Slashdot Mirror
LUG Pres Resigns Over Military Linux Use
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is carrying the news that the founder and president of Linux Users Los Angeles (LULA) has resigned because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux."
Blaming the tool again...
This person appears to have the thinking skills of a duck. He stops supporting Linux because the Military in using it,
but he still uses the internet which the military helped fund and currently uses.
Is he serious about his outrage or is he just being selective in his outrage and trying to play his leaving the LUG
into an opportunity to get a better job with one of the LA antiwar groups?
As a final note, having Iraq be free is important to our National Defence because, regardless of what those in DC say,
part of the war in Iraq is securing access to vital resources for the American Economy. In other words oil.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Applaud his right to express his opinions.
Even if they are stupid.
Ain't America great!
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I'm glad they're starting a LUG in Baghdad and I'm glad Hussein is gone. I just don't think it had to cost maybe 20K Iraqi lives and how many Americans' so far.
He's glad Hussein is gone, but thought it cost too many lives? I wonder what "cheaper" plan he would have suggested that still got rid of Saddam. At least he's not one of those people who think Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. What are the mass grave numbers up to now? 300,000 bodies?
boo hoo.... bloody hippy...
In the military, there will be high tech and software involved anyway. Traditionally army investing in certain product will only do good things to consumers, since there is no way army or anyone else can misuse Linux the way its not intended to - to serve people - under GPL!
So, let me get this straight. He is an advocate for Linux and wants people to adopt it but when the military adopts it he become outraged. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction????
Evolution or ID?
Ok - so despite anyone's feelings on the war in Iraq, let's face it - the military has to use SOMETHING in it's systems. Shouldn't our brave men and women at least have something reliable like linux? You'd think the linux community would be proud that linux is so reliable that the military uses it.
Would you rather they use windows?
hamburgers, sauces, pasta, pants, shoes, hats, air, water, fuel, cars, robotics, radar, computers, blah blah blah.
Silly move dude.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Yeah I mean seriously, the war has been going on for over a year. Why protest now and not then? Was he too busy hacking away at the 2.4 kernel to notice the war had started? ;)
Its really just another way of saying, "Well things are going the way I want them to, so I'm gonna quit."
Don't give up, fight for what you believe in until you can't fight anymore because someone else stops you.
I understand that there is a human side of this, I know that there are probably a large number of people that know this guy and are going to say what a nice person he is. I have never met him, and I won't argue that, however I still feel as though his reasons for resigning are all the wrong ones and probably shouldn't make national news.
The whole point behind the licensing used for Linux is that anyone can take and make use of the same tools. Its the same concept that inspired PGP. You have to release something into the open so that everyone can use it. That means that the people that you don't want to use it have the same access to it as the people you do want to use it. The philosophy here is that at least the people that you do want to use it can.
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
Big deal! Sounds like a rather idiotic way to protest. I mean he advocates something and then gets upset because some people he doesn't like starts using it? Screw him I say. I say that because A) I like when anyone start's using linux and B) I'm a Marine.
Derek Greene
John.
I think Stallman and the rest of the Free Software leadership understood the ramifications of free software: that both people you like and people you don't like will be able to use it.
This guy has every right to resign, of course; but hopefully his views ring hollow to the rest of the free software supporters. He is advocating that people with some control use their power to limit the freedoms of others. It's as anti-freedom as the Patriot Act. You can't honestly call your software "free" if you are picking and choosing who can use it. Just as in free speech where no one has the right to silence unpopular opinions only because they are unpopular, no one has the right to decide who can use Linux and who can't. Military, nuns, terrorists, martians: as long as you meet the terms of the GPL (or whatever free license), you can use it.
I work for the Corps of Engineers and we love it. And I was against the war too.....
Looks like someone has a problem with the First Amendment. Free Speech means that it is free for whoever for whatever. They do their thing, you do yours, I'll do mine. We can all be happy.
I suppose that the next story will be someone quit because an abortion doctor uses linux.
Or maybe a Democrat?
How about a child porn website hosted on Linux?
You don't have to like free speech, but you do have to live with it...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
military who use it for facilitating their killing
That is what a military is for, in some sense. Better to blame the politicians in charge for their failures or directives. At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
I find it impossible to blame the military as a whole for their actions. Bush, on the other hand, I can lay all sorts of blame on.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Take your ball, and go play somewhere else you whiny little brat.
Can I get this in a 12' poster? Maybe a T-Shirt?
The article seems to state that his reasons for leaving the LUG weren't so much based on the military's use of Linux but rather (to quote directly) "My one regret is that more and more it has become an insular collection of geeks that can get along just fine without me." Perhaps someone got left out of a discussion or two, or doesn't understand why he's not being called on to make ALL of the decisions. Sounds more like pouting than any real political or moral beliefs.
I see the usual political naivety from the Slashdot posts and mods on this issue. RTFA.
"I don't think that Linux should be used for killing and I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL."
That's all it takes. One person has decided that he does not like the idea of supporting the Pentagon while it engages in what he considers an unjust and immoral war. He hopes that his stance will cause people to think about that instead of blindly accepting their "war masters" reasons and justifications.
He is to be applauded.
Leave your insults at the recruiters office.
cheers
front
Blame the fuckwit politicos who got control of the country (and the voters^w justices who handed it to them). AFAICT, the top military brass doesn't like what's been going on any more than some of us 'liberals' do.
I couldn't agree with you more and am amazed that your post is currently marked "troll".
Members of the US military do not get to pick and choose their assignments.
The don't get a letter in the mail that says:
"Gee guys, we're going to war. Anyone who wants to help can, but feel free not to show up if you don't like it."
(Or at least everyone but Bush doesn't. For some reason no one cares that he deserted. You or I would go to jail.)
My point is: Don't blame some poor marine for the war they're fighting.
Unfortunately many people don't get it. Back when I was going to college in Ithaca, NY there were a number of protests in front of local military offices. One of the officers wrote a letter to the editor expressing pretty much this sentiment:
We (the military) did not choose to fight this war, your elected representatives did. You should be protesting in front of their offices, not mine. Why work at demoralizing people who've signed on to protect your life with theirs and have no choice, when you could protest those who actually made the decision?
Life is too short to proofread.
First, I'll get the nitpicking out of the way. There is no war in Iraq unless congress formally declares war, which hasn't happened. I believe the correct term for this is "conflict".
Next, even if it had been a war, it's now over. Certainly there is a bunch of shit happening over there, but it's not exactly warfare. So, what exactly is this guy opposed to? This isn't the 1890s, guys. Our soldiers aren't over there raping the women and stealing everything they can find as war trophies. They're trying to keep some semblance of peace, and make sure that when we leave, the same fuckheads who ran that country into the ground (Saddam and his cronies) don't take over immediately. Would you rather these soldiers pack up and leave tomorrow?
Are you expecting some bright and shiny, miraculous UN coalition force to take over maybe? Did you forget that whenever such UN forces have any teeth, it's because US soldiers make up a majority of that force?
I was, and still am opposed to the idea of pre-emptively invading Iraq. Bush is worse than an idiot. But now that we're there, I can't fathom the idea of just leaving. We'd only be adding to the harm of the Iraqis, and then only some reactionary fools could feel good about themselves.
Finally, how the fuck does this have anything to do with linux? Why does this cretin think that his "resigning in protest" will have any effect, even that of some noble sacrifice? I hear stuff like this, and laugh at the boob that did it, and forget about it 10 minutes later. Never fails to amaze me how childish some people are.
Someone with a reputation needs to write a text explaining to the the rest of the people in the Big Room with Blue Ceiling that there are two cultures around Linux(the FS/OSS community's most noted work), one that's politically centered and sees "free software" as one of the basis of a "free society", and one that's business-oriented and thinks that open source software guarantees better market efficiency, and generally works better is has better "scalability", "customizability".
Most hackers won't fit in clearly in one or the other group, but the tension is there.
Someone neutral, but with a reputation (perhaps mr. Perens, perhaps JWZ) needs to explain where RMS stands from and what he stands for, where ESR stands from and what he stands from and so on.
Because whenever RMS pulls his bohemian/hippie/rebel act on BusinessWeek or some people with radical politics try to get Linux associated with their (perfectly fine) stances, they hurt people who are investing money and careers in Business Linux.
We can't, and we shouldn't alienate the public image of Linux from the Free Software/Free Society crowd, but we can sabotage the Business Linux public image with a few well-planned stunts. Should we? I don't think so. When you choose to be against business or military or televangelist use of Linux, you are pretty much contradicting the Free Society stance, as well as the spirit of the GPL.
And, shit, nor IBM, nor some long-haired anti-war activist should be allowed to hijack the spirit behind Linux.
First, leaving an "open" society based on the concept of freedom (Open source) just because you don't approve of a group taking advantage of that freedom is grossy hypocritical.
Second, while I can respect the viewpoints of people who oppose the war, I have utter contempt for people who oppose "the military".
Let me put it this way: No matter where our troops are sent into, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the actions they are in, I would want the members of our armed forces to have every possible advantage we can afford them to get their job done and done with as few casualities as possible. They aren't a legion of faceless oppressors, they are our brothers, sisters, our compatriots and fellow citizens, and are fully deserving of all the support our country can muster.
Nothing gets me angrier than when an addlepated fuckwit like this utter disgrace to humanity decides that "our military" is evil and must be opposed. You can oppose the president, you can oppose the policies of the government, and you can protest both, but don't antagonize a group of people I hold in the highest regard.
e to the i pi equals negative one
This is one of the most ridiculous self-martyrdom acts I've ever heard. Good riddance to her resignation. Linux is a "natural resource". It's lying around waiting for people to develop it and make it useful for a purpose. It's like getting angry at steel foundries because the military vehicles in Iraq are made of steel, or Kellogs because the military buys Shredded Wheat to send over to Iraq to feed American troops.
Linux, and the GPL primarily, are not for this woman, and those who hold her "you can use this software in any way you want except the ways I don't want you do" view. May I suggest hacking up FreeBSD and releasing it under a license that specifically prohibits government use. Or possibly Microsoft Windows, seeing as the management at Microsoft holds quite simmilar views about controlling what you, I, or anyone else can do with their software.
1. From the article it did not sound like he resigned just because of the military use of Linux with reference to the Iraq war. It sounded like he had lost his interest and the "military" use of Linux was just the last straw in a decision that was going to occur anyway. I am unclear on how much military use of Linux there is.
2. You should not blame the military or get mad at them for using Linux. You should be happy. The military are just doing their job. If they can kill more effectively and cheaply using Linux then that saves the USA tax payers money. In the USA, the military are controlled by Civilians, namely the President - the Commander in Chief. So you should blame the politicians and the voters for vote for them.
I was opposed to this war, and I too agree that such actions would be silly.
However, after RTFA, I think we're taking one peripheral comment from the article and making it his central argument.
So let's be fair. He may be some egotistical maniac that doesn't like the fact that his leadership is no longer needed, or just a guy that is having second thoughts about Linux in general, and the Army's use of Linux is just one element of that.
Of course, we'd rather not admit we're a bunch of insular geeks, and would rather pounce on his silly pacifist beliefs which we use as a strawman argument. Come on people, we may disagree with what he says, but at least let's represent his argument fairly.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Under the GPL everyone deserves freedom, even those that do things that many do not like. That's freedom people. While not perfect the alternative is much worse.
I'm thankful for the line "Free as in speech."
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Ah, I see you are attacking the problem with utilitarian ethics. Consider this: The time and resources spent saving those '1000 children' in Iraq might have saved 10,000 children in north or central Africa. There are men far more evil than Saddam Hussein running around in the world today, and we collectively care little about them.
I'm sorry, but your emotional appeal is nothing more than a very weak justification. If the US actually cared about 'freedom and independance' it would not limit itself to helping strategically important countries while abandoning the useless places to misery and death.
===---===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I want my operating system to be milspec. I happen to like simplicity and predictability.
Oh, and there are tons more deployed Windows-based systems in the field then there are Linux (think about that for a second, which would YOU prefer?)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
There is no war in Iraq unless congress formally declares war, which hasn't happened.
Wrong. War, by definition, is a state of armed conflict. Therefore whenever and wherever a state of armed conflict exists, there is war. There is war in Iraq. There is war in Afghanistan. There is war in Madrid, in Gaza, in Damascus, in London.
Next, even if it had been a war, it's now over.
Also wrong, for obvious reasons. As of 9:40 EDT, the body-count in today's murder-bombings in Basrah is up to 68.
The absolute worst thing that can happen right now is for the world to slip into a state of complacency about this. This level of violent conflict is not acceptable. It's not tolerable. It's war, all-out war between those who want peace, liberty, and prosperity and those who want medieval theocracy.
The sooner we get ourselves onto a proper war footing, the sooner we'll be able to bring this conflict to an end and go back to living in a time when detonating a bomb in front of a police station is a tragedy of epic proportions, not just another fucking day at the office.
I write in my journal
Because that leads to babies, which statistically, leads to volunteers in our armed forces.
What the hell kind of logic is that?
He should boycott EVERY operating system since you will find an instance of each of them on some military systems nowadays, from Solaris to Windows to Linux to FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Wait until he hears about China using Linux to maintain the database of dissidents to jail and torture. Rawanda's and Kosovo's use of Linux to tally up genocidal killings? And how about Israel's LinuxInside (TM) helicopter-fired missiles used for assassinating Palestinian political leaders?
I'll bet his brain has exploded by now.
I see it like this. You make a tool so people can use it. You make linux (or help develop it) so people can use it. You might also make a screwdriver so people can use it. If people use it, you're happy. It doesn't mean that you must be happy about every possible use of the tool.
If you make a screwdriver, and someone uses it to take people's eyeballs out, should you be happy? Should you say "I'm glad that people are using my screwdriver, it's great that it is finding such different uses like taking stabbing people's eyeballs out"?
If someone uses something you're contributed to (Linux) for war and destruction do you HAVE to rejoice and express happiness because "we are making market penetration, linux is being taken seriously, yeah death to proprietary software w00t"?
Not talking about this particular guy here, but some posters can't fathom the idea that you might be offended by some uses of your creation.
I mean seriously, when did linux users become such an exclusive group, I remember when my mates who used linux talked me around into trying it out rather than keeping it to themselves like little kids with candy. And lets be honest here, who really wants 'Smart Bombs' having blue screens of death and acidentily targeting kindergartens, I'm scared enough about 'Smart Phones' using windows let alone things which such potential for little-kid-disintergration...
"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
Unlike the ober-cool slacker types who dominate these threads, who view any kind of 'political stance' as being uncool and passe- I find great resonance with the feelings expressed by this former LUG president.
I don't really understand why he chose to to connect his anti-war sentiment to his status as president of a LUG in LA. After all resigning as a president of a LUG has no real impact on anything beyond the LUG itself. Although protest is not something which can and should be measured solely in terms of effectiveness. (If that were the case the RAF or Kazinsky would be THE appropriate forms of protest)
Most of the people who post on slashdot earn their living in the high-tech industry, or wish, or plan to do so. With the tumltuous events of the market over the past years many have been forced to become ultra-pragmatists-ie. too closely interweaving of ones ideals and ones willingness to work for the bread which one later eats is a self-punishing endeavor. Unless you like looking like a POW.
The FOSS movement was borne as a reaction against the propietary culture which established itself over the past 25 years. Many talented people really saw something wrong with the provisions of their contracts-ie. once you signed the dotted lign,that company 0w3nd your soul-all of your thoughts, ideas, creations and talent.
Those who constantly were forced to adapt to the ever changing market conditions went through a fairly understandable process of self-disassociation. And of course this is where the obercool- 'I wouldn't have a "political" stance even if you paid me' comes from. Those who persisted in interweaving their ideals and willingness to bring home the bread too closely suffered the consequences thereof in a highly personal way.
The market has changed a lot over the past years. Now many, many talented people find ways of inversting their private time in FOSS software development and an increasingly large number of people are actually getting paid to do so and *god forbid* actually enjoy what they are doing, not being mere programmer 'prostitutes', willing to turn a line of code for a dime(dollar adjusted for inflation).
Yet I specifically chose not to enter the high-tech industry in the mid-eighties because of the fact that %80 percent of the funding for the engineering department at the university I attended came from the pentagon. I was really, really pissed off that my tax payer money was being used by the contras to rape nuns and burn down villages in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatamala etc.
I knew then, that If I was successful in my pursuit of microprocessor design, as a carreer, that I, as a lowly engineer working at Motorola, would have nothing to say with how stuff I developed was going to be used-ie. if I design a microprocessor for small education computers and the execs in the company simply decide to modify my design and sell it to the pentagon as the ultra-microprocess for the newest ICBM's.
To this very day I have no regrets for the decision I made, fully aware of the fact that I would be earning more than 10 times what I am earning now.
But I hve no qualms in the free-usage aspect of FOSS development. Ultimately FOSS will break the back of the monopoly-based IP economy and usher our mega-corporations built thereon to the days of the dinosaurs. And this will profoundly impact the military-industrial complex, which has already been eclipsed by the more recent healthcare-industrial complex and the brand-spanking-new "security"-industrial complex.
But this development isn't going to happen in 3, 5 or 10 years-although it is already happening. I expect it will take at least two full generations before we really start seeing the *societal* effects of FOSS. In the meantime the military will make use of FOSS technology to further their own ends-remember the military and it's mandate by the State marks the real hallmark of propietary markets.
It was the mandate of the State which created modern "democratic" military structures which were de
The GPL only binds your ethical responsibility to teh CODE, it has nothing to do with what do while running that code. If you modify the code you are only ethically bound to tell people what you did.
All other ethical considerations are outside the scope of the GPL and are supposed to be that way.
How about moving? He wouldn't be supporting the US military at all were he living in, say, Switzerland. Hell, I'll even make it easier for him and pick an English-speaking country: Canada?
As much as I admire people making choices based on convinctions and conscience, and as much as I wish more people did, this guy can't really have thought things through or he'd realize:
He started and was the president of a USER GROUP, for crying out loud. How on earth is that being forced to violate his own sense of what's right?
I mean, did he contribute to some application that was used to detonate a bomb, launch a missile, whatever? No. Again, he was the president of a user group.
He did this to make a personal political statement, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, I admire this guy. He is a leader of a small local Linux User Group, and he is getting his "fifteen minutes" by just resigning. He gets lots of puplicity for his view on the war in Iraq. Most likely he is just tired of leading this group, and would quit anyway.
What's not so smart, is his reasoning. From a filosophical point of view, you might argue that sometime you are morally responsible for what your "neutral" technology is used for. Like Einstein having moral problems with his theories being used for building nuclear bombs, regretting that he ever published them. And most pacifists would also have problems being a chief for the army, even if they do no killing themselves...and so on. You might agree on these stands or not, but the reasoning behind it is logical.
It is however absurd that promoting/programming Linux is a moral problem if the Army is using Linux. Should you stop working in the oil industry because the army uses fuel? Should you stop producing corn because this is a vital part of the army's food?
There have to be a much clearer link, and it has to matter.
But he got publicity for his view, right?
Obviously the guy is a very intelligent Linux coder. But socially he is unable to realize that the wider world doesn't even know his LUG EXISTS. His quitting will have no effect whatsoever on the Military's use of linux. The GPL states that anyone can use the software. ANYONE. If you aren't modifying it you don't have to worry about whether you can use it or not. Even RMS has recognized and acknowledged this.
Wow it just goes to show you how head in the sand some people can be.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
... unless you happen to invent something that others used for nefarious purpose.
After the destruction of Hiroshima, Einstein said "If I had known that my discovery (E=mc^2) will have such results, I would rather have sit happily in my room playing my violin".
Most of you making fun of him are under 20 kids and have never seen what "death and destruction" of war means... you don't know what killing 20000 people means and what a father feels like carrying his blood covered child to hospital after a bomber dropped a 5000 pound cluster bomb.
Saddam was a bad guy... but I'd say US didn't really stand upto our expectations. With all the super duper futuristic inventions, I think dropping over 350 tonns of cluster bombs was too much for "trying" to kill a bad guy... a single bullet would have done that job.
The AIM was to kill Saddam... after 350 tonnes (to you, that is more than 700,000 pounds) of cluster bombs, he still managed to be alive... those bombs killed MOSTLY civilians.
To understand it better, think like a terrorist has taken hostage YOUR family and the cops blow the building killing many of your family members AND manage to capture the terrorist who is mostly unhurt!!
(PS: Even if you can't get the point - the point of blowing up the building was supposed to be killing the terrorist... in the end if you blew up the innocent AND captured the bad guy alive, your purpose of blow up has gone TERRIBLY WRONG).
PS2: You guys are joking cuz it was not YOUR family members who were blown with 5000 pound bombs and DU shells over there in Iraq.
- mritunjai
...in the US political sense a war is formally declared against a country
The War of 1812; the Mexican-American War, 1846; the Spanish-American War, 1898; the First World War, 1917; the Second World War, 1941.
Those are the five formal declarations of war that have passed the Congress of the United States. There are some interesting omissions from that list, don't you think? The Civil War, for example, is not on that list. At no time was a declaration of war issued from the Congress regarding the little unpleasantness between 1861 and 1865. That nastiness on the Korean peninsula that started in 1950? Also conspicuously absent.
Between the non-wars of, for example, 1861-1865 and 1950-present and the formally declared wars cited above we have events that can best be described as "Congressionally authorized uses of military force." These include all instances in which the Congress of the United States has authorized the waging of war without a formal declaration of war. There are 11 such instances in our history: the undeclared war with France, 1798; the first Barbary War, 1801; the second Barbary War, 1815; the African slave war, 1820; the war with Paraguay, 1859; the first Lebanese civil war, 1958; the war in Vietnam, 1964; the second Lebanese civil war, 1982; the liberation of Kuwait, 1991; the Afghanistan war, 2001; and the liberation of Iraq, 2003.
Please define the differences, practical, ethical, or moral, between, for example, the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.
However, that doesn't stop all our politicians and the talking heads on the news from saying we are at war with several different things, such as drugs (inanimate objects), terrorism (acts of killing), or the one that grates on my nerve the most: "The War on Terror(tm)" Terror is a feeling, a state of mind...are they actually suggesting that they are going to fight a war against people being deathly afraid?
Your failure to understand the intricacies of the English language is not the problem here. If you lack the capacity to grasp the meanings of simple phrases, then obviously the problem lies with you yourself.
In other words, jackass, if you don't understand what the verbal shorthand "war on terror" means, then you need to stop complaining and crack a fucking newspaper once in a while. Join us here in the 21st century before opening your goddamn pie-hole.
I write in my journal
If he did not read the GPL or he did and did not understand, we should be grateful he is abandoning the FLOSS movement altogether.
We need people that can undesratnd the implications of supporting freedom for you computer code and infrastructure. If this guy was not intellectually prepared to understand the consequences (which are pretty obvious btw) I see very little to applaud in such childish behaviour.
I hate the US intervention in Iraq but I would never dream to compromise my ideals of freedom. What applies to everybody also should apply to institutions commiting grave mistakes like the US goverment and Army, even during their worst moments like the ccurrent conflict.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How high is that horse you're up on?
I "discovered" Linux as a free Unix OS, and that was good. Then I read some of RMS's writings and decided that he made a lot of sense, and I began to love Linux for the freedom it gave me. As I grew more proficient and began writing my own GPLed (and BSDed) tools and distributing them, I was happy to share with the community. At no point, ever, have I though "wow, I'm really improving humanity!"
Your motives are your own. Judge yourself by them if you will, but remember that a lot of us are here for entirely different reasons.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Claiborne never "blames the tool". He simply is stepping down from his position because something he feels passionate about is being used for something he does not support. Arguments such as "he might as well stop using hammers too" etc are reactionary and ill-founded. Claiborne does not spend his time at "hammer" meetings, furthering the development of hammers, promoting it's use etc. Even if he did, he would still not blame the hammer, he would step down from his position if all of the sudden the US army decided that their best method of attack would be to go and hammer Iraqi people to death.
Claiborne also mentions that he hopes that his move will "provoke discussion among the geeks", which it obviously is doing. The point is this - he's a large part of something that now has military application, and, being a non-supporter of the USA's current military actions and foreign presence, he's resigned his position. This is an entirely valid argument, and all those who are bashing him may want to look at themselves, and see if they have anything that they feel passionate about to remove themselves from if it begins to be used for something that's in the opposite direction of their values and goals, from their humanity.
A Right to be an idiot....
I'm going quit an cry because I don't like who's using my FREE software.
Hey... go work for Microsoft now why don't you... Instead of supplying the Military for the best software possible, lets give them something buggy, secretive, and who knows what else.
Let me step down and NO LONGER promote linux and other unix variations, because I let POLITICS get in the way!!!
Man, get OVER it!!!
Agree with whats going on or not... it doesn't matter. But by NOT promoting linux and playing with your undersized dink isn't going to do the community any good at all....
Hope you enjoyed your 2 seconds of fame... I didn't know your name before, but I do now... and I'll be sure never to hire you to help my corporation out! Maybe you'll leave because I hurt your feelings by making you try and meet a deadline!!!
grrrrrrrr.....
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Gotta love a guy who resigns from an open software org because he's anti-war and doesn't want the military using his toys.
"Linux is free to everyone, except the people we don't like this week." Nice principled stand there dickweed.
Open software means the US military gets to use it, Saddam Hussein's Master Torturer gets to use it, the Chicom Ministry of Nuclear Fucking Missiles gets to use it (Red Flag Linux, baby!), Arab slave traders get to use it, and your Aunt Maisy gets to use it. Open is OPEN, free for all.
Which to my mind brings the whole concept of Open Software into question. Maybe there are some people we don't want to have access to high powered computing resources, eh? Kim Jong Ill springs rather forcefully to mind.
On a more personal note, and as a non-US citizen I might add, I'd just like to emphasize my personal disdain for a man so STUPID that he wouldn't resign over the North Korean Army using Linux (you can bet your ass they do!) but he will over the US Army using it. That's got to be the pinacle of jackass behaviour.
Mr. Claiborne sir, you are a true blue Useful Idiot. Your disrespect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect your worthless ass is contemptible.
It gives undue influence to large population centers. The people who set up our system were indeed very wise.
This is why the Senate has 2 members per state. It is balanced against the House which is "proportionally" setup. It keeps big population centers from running over little ones.
The worst change the Constitution was making Senators elected by popular vote. It has essentially ruined the Senate.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This guy has the mind of a peanut. Typical Liberal.
Here are the headlines:
"Free Software Advocate Opposes Freeing Humans"
"Bill Gates worse then Kim Jong Il states OSS Supporter"
"Tyrranical Monopoly worse than Tyrranical Dictator to LA Linux User"
"Anti-Gates but Pro-Saddam"
"Free Software Advocate Supports Brutal Dictator"
"OSS Activist Opposes Military using Freedom to Create Freedom"
"Tree shredders are OK for people but Proprietary Code is not"
"Vendor Lock-In worse than Children's Prison says LA Activist"
"Real Torture is Forced Upgrades, not Real Torture, says OSS Activist"
"Starving, Tortured Deserve Free Software, not Food, Freedom says LA Activist"
Should I continue or do you get the point?
I thought that the whole point of "free software" was "free to all".
Of course, "all" will sometimes include users who are slimebuckets, for example child pornographers and organized crime.
This reminds me of the 1st amendment of the US constitution: "free speech for all" means "free speech for slimebuckets" too.
How could he get to be president of a LUG and not understand this stuff?
Negative. I give a big shit about freedom, including in the rest of the world. But we can't be effective if people see us as a paper tiger (i.e. look how influential NK is in Asian politics.... not much at all). Since for the last 12 years, Iraq has been taking shots at our troops and defying the UN at every step of the way, they have shown to the rest of the middle east that America is just like a tired cat, fuck with it it will take a small swipe and go back to sleep. As a result, violence in the middle east has increased over the last 12 years. And any time we've tried to do something we've always backed out again (see Somalia)
It's like speed limits, no one really obeys them because the cops don't enforce anything less than 10 over. But if they started cracking down on 5 over, no one is going to do 10 over. Same basic idea.
I don't care if we remain the dominant power in the world or not, but certainly I'm not going to support anything that will directly hurt our status. However, as it stands, we are the dominent power, and we are the world police whether we like it or not. If we don't start acting like it, no one will take us seriously when we're needed (Liberia)
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Utter and complete horseshit. Under the E.C. my viote gets thrown in the garbage because I don't vote with my state's 80% Republican bloc. So, my state tosses it's 3 E.C. votes in with the Republicans and my vote goes away.
Under a popular vote system my vote would be aggregated with all of the other people who vote like I do across the entire country. Under this system my vote might have made a difference. Under the current system it makes none.
And before you toss out that tired old saw about the E.C. balancing differences in power between states of different population levels remember that this a national election, not a state election. States are meaningless in this context. Only the vote of the individual citizen matters.
As for the argument that the E.C. keeps the cities from overrunning the rual areas, that's a load of festering hyena offal as well. NY City still runs roughshod over rual NY state. Why? Because NYC has all of the population and how NYC votes, the rest of the state follows due to the E.C. inhales all of thier votes. Under a popular vote all of the rual NY votes would be aggregated with the rual New Hampshire votes, rual Maine votes, rual Vermont votes, etc... and if voters in rual areas have similar opnions, their votes add up.
The E.C. was created by the landed gentry to keep the unwashed and uneducated masses away from the presidential elections. And that's exactly what it's used for now.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
WTF?
This guy must be in the press corp or something to get the facts this wrong.
I am not a resource! I am a free man!
I really don't get this "will of the people" thing.
The people are an ass. Half of the US population doesn't even believe in evolution. Racist, genocidal leaders have been voted into office throughout the world (Milosevicz is just one off the top of my mind, Mussolini was another.) With our collapsing public education system, I see democracy being even less viable as a form of government for anything more than local concerns.
A semi-educated population can't support a democracy. There are 2 democracies in the Middle East: one is an ethnic-religious state and the other a theocracy.
You had a reasonably coherent argument going until you got to this sentence.
If you honestly believe that the US has imperialist intentions I suggest you try removing the tin foil hat as it is interfering with your brain. If the US had imperialist intentions then please explain its actions after World War II in regards to Japan and Germany. If the US has imperialist intentions then please explain why Bush is so intent on a handover of control on June 30, apparently whether or not the Iraqis are ready. Please explain why Puerto Rico continues to have self-determination votes and places like the Marshall Islands are free to become independent countries instead of remaining US possessions.
The fact is that the US has the largest economy in the world, a very high standard of living, freedom and self-determination, and sees a path to world stability by encouraging poorer countries to try what has worked for us. Wouldn't you agree that when violence is abandoned in favor of democracy that stability ensues?
Further, GPS is rightly jammed for anti-American forces, why should we provide an enemy with accurate guidance capabilities during a time of war? As for civilian use, the navigation system in my Jeep works great with it. It is free for anyone in the world to use, subject only to the caveat that the signal might be degreaded during conflicts.
It seems in your world America is the root of all that is bad and wrong. I'd love to know where you live and how you came to this conclusion.
JWW sums up the central problem perfectly - there was no way to come up with a "correct" solution - by the time the courts were involved, the damage was done. Whoever won the court battle was going to have their legitimacy questioned.
The kind of election problems that happened in Florida happen all the time - elections, especially ones with national significance, just haven't been close enough for it to matter.
On the subject of the popular vs. electoral vote, the Electoral College is doing exactly what it's designed to do - prevent the largest and most populous states from dominating the rest of the country. When they were writing the constitution, it was Pennsylvania and New York vs. Rhode Island, today it would be California, New York, Texas, and Florida vs everybody else.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
The Republicans did lose a very close election before, in 1960, and you didn't see Republicans whining about the result like the Democrats still are about 2000.
If Gore had lost the election fairly, that would be fine. But the felonious actions on part of the Secretary of State of Florida at the time, the person in charge of the election, who was also the head of the Bush campaign for Florida, Katherine Harris, pretty much guarantee me the right to bitch for all eternity.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
Let's see -- the military also uses computers, pencils, networks, paper, pens. Is he going to quit using those too?
Since when has the US had values? And since when has nuclear weapons just been a "deterrant" (misspelled)?
That's true. Remeber all those nuclear wars that we had back in the '80s? There was that Nena song about them, which kicked ass.
Signed, not-so-proud US citizen.
Yeah well, we're not so excited about you either.
Carthago delenda est!