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.
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
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?
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.
Just my opinion: Maybe if the United States just didn't put him there in the first place we wouldn't have to worry about it. All those people died for an American mistake, not an Iraqi dictator.
Free Image Hosting
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.