in his hype-paid office all day is only activism for bacterial colonies across metro Boston.
Well, timothy seems to be suggesting that OpenBSD is a 'truly politically oriented' version of BSD
You must be with SCO to make a comment like this, so anti-BSD'ish. I mean, how dare you talk about Theo, no one said he was arrogant cocky pr*ck in this article, so you should really stop trolling. As for political correctness on the BSD's, look to the less spoken of NetBSD, where no one plays the zealotry games.
mY oS iS bEtT3r tH4n j0ors sissies I swear...
MoFscker
The 60's and 70's are dead.
This nutjob seems to think that people should be buying into his beliefs when all anybody cares about is the software. He makes the mistake of thinking people should care just like him one other issues because of one non-related issue.
Can you imagine if you were in a restaurant and the waiter berates you for being pro/anti-abortion, pro/anti gun or being christian/jewish/whatever??
I'm sorry, this guy is really no much different than the child molesters who tempt kids with candy , only to get them into the back of their vans. Harsh, but true.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
It's times like these when I need points.
"In fact, we did blackout the home page as a war protest in March, and we blackened the whole website, after Apple used the DMCA, but we have never actually taken it off line"
/ ne ws/2003/06/22/wzim122.xml
Did they take the site offline when "The war veterans - unleashed by President Robert Mugabe to seize white-owned farms - are not, however, killing only people: they are slaughtering animals on an unprecedented scale."?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
Did they take the site offline to protest the jailing and torture in china of people who speak out or worship?
Did they take the site offline to protest the actions of the goverment of iran to put down the student lead protest movement that has resulted in thousands being thrown in jail?
No? Why not? Do they only protest against things that are 'in style' and/or 'hip' with their 'progressive' friends?
http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net
Regards,
proclus
That would be a Republican.
Conservative thinking is no longer welcomed in the GOP. Just look at GWB and his spending/political policies. Don't look at what he SAYS look at what he does.
TRUE!
It is having 100% user growth each year! Pretty soon Hurd will have at least 512 users!
"This does point out the bigger question of why the technical community is not taken seriously on political issues."
I believe it is because the way that technical people see problems is very different form the way that non-technical people see problems.
Technical problems typically involve tradeoffs. E.g. if you use this certain data structure, you will get fast deletion and insertion, at the cost of slower searching; if you use this data structure searching, deletion and insertion are all reasonably fast, but it is difficult to code.
The concept of a compromise is thus in our vocabulary, but usually it's a negative -- that is, most technical compromises suck.
The idea of a win-win scenario, where everyone wins, is very foreign to us techies. We see things in terms of "this vs. that."
RTFA to see a great example of this. The political points made are all made in terms of "Us vs. Them." They are on one side, and they are in opposition to another side. It is very warlike, in fact, and someone who does not already agree with their point of view -- who might not yet have an opinion on the matter -- is going to be very put off by the language used. And those who do disagree but who are otherwise open-minded are immediately going to be put on the defensive.
The only solution to the problem with Diebold (for example) that will help things is a solution that also helps Diebold's bottom line.
Consider this point of view: Diebold faces a long-term growth problem if they force buggy voting machines on the public. The truth always comes out, and if Diebold doesn't take action, the resulting backlash and loss of trust will bury the company. If, however, they acknowledge what is a simple technical limitation and fix it, and work with the community, they are not only likely to land contracts now, but to dominate the market in the future. This leads to substantial revenue in the future.
Notice that I'm talking about what Diebold itself is most concerned with. This is the only way to have any discussion: Talk to people in terms of their interests, not yours. Diebold doesn't care one way or another, as a company, how they make money. But obviously destruction of Democracy as an institution is bad for them: They will be the first ones lined up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Unlike technical solutions, people problems deal with people, who are irrational and emotional. If you consider someone else's point of view first, you can get them to see your side of things, and convince them to pursue another course of action. And when that happens, everyone thinks they win. And when everyone thinks they can benefit from a course of action, suddenly change becomes easy.
Now, to quote myself:This "article" is merely another case of proclus wasting time advocating instead of coding.
GNU-Darwin is totally irrelevant. If it disappeared tomorrow, no-one would notice. Mac users don't want it, and Free Software advocates don't want Macs.
This junk was rejected as crap elsewhere. It's just that OSNews are happy to run with any crap.
but i smell shit. like a huge stinking log of shit.
Pants can be found here.
They don't take stands on things that are 'safe' to take stands against.
The don't take stands against china nor do they take stands against what the current goverment of iran is doing to those students that protest against it.
In short, the don't believe in there protest, the just want to look 'cool and/or 'progressive'
So called 'GNU-Darwin' is NOT OpenDarwin so far as I can tell from their respective websites. Apple is not associated with GNU-Darwin in any way, other than GNU-Darwin seems to have stolen the mascot, the name (adding GNU - how original and trademark avoiding), and the source.
Seems to me that this 'GNU-Darwin' is no more than a political website, probably distributing the stock Darwin unchanged.
Stupid, stupid people. This can of worms has been opened before - don't they know that polotics is not considered 'added-value'? And if they don't have anything substantial to add to the core Darwin, they won't last more than it takes for them to come up with some other bandwagon.
-Adam
perhaps it is actually more than three years. while i am primarily a mac person--designer--i have installed linux on apple machines for fun in the past. mk linux was supported (financially) by apple, and i installed it on a powermac 6100. i just didn't have anything to do with it once i got it up and running! toys!
Every image at http://images.slashdot.org/ is saying 404 wtf?
Most of those who've hung around slashdot long enough to actually be interested in this particular discussion will be familiar with the many reasons for and against prepending GNU in front of any software which appears to require GNU tools to maintain core functionality.
I'd like to re-iterate my position that those who feel it should be added, as in 'GNU-LINUX', are askin' for a smackin'.
That's all I'm saying.
-Adam
than get it for "free" but subject to the author's political views. From the article "In fact, we did blackout the home page as a war protest in March"
For example, on the GNU-Darwin site, the developer mentions taking the distro offline as a protest to the war. What purpose did this really server? Do you really think that the leaders of the coalition had any high-level meetings where they said "You know, I really thought this war was a good idea. But the blackout on the GNU-Darwin software site has really made me think twice"? Of course not. What it DID do however was pressure some of the distro's users to get pissed off and write their MP or Congressman and oppose the war because they wanted their distro back damnit! And that was the intention: to force their USERS into taking a specific action.
Yep, there's that freedom they rant about huh? Software blackouts don't mean a thing and the developers/sites that use them should be ashamed of themselves for trying to extort their users in such a way.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
... take a political science class!
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
i'm sorry, you're full of shit. the man has contradicted himself multiply, publicly, and on the record. it's either (a) lying, or (b) his lack of understanding. in either case, it's a very bad thing.
mass graves were found in serbia. do some research.
a weapon development program != a weapon.
many people believe that the war to remove saddam was a good thing, but they also believe it should have been done ten years ago, and that our government should be honest with us about its reasoning and its data, and generally should act in good faith with regard to us... the citizens that give it power.
now please, go back to banging your head against the brick wall. i'd suggest a running start this time around.
your UID does wonders for your credibility on this topic, by the way.
i was with you right up until you said that. damn shame your mind is stuck.
"...or yet another person, who's running Windows Me, and think "Wow, that person's a Republican"."
I guess that's why Limbaugh, G.W. Bush, and Tom Clancy use Macs, eh?
Info on conservative Mac users can be found here, but THIS Mac user says that using a Mac DOES equate to Communism...and that is a good thing, in his eyes.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This whole article is one giant piece of flamebait...GNU-Darwin is clearly crap, doing nothing that can't be accomplished with either FreeBSD or OpenDarwin and Fink. There is nothing newsworthy here, 5 years of an OS that has made significant inroads would be something...Linux certainly developed into something notable in five years beyond a curious *NIX-like OS...and BSD has been around for ages, powering Yahoo and Google et al.
Darwin has not managed managed to achieve anything other than curiousity status, IMO. I mean it's great when it's under OS X and it's cool that Apple is trying to provide an Open Source alternative for its hardware (ever think maybe all those G3s and G4s need to do something and it's easier to sell a G5 when that old computer can become a web server/firewall/mail server/file server for nothing and still use all the Apple hardware? Or let all those switchers do something with that x86 they now have collecting dust?) Plus, ya know, if the hardware market ever goes bust, Apple can always sell this nifty OS as an enterprise/opensource/consumer alternative depending on what they put in or take out...
(Posted from an iBook running Jaguar)
On what planet? I think the poster is thinking of Fink, which is at this point quite apolitical. Everyone tends to shun GNU-Darwin, generally because the bootstrap script was originally horrendously insecure. This appears to have been fixed, but they're still downloading completely unnecessary binaries (you don't need wget to download a single file! curl does that just fine).
Why would anyone bother with this "GNU" shit? It is basically a set of hobbyist programs created by communists for communists. Instead of that crap, you should be looking into OS X. It is the most advanced, professionally developed operating system available today. It has more applications, a better GUI, and runs on the fastest hardware money can buy. By comparison, anything "GNU" falls flat on its face. So move out of your parent's basement and into the world of Apple Mac OS X! Think different, think professional, think Apple!
The Hurd isn't surviving Linux's onslaught, it's being built despite the fact that a perfectly good kernel exists already.
Darwin doesn't really exist outside of OSX. It could live or die and nobody would really notice unless Apple's flashy OSs went with it.
From the article...
" If everyone does everything that they can, no matter how small, then together we can make an impact. Together we can stop the Englobulators!"
What's he talking about? A Google search turned up this:
"Englobulators" is a term of art meaning the loose alliance of cartels, monopolies, and governments, which act against our right and power of private ownership of computers, and our rights and powers of free communication over the Net."
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
With a completed Hurd, there's no need for the Linux kernel to exist. The GNU OS is only using the Linux kernel until the Hurd gets done. That's why Stallman fought so hard to get Linux under the GPL. Now Hurd developers can bastardize Linux for parts if they need to, whether or not anything is actually useful.
Take another look at the GPL preamble. It's not very clear about who owns the copyrights to software placed under the GPL. It could be interpretted as meaning that any code placed under the GPL is copyright FSF. If that's the case, then the FSF could pull everyone's right to work on the code or use it in any system that isn't the GNU-OS. There would be no competition.
Thanks for your reply.
Take another look at the GPL preamble. It's not very clear about who owns the copyrights to software placed under the GPL. It could be interpretted as meaning that any code placed under the GPL is copyright FSF. If that's the case, then the FSF could pull everyone's right to work on the code or use it in any system that isn't the GNU-OS. There would be no competition.
That's a bizarre conspiracy theory you have there. For one, GPL code does not automatically belong to the FSF. If it did, then why is it necessary for the FSF to request that the copyright of widely-used applications be transferred to them in writing so they can defend it in court? Two, Stallman did not "fight hard" to get Linux under the GPL. As a student Torvalds was familiar with the GNU project and thought the GPL a good license for his kernel without any pressure from Stallman. In fact, I imagine Stallman didn't even hear about Linux under it had been under the GPL for months.
I don't understand why you think the GNU project is such a bogeyman out to rape coders. If GNU was afraid of competition, why does it support multiple implementations of the same idea? For instance, GNOME and GNUstep are both GNU projects, but have to a certain extent the same goals. As long as all software in the market is free, the GNU project seems to encourage competition. It's a hacker's OS, so one-upping one's neighbour is a noble act.
I can just picture this guy, Stallman, and the eight other GNU-Darwing users sitting around some place resembling a Cambodian re-education camp espousing the evils of proprietary software, singing Kumbaya, and trying to convince people if all software was GPL the world would be utopia.
Maybe if these people would code more and stop talking politics less Hurd would actually get done.
As someone else mentioned, Stallman has said that he would like to see proprietary software illegal. Smells like communism to me. Good thing that nobody takes him seriously.
BSD is dying
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've come to the conclusion that GNU-Darwin is a hoax! Oh, there may be some software there you can download, but it's all part of the trappings for an incredibly elaborate chicanery. I am here now to unmask the perpetrator of this hornswoggle. This has gone on long enough!
Proclus (otherwise known as Michael L. Love, of no relation to Ransom that I know of) started this scheme in an effort to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. His aim is to ridicule Free Software by taking the ideas of the FSF to a absurd extreme. His ultimate goal, I fear, is to completely discredit GNU. Look at the evidence! All of it points to either a madman or a cunning conniver.
GNU-Darwin has been an ardent defender of digital liberties, and it is a platform for digital activism.
Here Proclus is deliberately asserting that GNU-Darwin is a propaganda tool. This isn't a platform to write documents, edit videos or administrate servers, "it is a platform for digital activism." The sole purpose of GNU-Darwin is to spread an ideology. An ideology that Proclus has subverted towards his own diabolical ends.
The tools of such action include, but are not limited to; boycotts, blockades, community response, de-branding, labor solidarity, whistle-blowing, etc.
Here we see how he out-stallmans Stallman. While RMS may have some firm and inflexible opinions on everything from Bush to the local dogcatcher, he keeps all of his non-software ideology out of GNU, and on a separate personal website. The point of GNU is Free Software and Free Software only. The point of GNU-Darwin is everything imaginable. It's not about the software, it's about "labor solitarity." Huh? Is Proclus going to take down his site as a sympathetic protest the next time the AFL/CIO goes on strike?
Once your credibility to engage is established, then the mere threat of such action is often sufficient to produce results.
Fortunately, GNU-Darwin has no credibility. They can boycott, blockade and de-brand all they want, and no one will care. Remember, this is all an elaborate and intricate hoax! The aim was never to get credibility, but to discredit GNU.
It is important to realize that the software freedom status of GNU-Darwin was tenuous before the change to the APSL, so we were ready to cut our losses, and remove GNU-Darwin from the internet, if necessary.
This is a prime example of "kindergarten activism". Proclus threatens to hold his breath until he gets his cookie. But since Apple wasn't paying attention, he has to call attention to his self-serving breath-holding, hoping that we'll feel compassion for his almost-sacrifice. How noble!
In general the effects of such action are ambiguous by nature, because the rulers certainly have an interest in denying the influence of democratic power.
This is a classic example of radical pseudo-think. He's telling you in advance that he can't point to any concrete results of his political activism, and the reason he can't is because he's oppressed by the ruling class. This is the crux of his ideology. Upon this all his hopes ride. You either laugh at this point and go on with life, or you stretch your credulity too far and you fall victim to his rantings. Don't go there!
Our third year commenced with the initiation of the The Free Darwin campaign which was followed by the antiwar blackout in March.
With this antiwar blackout, he's obviously playing along with the Free Software protests against European patents. But he went too far this time. Protests against "europatents" were justified because they were inextricably linked with software. But the war in Iraq, no matter how vile, has nothing whatsoever to do with software.
This is part of his insidious scheming. But engaging in this blackout, and widely announcing it on each and every forum he can possibly find (kuro5hin, slashdot, osnews, etc), he's discrediting the entire Free Software Movement. Real Free Software developers,
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Kim Jong-il is to become dictator over a unified, communist Korea. Hwang Jang Yop, the highest-ranking Pyongyang official to defect said that North Korean ruler Kim Jong-il is a failed leader who has starved millions of his people but who is "brilliant" as a dictator.
Not that I wouldn't use OpenBSD, or any other operating system that met my technical needs, whatever the personality of the people involved. I've dealt with enough bad attitudes from commercial OS vendors in my years in the industry to be able to deal with it if I have to. It just seems that *BSD has an extra heaping helping of bad attitudes that make commercial vendors look like pikers.
If you were waiting to spring on the world that you owned all the GPL copyrights, you wouldn't blow your trump card until you could benefit from it.
As a student Torvalds was familiar with the GNU project and thought the GPL a good license for his kernel without any pressure from Stallman.
Linux didn't start out under the GPL. It was moved to the GPL license. Also, read the little paragraph that prefaces the GPL copy in the COPYING file that comes with the kernel source. Here is the fun part of the GPL preamble I'm talking about: The "we" is ambiguous. Also note that you aren't allowed to change the GPL text (it's copyrighted), so tinkering with it to clarify who "we" is isn't allowed.
I don't understand why you think the GNU project is such a bogeyman out to rape coders.
I doubt the intent is to rape coders. Money is a better reason why something like this would occur.
If GNU was afraid of competition, why does it support multiple implementations of the same idea? For instance, GNOME and GNUstep are both GNU projects
If both are under the GPL, then the FSF might own the copyright to both. It doesn't matter which one turns out to be the best, because all code in both projects belongs to the FSF. I'll close with one more passage from the GPL:
If you looked at "Reality as it is" you'd realize your one vote has no chance of swaying the election, because the election would be won by a margin or tens of thousands if not millions on any given election.
MY vote means very little, but the votes of millions of people like me matter very much.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>Free Software is at the core of GNU-Darwin
GPL/GNU is not free it is cripple licensed. Free software can be used by anyone for anything without any licensing/legal strings attached.
If you really want to know this, try to get your legal department to allow you to link GPL code directly into your company's commercial software. That same commercial software provides your income.
We have been prepared to take the Distro off-line a couple of times as a form of political action. It is important to realize that the software freedom status of GNU-Darwin was tenuous before the change to the APSL, so we were ready to cut our losses, and remove GNU-Darwin from the internet, if necessary. Now things have improved very much.
Which pretty much sums up why these guys will never be any kind of serious competition for any real free OS. Who the hell would place any faith in this distribution? Doesn't exactly sound like the kind of dependable OS I'd want to put on my critical servers if it's going to come and go depending on the current political situation. And what kind of idiotic form of activism is it that goes out of its way to inconvenience its supporters, rather than the people its protesting against?
It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
Consider that because of the many troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
Every major marketing survey has shown that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are infinitesimally dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Hurd was promised for first release by the FSF in December 1993. The 10th anniversary of that date is fast approaching. Still no release.
Mod sholden up - pretty much summed up what I wrote later in the thread, only better.
Ever wonder how many grams of fat are in that fettuccini Alfredo at your favorite restaurant? Or how many calories you're sucking down with that apple martini? The answers to such questions often elude diners who worry that eating out is wrecking their diets.
Apple didn't change the APSL because of you. Hell, Apple can't possibly think much of your project, considering they've since founded OpenDarwin, and are paying people to create DarwinPorts.
It's kind of sad you need to write these articles yourself. I mean, if people actually liked your distribution, they'd be writing these crappy articles for you! You don't see Linus submitting stories to Slashdot about Linux, do you?
Darwin already has a mature, GPL-licensed, Stallman-compatible software distribution: Fink. Hell, it' even uses apt, the favourite software management tool of people everywhere. There's also the aforementioned DarwinPorts project, for people that wish to use modern, ports-like system on Darwin.
Maybe GNU-Darwin should be focusing on important things: It's not part of MetaPKG, the massive collaborative Darwin software effort, which Fink and DarwinPorts primary members. Even the newcomer Gentoo has been invited to take part. But GNU-Darwin has not.
The future of Darwin software is setting sail, yet GNU-Darwin isn't on the boat. This can't possibly bode well for GNU-Darwin's future relevance on the platform. Maybe they should be working to become a part of that, instead of submitting rubbish to Kuro5hin, Slashdot and OSNews.
Right now, GNU-Darwin is totally irrelevant, and there's nothing on the horizon to change that. If it disappeared tomorrow, no-one would notice. Instead of trolling here at Slashdot, go do something!
Can you imagine this? Can you imagine 2 people who live together, one who's working for money, one who's working for money, the other one doing these things in his/her free time?
No. Can't. I don't have any time for imagination, I'm too busy working.
You could have helped me ...
Yeah, all right, I'll respect the not-your-native-tongue thing. For future flames, you want "being" not "beeing".
How 'bout we just agree to disagree, 'k? Or, if you want, we can flip a coin, heads I win, tails you lose ...
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
...if someone had told me yesterday that today I'd read a piece by a software activist even more stridently and offensively political than RMS, I'd have asked what they'd been smoking.
At least RMS and FSF/GNU gave the community a metric shitload of high-quality tools to go along with their rhetoric...I have yet to see what this guy's done to add any value to the world.
I guess the DMCA has done it's work again... ... oh well, must have been a bit prejudiced with all the 'good' news of late.
erm... "of free software activism" ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
CMU has available under the same terms as Mach a single-server partial Unix emulator named Poe; it is rather slow and provides minimal functionality. We would probably begin by extending Poe to provide full functionality. Later we hope to have a modular emulator divided into multiple processes.
actually hurd is out and is very nice. however it's not exactly usable for most people yet.
They should rename it "TURD". The GNU project has suffered massive constipation in pushing it out to the masses.
In fact, in the original history of OS's, Richard Stallman originally wanted Andrew Tanenbaum's MINIX, which was under the auspices of the Free University of Amsterdam. Stallman of course wanted to distribute MINIX at no charge, but Tanenbaum refused. Apparently, Stallman became very obnoxious and quite rattled Tanenbaum, thus MINIX never made it into the GNU distribution. Then MINIX inspired Linus Torvalds to create Linux, and the rest, as they say is history -- the Linux name would eclipse GNU's, much to the consternation of Stallman, and the HURD would never get the momentum it needed.
Regardless of what HURD advocates say, the project is too many years LATE for something that was started in 1990, and only now is at version 0.2!!! People working on and with the HURD are really wasting their time, and if they are being funded by taxpayer dollars, they are wasting my money and your money as well.
What????
Hurd does not even have mmap!!!
Seriously, its one of those things where they wanted to do "a very good job indeed" and they screwed it. Linus had the insight to go directly for the solid-x86-dirty stuff and THEN add other features. Hurd tried to do everything perfectly from the start and it was never finished. This happens all the time with people who go for "a very good job"; see the bloatwareness of GNOME for example. Seriously, who need CORBA and XML2 for simple commands like "close window"??
"Seriously, am I the only one who is wondering who the Hell is in charge at that project? Kool-Aid Man?"
Who do you think you are bashing the Kool-Aid man like that?! He doesn't deserve to be associated with this crap. He's capable of smashing through reinforced concrete without spilling a single drop! Show the guy some respect!
"Oh yeah!"
More Kool-Aid man stuff!
It is perhaps anybody's
guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering
*BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD
may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base
for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
E_elven: No, the problem is that of voting for people who can win because all the other schmoes think the same way instead of risking an opinion.
Lord Kano: MY vote means very little, but the votes of millions of people like me matter very much.
Vote (together with millions of people like you) for the candidate you really want.
If Pat had a those millions of votes wouldn't that be a very strong signal for George ?
Wouldn't he shift his policies in the direction of Pats (or at least claim to do so)? Wouldn't that mean that you got more out of voting for Pat than out of voting for George?
Democracy works, not because the majority is right, but because the majority is divided.
Here is what we do know.
Know? More like it's what he imagines. Big difference there.
There was no indication whatsoever that Apple was pursuing free software listing before the Free Darwin action, even though we had been asking for it for almost three years.
Apple's really not known as a company that talks about things/deals/products/licenses/whatever before they're DONE. Apple was probably flogging this FSF-approval thing since the original APSL, and just not talking about it.
In fact, Apple's own Darwin FAQ derided the necessity of it.
That's because it WASN'T necessary. There might have been a dozen people in the whole world who changed their hardware buying decision on the basis of whether any GPL fanatic approved of the APSL.
Apple attained that listing 7 months (corporate lightspeed) after commencement of Free Darwin.
Who wants to play "Spot the Fallacy?"
Fortunately, the action provoked huge coverage and a human groundswell on the web, and apparently impacted Apple's stock price.
Oh, please. A "huge groundswell"? What, a hundred or so slashdotters clicking a checkbox on your website?
It provided a focal point for the discontent of the community, so that Apple employees had an opportunity to point to the action and say, "We need to do something positive about this."
I think the guy needs to get a grip.
Apple's modification of the APSL had absoulutely squat to do with his little hissy-fit, and everything to do with the FSF getting more reasonable to deal with. As for the stock price, I defy anyone to find me a major pension-fund investor who gives a rat's ass what this GNU/Darwin guy thinks or says.
mmap() is not part of POSIX, and an OS can function perfectly well without it. There are specific circumstances when mmap() offers and advantage, but there is almost always another way to do it without.
lame excuse. The man page of mmap() mentions _POSIX_MMAPED_FILES. So it is optional POSIX.
Processors give the mmap functionallity with virtual memory. It's a shame not to have it and use fread() instead. Linux has mmap since 2.0.0. Hurd after 10 years still doean't have it. The failure we were talking about....
Actually, the Hurd iso disks disappeared from ALL the Hurd ftp sites for several months over the summer. I don't know if they are available again.
This puts the OS X into perfect perspective.
Darwin isn't a politically oriented BSD at all. It's politically oriented Mach.
Badass Resumes
So let me get this straight. You believe that Stalman has this plan for world domination that he started cooking up in 1984 and he has been waiting patiently since then (for all of 20 years). Waiting to spring this on the world and then ... (3) Profit!
Of course, it might be that he really believes in his cause and is acting as altruistically as he claims. But that would just be crazy. Everyone knows no-one does anything that they don't profit from.
Of course, you could say that he profits by feeling that he acts morally, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
xnu (the Darwin kernel) is a frankensteinian Mach where the entire BSD layer is hacked to run in kernel space. Good idea, all the POSIX goodies and management tools lose the overhead. Apple has a blurb on their site.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Everyone else on the planet failed to realize that everything revolves around you.
Starting today, I will begin learning to code, so I can personally make sure that someday hurd will have mmap. I don't even know what it is, but I will look it up.
While you are waiting, would you please fuck off.
you forgot to tell GNU communists eat kids. About OSX running on the fastest hardware money can buy... you obviously got no money dear monkey, fastest hardware runs with fuel.
[Very interesting thread, BTW]
/. and similar FOSS media. The difference between Free Software and Open-Source is in fact stated by some as a matter of politicization with RMS being among the most politicized and Linus or Eric Raymond being the most "neutral." But even the most "Open-Source for purely practical reasons" initiative carries political implications, at least of the "Your Rights Online" kind. Slashdotters often joke about all the M$/Gates-bashing but it's quite clear that most 'dotters would favour, say, Linus over Gates in an election for a hypothetical "Department of Software Decisions" and the possible use of DRM in Linux has showed a limited political involvement.
/usr/local thing makes them harder to remove and they often clash with Fink packages.
As a casual observer of the Free Software and Open-Source movements (I'm not a coder), I find the situation fascinating.
The movements themselves are often put along political lines, especially on
Still, political ideas that are well-represented among members the movements aren't (and shouldn't) at the basis of specific projects.
"GNU"-Darwin's case is quite specific and has been described adequately by other posters. Among Open-Source advocating Mac OS X users, "GNU"-Darwin has been seen as either a joke or a problem. In fact, I've been naive enough to install a few GD packages at one point and I'm sorry I did. The
Alexandre http://enkerli.wordpress.com/
If Pat had a those millions of votes wouldn't that be a very strong signal for George ?
See my earlier list of people that I did not want to win. For me to have voted for Keyes or Buchanan, would have been no different than a vote for Gore. They had no chance to win in a general election.
I voted for Keyes and Buchanan in previous primary elections, that is where the biggest change can happen. We lost in 1996 because of the idiots in my party who decided to put up an elderly senator against, a young, attractive successful southern, president.
Wouldn't that mean that you got more out of voting for Pat than out of voting for George?
Ask those liberals in Florida who voted for Nader if they got more out of that vote than they would have from a vote for Gore?
We learned that lesson in 1992.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Read the GPL. This is an issue that I'm concerned about, but even so, I'll never put any software I write under the GPL.
It's also worth mentioning that I've got an exit plan or two cooked up. If Stallman pulls this mess, the next version of Linux will certainly be out from under the GPL, but it'll be largely toolchainless for a while. FreeBSD is my main strategy.
If Stallman pulls this mess, the next version of Linux will certainly be out from under the GPL, but it'll be largely toolchainless for a while. FreeBSD is my main strategy.
I daresay calming down and learning about the situation should be your "main strategy" instead of this bizarre paranoia. Stallman isn't out to get you. He's no evil genius who plans on taking over the world. Even the most ardent of GPL critics do not think he has malicious motives of appropriating others' code (especially seeing as he hardly codes anymore). Stallman began the GNU project as a crusade against software hoarders. He wanted all software to be as usuable and redistributable as it was in the glorious world of 70's academia. So why do you think Stallman will all of the sudden turn around and do the very thing against which he has sacrified for twenty years?
GPG Key ID: 8C444E97 Fingerprint: E7BA D851 9714 8D97 C4F9 1777 8168 6913 8C44 4E97
Only Linux supports mmap(). Lesser, unsophisticated systems like *BSD do not support it either. Linux remains the most advanced operating system in the open source world.
Have you ever seen an animal backed into a corner and fighting for its life? That is the exact situation BSD finds itself in. The BSD fans are in a state of desperation, and even the mildest criticism of their hobby horse results in wild and paranoid outburts from the faithful. They will find an alibi and excuse for everything. Truth has nothing to do with it. The truth is too painful for the BSD crowd.
Have you ever seen an animal backed into a corner and fighting for its life? That is the exact situation BSD finds itself in. The BSD fans are in a state of desperation, and even the mildest criticism of their hobby horse results in wild and paranoid outbursts from the faithful. They will find an alibi and excuse for everything. Truth has nothing to do with it. The truth is too painful for the BSD crowd.
The only thing I need to learn is what an independent lawyer says about the wording of the GPL. It doesn't matter what Stallman used to want for the world of software, either. If it turns out that the "we" mentioned in the GPL is the FSF, then that organization benefits from it, because they control an enormous amount of extremely functional code.
The GPL makes for a good license if the FSF wants to start a project, but it's a horrible license for Joe Coder writing libexample-1.6. If the GPL coup occurs, then they can take the control of libexample out of Joe's hands. They can't stop him from making a derivative work, but it would be under the GPL too, and because they own the copyright to libexample-1.6 and before, they can force him to dump all copies of his^W their code.
Suddenly the dancers stopped. One of them held up his hand signaled for the spotlight. Amid dead silence, the spot moved to a fat girl in blue, seated high in the rear of the stage. Her head was bowed and she was snoring delicately, sound asleep.
The roars of laughter woke the girl up. She blushed to her hairline, tied a sickly smile, and fell over sideways in a dead faint.
"Sometimes maybe I get too relaxed," says Jo Stafford of that 1941 incident.
Due to this genius for casual unwinding, the carrot-topped, freckle-faced, 38-year-old-woman, who looks something like a plump housewife and has a contralto voice like a drink of mountain spring water, is without doubt the leading female singer of American popular songs.
What an absurd statement:
Being against war isn't a right-left thing. It's a humanity thing.
War isn't something that most people embrace with relish and joy. War is something people resort to solve a problem of one sort or another.
Saying you're "anti-war" is just sticking your head in the ground and not confronting the realities of the world. Now if you want to say you're against the Iraq war you are at least starting at a point for discussion. The next step would be to say why you're against the war and what should be done instead to solve the problem that Iraq presented. (You can also argue the degree of that problem but you can't pretend that it doesn't exist.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Congratulations, you have managed to sneak in the subtlest "BSD is dieing" troll of the day.
That was very well done.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
this was due to a breach of security on the box they were hosted on. only files from a "secure" backup were put back up.
I write code.
Of course it is not possible since Free Software is a political movement in the first place and has been so since at least 1984. That is actualy the reason of the recent community fork in 1998. What you are looking for is Open Source.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Flask of ripe urine
Pressed to bsd lips
bsd drink up
Here's the thought for today: BSD is dead
Darwin doesn't really exist outside of OSX. It could live or die and nobody would really notice unless Apple's flashy OSs went with it. For all intents and purposes, Darwin is essentially dead.
There is one thing to consider. That is the simple fact that *BSD is dying. *BSD is dead meat, as they are wont to say say in the butcher trade.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral. In truth, for all practical purposes FreeBSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: FreeBSD is dying.
Wow, it started out as such a reasonable reply then fell apart in a hurry.
0 20-2003Oct29.html)
Let's look at this carefully.
Quite the opposite. It's saying that I care about human life, liberty, the rule of law and a bunch of other things America once represented to the world.
How about that whole Bosnia affair? I suppose we should have simply sat on the sidelines and waited for one side to finish whiping out the other? What happens when the other people don't care about our values?
What threat? The 'terrorist links' that the intelligence community said from the beginning never existed, which were never substantiated? Except of course for that one group somehow loosely associated with Al Qaeda, operating in the north of the country where the US and the Kurds, not Baghdad, were in control since the last war?
I suppose we'll simply ignore the money that Sadam was sending to families of suicide bombers in Israel? How about the increasing Ba'athification of Iraq since the '91 defeat? (Adding words from the Khoran to the flag, buiding giant mosques while his people starved...)
Or maybe those 'weapons of mass destruction' that are actually less dangerous than plenty of perfectly ordinary weapons, that the inspectors said weren't there, that the intelligence community worldwide said weren't there, that turned out to have not been there?
WMD are orders of magnitude more dangerous than conventional weapons. They kill indiscriminately and have the ability to render entire areas inhospitable for decades or centuries (if nuclear in nature). Did you bother reading the Kay report? The hidden programs, the vial of botulinum toxin in a scientist's refridgerator? How about the centrifuge pieces buried in a scientists backyard? Maybe the missile development instead? What more do you need to be convinced that Hussein wasn't a poor little misunderstood man?
Or maybe that elusive nuclear program (those my friend, not poison gas, are real 'weapons of mass destruction' and several nations, including the US, Israel, and North Korea have them - places that don't get invaded you'll notice) that turns out to have not existed
The nuclear program in Iraq was about to be deemed completely dismantled back in 1995 (I believe) until a defector managed to point out all of the items that had been hidden from inspectors.
And about those "fevered fantasies of a few people" try this statement on for size:
I supported the resolution because I gained information from the CIA and other former Clinton security officials that Iraq either had weapons or components of weapons of mass destruction.
Two guesses who said that. (Here's the link for when you give up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35
I suggest that you try to educate yourself some more on this topic.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Then we're not going to go anywhere at all I see.
Did you bother tracking back that quote that I presented to you when you attempted to claim that WMD was only in people's "fevered imaginations"? Should we go on to a list of the quotes and times that Clinton invoked WMD's and Iraq in his public speeches?
As far as only nuclear deserving to be classified as a WMD I would have to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. While chemical weapons are devastating, they are at least usually limited to the area that you can disperse them in. The REAL WMD is biological. Just look at how much havoc SARS caused and it was a natural occurance. Imagine a weaponized version of something like SARS with a longer incubation period and a higher mortality rate. (Incubation periods are the real danger as you have people walking around carrying a disease and spreading it but not knowing that they're infected.)
Frankly I don't believe any "comforting lies" I believe in reading as much as I can about things and then forming my own opinions. What I've read on Iraq is enough to chill anyone's soul.
Consider that we intervened in Bosnia for so much less.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
We hardly ever jump in to save victims of tyrants unless we have something to gain from it. Else why put our own lives on the line?
To quote Eddie Izzard, "Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that."
It's sad how few people give a shit about *liberty* anymore.
For the guy who said "activists need to shut up and get a job," you should remember that Thomas Paine was an "activist."
whats the difference, except version number?
gnu-darwin download: opendarwin-6.6.1fv.x86.iso.gz
opendarwin download: opendarwin-6.6.2.x86.iso.gz
"If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
Spider Jerusalem