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.
It seems like he was going to leave anyway, and decided to throw on a war protest while he was writing his resignation.
But... but Darl said Linux was a terrorist OS!
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
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!
Due to the military's blatant use of water and air, i have decided to, as a stand against oppresion and Bush's agenda of oil, stop using both. this will, in all likelyhood, be my last slashdot comment. ::holds breath:: ::falls over:: asjdhflaksjdhfoiausydf9-8qwefijsndflakjndclkajd
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
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?
I've resigned from my subscription to Penthouse when I got married. And there was no press release on Slashdot.
Honestly, who cares? The guy has strong feelings about the war in Iraq. And just because he runs a LUG his opinion is God's word?
The blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis is now on the hands of anyone who has ever booted a linux kernel. This includes owners of certain Linksys products, ReplayTV, and any other consumer devices that rely on embedded linux, as well as anyone who has ever watched one of the more recent Pixar films that was rendered on clusters of linux computers.
It's time to repent for the atrocity that we have all committed.
Amazing magic tricks
Seems to me the guy's complaining about a primary aspect of the GPL -- that there are no restriction as to who can use the software.
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
A premise for freedom, software freedom inlucuded, is that it is for everybody. You can't have "freedom, except for those I don't like". That kind of discrimination is actually incompatible with the GPL.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
So would he rather have them all running Windows? I'm confused.
This person is mixing up a specific political view with the use of free software. The good thing about free software is that there can be no restrictions on who may use it. I do not neccessarily agree with the war on Iraq, but limiting software licences to those who agree with my standpoint would be a bad way to express my opinion. There are many other ways to do that. Plus, if this would become common practice, we'd have to prepare ourselves for a hard time. Checking for all software you use whether the author included some kind of usage constraint would be very tedious. Imagine the situation where for example the Apache Group would say: "we're pro the war on Iraq, so who's against can not use our webserver to promote that standpoint". Very undesireable of course. Please don't mix up politics and free software.
And carry on bombing the Allies?
.. brought to you by Microsoft :)
Friendly fire
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.
he should stop paying taxes as well. Taxes fund the military.
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
Politics & the war in Iraq aside, he raises an interesting question. As I understand the GPL, a company can do whatever they want to do with Linux. The only restriction is that IF they redistribute their changes outside the company, they must distribute the source code.
Am I correct in assuming that if the military takes Linux & changes it, they don't need to publish anything if they keep it internal?
John.
Though he claims some dramatic reason for his departure,
...I will still participate in the LUG, just let new leadership come to the fore.
...you have to say that a body of work worth billions of dollars has been created and placed in the public trust. The LUGs can and should be the trustees or guardians that trust.
"Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains."
it sounds like he just wanted out of the job:
After all, he believes,
So on one hand he is disappointed in how Linux is being used, that he has a vision for the right way Linux should be used, and that LUGs should be the ones to ensure the right way is followed, and on the other hand he's stepping down as head of a LUG. In other words, "I believe it's groups like mine that should lead the way, therefore I'm quitting as leader of the group."
after that he will be looking for a job for a long long time.
Who the heck would want to hire him. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
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 am sorry, he may be the nicest guy in the world, and could even be Linus' long lost twin brother, but what an idiot.
What does GPL software have to do with the war in Iraq? What does the military's use of Linux have to do with anything related to Iraq?
Nothing.
Sorry, but if you really want to protest something, and involve Linux, then protest China. Sorry, but China has one of the worst human rights records of modern history, and is also, on a national level, one of the largest proponenets of Linux development and use in the world.
But no, Heaven forbid someone he doesnt like uses Linux. Those damned military guys! they should all use SCO UnixWare instead! (evil grin)
Get a grip... there are far more important things to protest/worry about, and do you really think that ANYONE outside a very small group (compared to the rest of the populace of the US) will care that the president of LULA resigned because the Military likes Linux?
Sorry, but while I do have great respect for people with convictions, I liave little respect for people who do the wrong things for attention.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
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.
In the old Amiga days you could very often find "Military use prohibited" clauses in the licenses the public domain software came with.
e.g. one of the popular terminal-emulaters had this, it was called just "term" iirc.
Personally I like this - I wouldn't like it if my software was used for non pacifist usages.
Yet another example of micropolitics in action. That is taking every conceivable act one does, breathing, eating, talking about the weather, being a Linux User Group member, walking or not walking on the cracks on the sidewalk and adjusting one's behaviour based on some pedantic notion that one's choices in these minor manners is having some kind of political impact.
It's kind of an obsessive compulsive form of political activism and the net effect is to annoy the crap out of everyone and make one's political beliefs look silly.
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.
for the latest killer app on linux???
and nobody cared? Seriously, why would anyone outside of Slashdot give a rats ass that some LUG President resigned over...well, anything?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
...almost everyone is going on about how this is a stupid move. Maybe I'm one of the first to be able to say I support his decision. Not because it'll make any changes to the problems he sees, but because he's willing to remove himself from a position which forced him to violate his own sense of what's right. Too many people, when put it a position of power, become all of the sudden willing to go against everything they believe in so they can keep their jobs.
Furthermore, it seems to be that his primary reson for quiting is not the war-related aspect, but rather how the focus of many linux-users has shifted away from trying to improve humanity via things such as more secure and affordable computing, and shifted to a more "Hey, let's find a way to make us geeks look cool to the public." And as a whole, I tend to agree with this, or at least see where he's coming from.
Also, on the war side of the issue, what's wrong with saying 'I don't want a tool that I've spent years of my life helping develop to be used to kill people in a war I don't even support.' He's not trying to sue the government or anything like that, or even calling for other people to protest with him, he's simply removing himself from a position which forces him to go against his own principles.
Ah well, there's my two yen worth.
You're all saying what a dork etc he is for getting so het up about this, or for quitting his job, but everyone seems to be overlooking the dorkiest fact of all: HE WAS PRESIDENT OF A LINUX USER GROUP.
He probably just got a girlfriend and has to drive her somewhere on Thursday nights.
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.
The guy sounds a little confused. He thinks the creation of the Internet, GPS satellites, and SELinux by the DoD is a good thing. But then he's ashamed of going to LUG meetings because of what's going on in Iraq. He's just using his status of being a president of a LUG to get some attention to voice his opinions. It's too bad he points to Linux and tries to use it as his excuse.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
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.
Linux is rarely used. Microsoft Windows and Sun Solaris are the norm. Regardless, I am using Linux and various open source tools because I don't have to fight thru so much administrative crap in order to get a system purchased and to be quite honest - I use the "right tool" for the Job.
The way I look at it:
1) I am saving tax payer dollars
2) I am accomplishing my mission
3) If my efforts in any way help the soldiers to communicate with their families or perhaps prevent the death of a SM, then whatever technology I use to accomplish that mission is fine by me. My duty to my country is first, regardless of personal opinion or politics. Everything else is secondary...
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 will still participate in the LUG, just let new leadership come to the fore.
Actually, it sounds like he guy is just a drama queen. I mean, really, look at this quote. The group is a bunch of dorks who get together to drink soda and talk about computers on Friday nights instead of getting laid, and he's talking about "new leadership coming to the fore". Oh puh-lease. Imagine the lead fry cook at the local McDonald's quitting saying this.
taker yer pick, google page for Project For a New American Century, the neocon battleplan website. Their plans were published, still there, you can find extracts and anlysis at the other links here from google, or you can go to that website and read all the extensive documentation yourself. they don't hide it, it's just TV doesn't cover it, so that makes it "invisible" I guess.
Honestly, to think that sea of oil under Iraq had nothing to do with it......it's silly. They have been planning this strike for years, well before 9-11. Personally I think if we had used the OPEC embargo fiasco wake up call way back in the 70s and had done a manhattan project level crash national program to significantly reduce our dependence on oil, it would have been a good thing. As to this LUG guy stepping down, seems just as silly to me as being naieve about the oil, or over the WMD that the US and other western nations helped saddam develop and deploy. Saddam had big quantities of them, vast majority were destroyed during the fiirst gulf war, they were blown up inside the bunkers they were stored in then by US troops, and the main reason they don't make a big deal out of it in the controlled press was potential national embarassment over violating of various treaties we have signed, and to help limit the governments exposure to the vet's from that war claims of sickness that were denied, the ones who breathed that stuff.
All despotic regimes follow a similar formula. they use both an external threat and an internal threat for the excuse to completely take over and become..well, more despotic over their people. If the threats don't exist, they MANUFACTURE the threats. It's a formula that works. Problem -reaction -solution.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Other pertinent, although slightly dryer points on the topic:
It's hard to see how the point could have been made by the people at the very foundation of free/open source software.
However, I'm sure the president of the LUG understands all that, and was just conducting a publicity stunt for his cause. I think it was unwise, because it'll do bugger-all for the antiwar cause (a cause which I support - that 200-odd billion dollars could have made the world a lot safer spent in a myriad other ways) and it reinforces the image of Linux enthusiasts as long-haired hippies, which still remains an impediment to wider adoption sometimes.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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"
I worked for the "U.S. Military" for 10 years, and 6 of those years has been in either computers or communications in general.
Where does he come off with the statement "...I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL." Let me tell you something-we bend over backwards to abide by license restrictions. I can't even download a shareware program (when we deal with Windows, not too many in Linux) copy without demonstrating we've paid for it. I understand the idea of "free as in beer", but I also understand "free as in speech". Speaking of free [rant]haven't people heard of the "Freedom of Information Act"? Just in case you haven't, click here. If you want to know what software we're using ask us! Don't just sit in your field of daisies whining and complaining about things of which you know nothing. And, (just so you know I know what the GPL is) you can't have the modifications I've made to the machine in my office. Why? Because I'm not distributing it...if I was, yes, you can have my source code.[/rant]
Before throwing stones at that "big glass house", realize that much of it is glass. You can see in it (well, maybe not the utility room...well, not that closet either..never mind) more then some company that takes GPL code, puts it in their router, then sells it. That would never happen.
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
(Or at least everyone but Bush doesn't. For some reason no one cares that he deserted. You or I would go to jail.)
Could you post a link to the facts that prove this? It was debunked weeks ago... unless you are a mouthpiece of Kerry, who voted for the war and then refused to fund it putting himself under condemnation of his own previous statements.
Common... lets get our facts down. Dispite the pittiful content of Air America there are a few (though not many) liberal talk show hosts who deal with reality. If you are in the NYC area there are some very good ones on late in the evening on 770am.
Bush is far from perfect, but can we at least criticize things he really did?? Can we also criticize things that we can positivly an alternative action to?? No, no, can't do that. We might learn somethin' and I just wanna drink my nice partisan koolaide under the careful dispensation of Mr. Franken or Mr. Savage. Don't want to listen to John Bachelor or Sean Hannity, two rather able broadcasters on opposite sides. Might learn something about my own beliefs.
Sheesh...
Btw, I do largly agree with your post above, but the cheap shot at Bush is totally out of place. If you're aware of politics today, you probably are aware that I [intentionally] did not make the obvious reciprocal argument. Gotta keep "you guys" on yer toes... and I don't think it should be a major issue. That's me, though.
Sam
Now, if someone had quit the military because they use Linux, that would have been a more interesting story.
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
This just in: a prominent potato farmer in Idaho is retiring upon learning that, get this... soldiers eat potatoes!
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.
Most of the opponents of this war, who, I suspect, are otherwise capable of reason, tend to lose their reasoning abilities rapidly and go into a passionate rage, when talking about it.
Just listen to this guy:
I just don't think it had to cost maybe 20K Iraqi lives and how many Americans' so far. Well, how many would you approve of, sir? 20K, would still be very little -- Saddam himself has killed and would've have killed much more. I don't think that Linux should be used for killing Oh, "killing is wrong", is not it? I'm sure, if Saddam's army was marching on Los Angeles, he would've approved of killing as many of them as possible. So, killing (and using Linux for it) is only wrong, when it is done against his beliefs -- well, say so...(My bodyguards carry weapons, but everyone else, who does, should be locked up, says Rosie O'Donnel -- the passionate lighting rod of the pro-gun lobby.)
I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL I wonder, which violation of GPL does he suspect? Not providing source to code modifications? But that is not required, as long as the modifications are not distributed by Pentagon. And they are not -- by the nature of the organization. They are not in the software business at all...Their laboratories, that are in that business and do distribute modifications, distribute the source too -- the already mentioned SELinux, TrustedBSD...
Everybody won on that one, and it's a great use of our tax dollars. In the first Gulf War, even the Iraqis used American GPS to guide their missiles. Talk about your equal-opportunity technologies. Now he is cheering for Iraq? The Iraq of 1991? Talk about loss of reasoning... It is a flaw of the GPS, that it can be used by our enemies (even if they can't get full precision of it). This is not a sport match, where equal oppotunity is desired -- people are dying there, and the higher the advantage of your side, the less of it dies, the better. You know I am in favor of an army and a national defense Oh, see, he is not against killing at all...Nothing wrong with passion per se. It is great in art, in bed (the very special art), etc. But the less of it in politics and computers (what a weird pairing of fields!) the better.
Good riddance, LULA!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In reality- It's a fucking difficult thing to do. Especially when the enemy you're fighting uses human shields. Not to mention every time a civilian dies because they get killed by a mugger or a Iraqi soldier, it's the US military's fault. At the end of the day, any dead people get stuck on the tally of whoever's in charge. (page 53)
Name a couple. Haiti? That went well. Cuba? Afghanistan vs. the Soviets? I dunno who these Taliban people are, but they gotta be better than the Communists. They were also one of the more nerve gassed nations. People were dead.Ok- so we make Iraq go bankrupt, just like we did to the Soviets. You know what step 1 to making a country go bankrupt is? Economic sanctions.(btw- that's what we were trying to do for 10 years. We tried diplomatic means, didn't work, tried economic means, arguably made it worse, can't influence the population cuz the population isn't in control of shit. So we went to Plan D- take over.)
In reality- Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. No, he didn't top Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, (yeah, our bad) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come in and fix the blood that was dripping from his hands.
1. The idea is to increase linux usage, doing something to protest its usage is non-productive at best, and if you are going to protest, might want to start with China.
2. Does anyone really think the United States Army gives a rats ass if this guy is the head of the LA LUG? Will they even notice?
3. There is no three.
4. Would we rather them run something more crash prone? "Here come the bad guys!" "Wait, I have to reboot the tank!"
Linux is, and needs to be, A-Political, because I am pretty sure Windows is. There are better, and more effective ways to protest a war, maybe starting with writing your congressman?
Just my opinion.
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
If this guy keeps quiting everytime he finds out the military uses the same things he does, he will never be employeed again.
Computers they use windows, linux, and IBM stuff. So he can't use computers. They use office supplies, chairs and desks. He can't do any white collar work. They have kitchens so he can't work in food service. They have trash cans and cleaning supplies. He can't be a janitor. Let's see they use shovels. So he can't dig ditches. Lets see what is left? Farmer? Maybe he could become a monk if all else failed.
Just because the "military" uses something doesn't mean that the "something" is good or evil. The "good or evil" is the usage that the something is put to. People can do good or evil. Things just exist.
The head of our local culinary school stepped down when he realized that the military consumes food in Iraq.
Rumor has it this has caused quite a shake-up in the pentagon, and the military is reconsidering their use of food.
OK, so I gotta rant a little on this one (skip this if you're not easily amused):
So, Mr. Claiborne needed to be the absolute leader and when the group didn't agree with his philosophies, he took his ball and went home? Practical applications of Linux even by the government should be considered a victory.
Maybe he'll come down out of the ideological fog and come to realize that a user group for an esoteric operating system that relatively few really understand has little or no effect regarding change to the socio-political structure of the known universe.
Reality check: It's an OS not a radical discovery in quantum physics that releases the power of the atom. Even if Linux is, in fact, some sort of life-altering milestone in the evolution of mankind, save the arrogant Captain Nemo vigilante mystique for something more important than an OS, dude. Remember: computers don't kill people--users do. (well, unless you count that unfortunate incident with HAL and that poor bastard who found the capacitor after opening his Mac Classic).
Hey, I hear that Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are looking for a new fan club president...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Look at all the vigourous debate about linux, about licensing, and about the war has been generated here as a result of hit resignation.
I think he achieved his aim very well indeed.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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..."
You realize that there was a rather simple way to get the access to that "sea of oil under Iraq"?
All we had to do was get the UN to rescind the sanctions. Hell, look at the sweetheart deals that Total-Final-ELF had negotiated back when it was still a French-owned company.
Sorry to go and ruin a perfectly good diatribe with facts...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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
In other news, the CEOs of Britta have resigned because they heard terrorists use their filters to drink water.
Maine and Nebraska in fact do something other than the 'winner take all' that the other 48 states do. They tally up the votes in each congressional district, and the winner in each district gets one delegate. Then the overall totals for the whole state are added up, and the winner there gets two more delegates.
However, Maine only has 2 districts (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska 3 districts (5 evs), so in practice it doesn't really matter much, but I wish more states followed this system. Unfortunately, states that tend one way or another wouldn't want to switch to this system, since it'd hurt the candidate that's more popular in that state (California wouldn't want to take 20 or so of its 55 and hand them to Bush, e.g.), and states that are battlegrounds would be less of a battleground under this system, and thus would get less political attention. Nice idea, nevertheless.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
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.
No, you just can't eat the same foods they eat.
If it means never having to eat the [Dreaded/Breaded] Veal Patty ever again, I'll do it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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?
I resigned the leadership of Rancho Santa Margarita LUG with the news that Linux was being used to power parking meters. Power to the people! Down with repression!
Yes, I am completely mocking his heartfelt position as being nearly equivelent to my pretended protest.
The LALUG is better off.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
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.
join the Open Source Anti Military Association (OSAMA)
"I have a real and growing fear that if the Mr. Smith's of Linux have their way, in the future they will look back and say: "Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains." "
That statement right there ought to put a chill down the spine of any IT worker because it applies to far more than just Linux. If you work on building transatlantic/pacific communications for example then you are lowering the costs for outsourcing and long distance communications. This is the enabler for foreigners to take jobs from Americans. Add to this all the work engineers are doing on the automation of all kinds of jobs and careers and the average IT worker really IS "working hard to forge his own chains".
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Actually, there were many thousands of absentee ballots in California that were not counted because all the elections there were already determined with the votes they had counted. Since absentee ballots generally trend Republican, it has been theorized that there might well have been enough of them there to tip the popular vote in Bush's favor.
And if Bush had won the popular vote but Gore had won the electoral college? Damn straight I would have said that Gore was the president. Just as if my favorite football team rolls up 3x the yardage as their opponent, but loses on the scoreboard, then they've lost the game, and I can bemoan the missed opportunities, but the scoreboard determines the winner.
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. And recent analysis even shows that Nixon probably won the popular vote-- due to the Democratic electors in Alabama being half 'generic Democrat' and half for Kennedy; check out this url for details: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4275
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
...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.
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.
Interesting stuff. While a far cry from desertion, it's an interesting inconsistency. Thanks for the substantive reply. I consider this a serious charge.
Well, AWOL is a very serious charge. If we rather claim the President was knowingly lying about what he did while serving, we have to prove something about the thoughts of GW at the time that he said it. In the end, that particular charge remains a judgement call for the voters. I'm very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (perhaps, obviously).
Regarding Hannity, most folks I've heard, when speaking extemperaneously, draw some erroneous conclusions or claim something totally fictitious. I can't recall the specific incidents but I do rememeber thinking "you made that up" while listening to Hannity, Franken, O'Reilly and others or "you really can't draw that conclusion for sure." If you have something valid I'de be interested. All I ever see in the form of "he lies" is hyperbole, out-of-context quotes, pedantic word critique, over criticism of a joke, or harping on a factual error that the host was conviced of.
Incidentally, this is why most hosts (even Laura Ingraham) don't typically attack and knock down arguments without having a positive counter argument. You can't say, "X didn't happen" unless you also say, "Y did happen to preclude X." Well... you can, but the credibility of the argument wanes.
Sam
There are people other than americans in Iraq you know. Many of them with far more right to be there and far less opportunity to get out.
As for Iraq being a "tough war", as you said yourself, less tahn 1000 americans dead. A lot less I believe. How can it be a tough war when you can wipe out your enemy (along with every woman and child within a 100 meter radius of him) from literally miles away and/or from inside an armour plated vehicle?
If it weren't for the media presence the war would be over and there'd be no more "terrorists" in Iraq. No more "potential terrorists" either mind you.
Iraq (like Afghanistan) is an easy war, complicated only slightly by the need to keep pretending its for the benefit of the victims.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
As a 19 year veteran of the Army Reserve who just got back from Iraq, I would like to point out some things. When it comes to drilling Reservists and National Guardsmen, there are several categories of absences from normal "weekend drills" or Inactive Duty for Training as is the proper name. None of these categories constitute being AWOL. The main categories are excused absences, unexcused absences, and away on active duty which covers tours of active duty or schools. When you receive an excused absence, you are allowed to "make up" the drill, but there is no absolute requirement to do so. If you do not make it up, you will not receive those drills points and may not get a good year for retirement, but if the soldier has no intention of retiring it may not matter to them. And if they are otherwise doing a good job, their individual evaluation or fitness report may not indicate the absence.
Unexcused absences can not be made up, and if Bush had received a "U" as we call them, there would be a copy of certified letters to him telling him that he had received a "U".
Another big part of the reason that AWOL does not apply, is that if a reservist or National Guard soldier does not show up for drill, they do not get paid. While not easy, it should be possible to find out if the President got paid during this time period. While a commander may give an "A" for sombody that isn't showing up, they will not code them a "P" and pay them when they aren't showing up.
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
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
I know this is on the second page and likely won't be read by many, but felt the need to interject with something that has been hinted at but not made very clear.
The issue isn't that Linux or any GPL'd software is merely a tool (or at least it shouldn't be). That isn't what makes his argument so asinine, though it is part of it.
No, the real thing that makes this statement and subsequent "stepping down" asinine and, well, stupid, is that no one decided to go to war because they were running GPL'd software.
Think about it for a second. A lot of people have made posts, both serious and humurous, about tools and not using things the military uses, but what it all boils down to is that whether or not the military was using GPL'd software, they still would have gone into Iraq.
Example: Say you have an epiphany and come up with an AI algorithm for image recognition that is centuries before it's time. You create the base objects or code to let other packages use it for whatever they want, GPL it, and release.
Now the military sees this image recognition software and decides they will use it to replace current portions of their target acquisition software to make more exact hits with missiles, etc.
Is it your personal fault each time one of these missiles hits a target? Think about it. Yes you software was directly responsible for that missile hitting a target BUT your softare is also responsible for it being that much more exact and reducing civilian casualties.
In the end, the military exists to fight. The military (as a conceptual group) was fighting wars before gun powder, before computers, before flight, etc. Some inventions have brought greater bloodhsed, larger wars, more frequent wars, etc.
But in creating a better version of a tool used in minimizing casualties why would you get upset at the military using it?
Obviously the previous example could be used to argue that with greater accuracy more people would be targeted by missiles than current technologies allow, etc. But the software itself does not choose to start a war.
Instead of complaining about the software being used during the war, and then also complaining about the casualties that are a result of the war, perhaps your time would be beter spent developing even more stable, reliable, and EXACT systems for the military. reduce friendly fire, reduce civilian casualties, etc.
Frankly I see this as a cheap way to get publicity and if I were the next leader of the group I was ask for him to leave as he obviouly doesn't have the groups interests in mind (GPL and the fact that he would use them to gain self-publicity) and can't string together a logical argument.
Whee signature.
EXCEPT WE ARENT A DEMOCRACY.
Sadly, I don't have time to refute every little moron who repeats that idiocy. (Short conclusion: "Democracy" and "Republic" are not contradictory terms. The USA is a democracy and a republic. The UK is a non-republic democracy. China is a non-democratic republic. Iran is neither)
But if you're so certain that democracy is a bad thing, why don't you try explaining this to President Bush? He's sending 100s of soldiers to their deaths to bring Iraq the gift of democracy.
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.
The full text of the resignation e-mail can be found here.
sigs are a waste of space
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**
How can a person have that level of familiarity with Linux and the GPL, and still not get it?
Linux is released to ANYONE, ANYWHERE to use for ANY PURPOSE. That is the GPL
From the Preamble - "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its user". Note that is does not say "for SOME of its users..." or "unless you are the United States Military in a mid-East foreign country while G.W.Bush is in Commander in Chief and the month has an 'A' in it..."
From the Terms and conditions for Copying, Distribution, and Modification: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How does this person reconcile their current actions with their past actions and beliefs? You don't (or, in my opinion, shouldn't) get to the position they were in without some idea of the nature and dedication to the OpenSource community. How can they say now that they didn't know that "Free as in Speech" meant everyone, not just those they agreed with?
Has this person taken the position of CFO for The SCO Group? Their stated position seemd to coincide with TSGs quite well. (ObSCO_Ref)
Reminds me of the Voltaire quote "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", except this person seems to be saying "I don't agree with what you say - so shut up." This person seems to be a firm believer in President Bush's stated belief that "there ought to be limits to freedom!" which is a moron oxymoron in my opinion.
Amazing the people that CAN think but DON'T, and the ones that CAN'T think that get elected...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
In the article only a portion of the resignation email was posted, but only one line mentioned his opposition to the war. And the interview centered on the war issue. The lion's share of the email quote dealt with his unhappiness with LULA.
It seems (from the email snippet) that he resigned because of some disillusionment with LULA the Linux community in general, "My one regret is that more and more it has become an insular collection of geeks..."
or
"I feel that Lula no longer reflects the vision I have had for it and has in fact belittled itself as an organization for change and progress."
Granted, the email wasn't completely presented, but one would imagine if there were more to the war issue, that would have been reported instead. But then, "I'm Tired of Being in Charge of a Group of Detatched, Narrow Geeks.", really isn't news, is it.
Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?
... I mean, I'd rather have the $600 toilet seat money going to Linux integrators than M$.
Oh, and there's no clause in the GPL restricting use for only peaceful purposes. Why not stop whining and fork with your own license?
Call it the PPL?
OTOH, the Internet was developed for use of the military _by_ the military, so why not stop using the Internet? Or GPS?
Welcome to the machine!
Let's see -- the military also uses computers, pencils, networks, paper, pens. Is he going to quit using those too?
Right. It's not about control of oil -- that's a red herring. Clearly, Bush wants the Iraqi people to run their own affairs. Oh, so long as it's not the majority of Iraqis that have that say (the Shi'ite majority, the ones that rebelled against Saddam but the U.S. effectively destroyed). No, that wouldn't be democratic. Instead, it should be a few elite that will benefit from playing junior partner to the U.S. and capital interests.
Hmm, that looks just like the democracy we have in the U.S. I guess it is about bringing them democracy -- our kind of democracy. I bet they're so excited.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
In all fairness I think Slashdot and NewsForge could have provided links to my full statement. Instead they choose to redact any mention of the dying in Fallouja that so far looks like it is proceeding as I have predicted and turn the matter into a joke with their from the forget-about-military-oxygen-use dept. subheading. When all the smoke has cleared, I'd rather be in my position than theirs.
Clay Claiborne, Producer Vietnam: American Holocaust Linux Beach (310)581-1536
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!
I didn't say I resigned "Over Military Linux Use" NewsForge said I did, and then didn't provide a link to the whole email so people could read for themselves.
"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"
If they had stopped right there they would have been technically true. As I said in the email anti-war work is a higher priority in my time now.
"and the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux."
If had they said "And he is opposed to the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux in Iraq" That also would had been an accurate statement.
But they mangled everything together to give the impression that I resigned from the executive of Lula because the miltary uses Linux, which is stupid. And then they forgot to include a link to the piece they were summing up.
Clay Claiborne, Producer Vietnam: American Holocaust Linux Beach (310)581-1536