Slashdot Mirror
Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts
Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein writes in Linux Journal that, technically, one-third of the U.S. Government has moved to Linux: its Third Branch, the Judiciary. That's 30,000 users across 800 locations, comprising the nation's Federal court system. Given our information overload, it's easy to miss the most significant kernels of news."
The slashdot writeup makes it sound like 30,000 desktops. Rather, this is just the servers , not their desktop machines. No big deal here, as we already know that Linux is often a preferred back end. Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.
But my main point is that the slashdot writeup gives a false impression.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
No, what they know that the federal gov can;t be hit with IP and licensing breaches. That is of course unless the federal courts give the entity trying to sue the right to do so, and its on a case by case basis.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
If you would read the article then you would know that linux isn't free. The BakBone software used in this case was paid for. They didn't pay as much as a windows implementation probably would have cost, but they chose the cost effective sollution out there.
And that solution was linux.
I hate people who can comment but can't read.
Real programmers don't document.
It was hard to write so it should be hard to understand.
DARPA is the primary sponsor of ReiserFS 4. There's this other little thing called "the Internet" as well...
I'm not so sure about that. The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch has some powers over the other two, but the other branches have powers over it as well.
Let's take the Supreme Court, for example. You're probably referring to the power of judicial review: the ability to declare laws unconstitutional (this was actually never codified in the Constitution; it's an important legal tradition and perhaps ought to be codfied, but it is not). This is, in fact, a very important power. However, it is not unbalanced:
1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.
2) The executive branch appoints justices. It's a little-known fact that even SCOTUS justices can be impeached and removed from office, even though they otherwise hold life terms; this has never been done, but it is possible.
3) The SCOTUS cannot act of its own volition; it must be called upon before it can do anything. The Executive and legislative branches have limited power, but they can use (most of) those powers at will; the SCOTUS is powerless unless actually called on by one of the other branches, or by the people.
This is the whole point of checks and balances: no one branch is self-policing, no one branch has unlimited power, and most of the actions of one branch can be undone (though not easily) by at least one of the other branches. The idea is to fight corruption on two fronts: one, by reducing its ability to form, and two, limiting its ability to do damage even when it does form. It's actually a pretty well-designed system, at least on that score.
Will the slashdot readers be hypocrites or will they denounce FUD when it comes from Linux Journal?
In what way is this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt? Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
technically, one-third of the US Government ...
One-third, in the sense of three branches of American government:
* Executive
* Legislative
* Judicial
That's the theory, anyway.
In practice, real power has centralized in the Imperial Presidency -- as demonstrated by e.g. the Nixon years, the Bush/Reagan years, and the Cheney/Bush years.
-kgj
-kgj
I recall hearing once that the government was required to go with the lowest bidder in a new contract for many of it's purchases.
Nope. Only in certain purchases/procurements there exists a mandate to use the lowest bidder of those bidders who meet the requirements of the RFP that went out for the bid. Even then the lowest bidder can be thrown out if it is discovered that any portion of their response proposal doesn't really accomplish what the govt organization wanted in the RFP in the manner that the govt org had desired. More often than not, the bid award goes to the vendor who most substantially meets the specs in the RFP and at a price within the expected budget for the project. Of course there's always a lot of politics involved in govt bid awards too... sometimes even as corrupt as in a bad Hollywood movie. That too happens much more often than the taxpaying public even suspects.
Low bid does not (typically) come into play unless and until you have multiple vendors meeting the requirements, or reasonably close to the same set.
You can certainly write requirements that only one vendor can meet, or that precludes certain vendors. It happens all the time. MS obviously loves it when the reqs lock out competition; presumably they are less happy when tey get locked out.
NSA has supported and activly developed SE linux.
"Zionism is simply the belief that there needs to be a sovreign jewish state. that's it"
You've never read any Ben-Gurion, have you?
I've seen enough quotes - from him and many other high-ranking Israeli politicians - to know what "Greater Israel" means - it means domination of the entire Middle East and screw the Arabs. Which is exactly where Israel started two thousand years ago until the Romans - who were better at it than the Jews - came down and ran all their asses out of their own country.
I'm against the Jewish religion (because I'm an atheist), I'm against Jewish politicians because I'm an anarchist, I'm against Zionism because it is racist bullshit - I'm not against Jews (hell, Winona Ryder is one of my favorite babes and like the Adam Sandler song says, she "drinks Maneshewitz" -or however that's spelled).
In fact, for the last year or so, my court-mandated psych therapist has been Jewish and has been agreeing with me about everything that's wrong with Israel.
Recently I posted an article on an Iraq war Web site from a Jewish Rabbi who attended a protest meeting in Massachusetts against the Palestinian occupation - he denounced Zionism thoroughly as the sole cause of Israel's problems! So you should know that many Jews in Israel denounce Zionism and the policies of the Israeli government both for religious and political reasons.
So it's ludicrous to claim that Israel's policies are innocent reactions against Palestinian "terrorism". Just as the true "terrorists" in Iraq are US troops, so are the Israelis the true "terrorists" in the Middle East.
(Not to mention the fact that they are the only Middle Eastern country with KNOWN "weapons of mass destruction" which they have threatened to use against their neighbors and for which the IAEA has been reluctant to call them to account.)
So forget the old "Jews are hardworking immigrants" crap - it's not relevant to the current issues. And forget chalking everything up to the Holocaust - that excuse for everything Israel does is wearing thin.
Technically a Nazi is a member of the National Socialist party (which doesn't exist any more) - period. Practically, a "Nazi" is as a "Nazi" does - and Ariel Sharon qualifies. So does George Bush.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!