Linux in Iraq

Nereus writes "The BBC News is reporting on the newfound popularity of Linux in Iraq. The article discusses how the Iraqi Linux User Group believe Linux will aid the Iraqi people in the rebuilding of their country, and the benefits of open source in Iraq."

Comments

Obstacles

[SIGALRM]

They are united in their belief that open-source software like Linux could help their nation.

Of course, the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.

Overall, however, a proliferation of F/OSS would be a positive step forward for Iraq, where proprietary software is very expensive. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the population even owns a computer.

First things first

[L. VeGas]

Let's see if we can get the electricity working first.

OSS vs free-as-in-beer

[sczimme]

From the article:

Both of them are firm believers in open source software. Unlike expensive proprietary software, open-source software can be freely distributed and modified, as long as the modifications are shared with other users.

This happens quite often is these discussions: people like the reporter confuse/conflate (the ideals of OSS) and (getting something for free). I believe the Iraqi gentlemen - even though they are coders - are looking at the free-as-in-beer aspect as the primary benefit. This is not a Bad Thing(tm) - it's a heck of an advantage - but it is not the same as supplying the Iraqi people with OSS so they can make and distribute changes.

Also from the article:

"This enables the country to build its own infrastructure based on open source, on open ideas," Ashraf Hasson.

No, it lets the country build its infrastructure for a heck of a lot less money than it would cost to do so using commercial products. What is wrong with saying "I like to use Linux [or whatever] because it costs me very little money"?

For the record, one of the reasons I like to use Linux because it costs me very little money. (I buy commercial distros about half the time so I'm not a total leech...)

Iraqis?

[Zilfondel2]

Why give large rebuilding contracts out to US firms, when there are literally millions of Iraqis who are unemployed - and will work for cheap - that are already in Iraq?

Not to mention the huge Iraqi construction companies who - over the last 20 years - built all of Saddam's palaces, military bunkers, etc. They certainly have the means, techinical expertise, and manpower to do that stuff. And they are already there.

That would go far beyond any Haliburton/Bechtel efforts to rebuild Iraq, as none of the money Haliburton gets paid goes to help Iraqis.
After all, the point in rebuilding a country is to eventually restart said country's economy so people there can work.
This almost sounds like Saudi Arabia all over again, with 80% unemployment rates - sans the monthly oil checks.

Re:Why not?

[bigberk]

This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.

Interesting, you're saying that Saddam was against the Islamic extremists? The same morons who cry 'jihad' and drive planes into buildings, explode car bombs, etc.?

So Saddam is against Islamist extremists, and we bomb him -- but we do business with Saudi Arabia, the country that is home to the wealthy funders of Islamic extremism, and home to all the Sept. 11 hijackers? Let's not kid ourselves, there are bad things happening in both countries but only one of those two countries was the champion of Islamic fundamentalists / extremists.

I don't get it, it's too weird!