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.
But... but Darl said Linux was a terrorist OS!
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
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!
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?
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? ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
and some of the current regime's heavyweights outlined their plans before they even got into office. Then they did it, they followed through with their plans.
That actually doesn't prove anything. The Pentagon has legions of people who draw up all manner of contingency plans. So some day some guys in the Pentagon sit down at a table and say, "What if Iran makes an amphibious assault on Saudi Arabia?" or, "What if Syria attacks Jordan?" or you name it. Then it goes out to battle planners who look at current military capabilities and make a plan. Part of the report goes to the DLA (logistics) who check materiel requirements against what is stocked and if necessary order stuff to stick in the colossal wharehouse complex in, e.g., Columbus.
So when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 somebody walked aver to a file cabinet and pulled out a plan. Right next to 8,347 others that never got used (thank goodness).
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 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?