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."
Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.
You can find Linux as the court stenographer. But he's just not transcripting dictated litigation. He's learning. He's adapting. Soon Linux will become the bailiff, judge, jury, court illustrator, public defender, janitor, and CourTV anchor.
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
So our judicial system is moving from Solaris to Linux for their servers. This would have been a story of note had they put Linux on the desktop, but as it stands it hardly seems newsworthy. I mean, the multinational company I work for uses Linux on many of it's servers as well.
Adoption of Linux as a server is one thing; adoption of Linux on the desktop for 30K is quite another...
One third?
One of three branches, yes.
Those 30,000 users are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of Federal employees and offices.
Will the slashdot readers be hypocrites or will they denounce FUD when it comes from Linux Journal? If Microsoft (or a journal that is focused on MS technology) had released a statement that "two-thirds of the US government runs MS software!" then there would be a huge shitstorm.
for SCO to start sueing the Courts for copyright infringement.
SCO: "You owe us money!"
AOUSC: "Prove it."
SCO: "Pay up or we'll sue!"
AOUSC: "Go on then."
SCO: "Oh b...."
From a purely impartial point of view, I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.
The judicirary is supposed to be impartial. I think for the most part it is. I would like it to stay like that no matter whatever happens.
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.
> Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)
I know you're being funny, but let me draw attentions to a significant detail: if courts grok Linux it will be far more difficult for "people" like Dearl to initiate such "operations" like the one we witness.