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

Why not?

[FortKnox]

They already got the beards for it....

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

Believe it or not, Saddam actually wouldn't allow people to have beards. His thugs would forcibly shave anyone who had one. This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.

The man war brutal and evil, but keeping him in power probably would have helped us in the War on Terror.

Re:Why not?

[sfjoe]

Yes, please leave comedy to the pros.

Or at least leave it to the funny.

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!

Re:Why not?

[vanno]

I wonder if Microsoft will start a "Linux Supports Terrorism" campain?

Re:Why not?

[Rei]

Actually, that's about as true as the "Powdered milk factory being a chemical weapons plant" story and the "throwing babies from incubators" story. Have you taken the time to look at pictures taken from people in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule? Heck, even a lot of the casualty photos, such as this famous one show bearded men. Do you not even remember the shot of the bearded man in a lot of photos who, according to a popular web conspiracy, is the same person who was shown arriving with Ahmed Chalabi and as one of the "normal Iraqis" tearing down the statue in Firdos Square? Shots of bearded Iraqis are all over the place, and are even in some of the most famous shots from the war, so if this wasn't *pure* myth, it was mostly myth.

Re:Why not?

[Penguinshit]

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution specifically protects my right to burn a flag if I so wish.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same morons who cry 'jihad' and drive planes into buildings, explode car bombs, etc.?

Likewise, would you like Americans to be called "the morons who try to impose their cultural and economical dominance to the rest of the world"? The problem is that you don't realise that you are probably more violent against the rest of the world than the rest of the world is to you -- even if it's a different form of violence.

This is not a flame. You owe respect to the other side of the conflict, otherwise you're no better than your unelected president who believes war prisoners are a subclass of the human species who do not deserve to have their rights respected. Does Guantanamo ring a bell?

Re:Why not?

[Luscious868]

It also protect my right to own a gun. Intersting little document isn't it. So, you burn your flag to piss off the right, I'll fire my gun to piss off the left and we can both hold hands and sing kumbaya around the Constitution.

On a side note, the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5th's of a human being, so just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Re:Why not?

[TummyX]

No kidding. Look at the results of Aermika's evil imperalist nazi capatilist policies in post war Japan, West Germany and South Korea. Those nazi bastards!

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

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

Sometimes I scratch my head, trying to make sense of Team Bush's foriegn policy. There are some points to consider:

• There are security concerns other than Islamist extremists that might justify the war. Saddam was a security concern on his own.
• There are valid legal reasons justifying the war. Technically, Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
• Just because Saddam is against extremists in his own country doesn't mean he wouldn't use them against the US, given the chance.

It's not a simple matter of Team Bush having an "Iraq fixation," or greedy corporations wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. Nor is it a simple matter of "defending the US when we're under attack." The Administration had valid national security concerns that were the reason for this war, but the geopolitics of the whole thing is so complex that most people don't understand them.

Re:Why not?

[Nopal]

Likewise, would you like Americans to be called "the morons who try to impose their cultural and economical dominance to the rest of the world"? The problem is that you don't realise that you are probably more violent against the rest of the world than the rest of the world is to you -- even if it's a different form of violence.

Yes, especially since cultural_dominance == car_bombs. Oh, wait, cultural dominace IS more violent than beheadings and car bombs. My bad. Seriously, What kind of moron actually moderates the parent as insightful?

In war, as in everything else, you don't owe respect if respect is not given to you. It's as simple as that.

Re:Why not?

[crucini]

I think I'm in general agreement with you, but there's one problem.

...encouraging US style policies and government ... will lead to increased prosperity ...

I'm not sure there is such a thing as US style policies. The phrase seems to imply that the US wants to (and can) create the same kind of government abroad that we have at home. It may have been true around WWII. I think that today the US leaders are keenly aware that the most advantageous thing for the US is to disrupt a country's economy so it becomes deeply dependent on the US. Create poverty, because that creates cheap workers. We send subsidized agricultural products to the third world, which kills the rural economy, which sends economic refugees to work in factories, which gives us cheap imports.

A democratic, strong country that accumulates capital and crafts its own trade policies is a threat to the US. A helpless, chaotic country that sells all its resources to multinationals at cheap prices and lets multinationals drain off all its hard currency with tricks like foreign-owned utilities is an asset to the US.

I'm afraid the US track record shows a desire to prevent any new US-like countries from emerging. There are other, more worthy desires there - but don't ignore this one.

Re:Why not?

[Luscious868]

the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5th's of a human being

OK, so why don't you earn some (+1, Informative) karma and tell us exactly where in the Constitution is that count?

Sure, from Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"All other Persons" would be slaves. Although the term itself isn't used in the Constitution, that is to whom the framers were refering.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

"They're more stable, more sane, and would probably be great to do business with."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You think the CEOs in THIS country are "stable", "sane" and "great to do business with"?

Jesus!

Even if they were not assholes, competitors is the LAST thing these morons want in this world.

Some people - mostly ignorant Objectivist libertarians - seem to think that being in business makes one a free market philosopher. Forget about it. The average CEO of any major corporation is an asshole who got where he is for office politics and financial connections reasons - not because he is a "capitalist statesman".

And the POLITICIANS who run this country DAMN sure don't want any free-market countries in existence - not even the US!

"Capitalism" (in the common sense of people with money running everything) and the state can work together - the true free market and the state cannot.

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

First off, I agree that this whole situation we have gotten ourselves into was a huge mistake. Any Civilization fan will tell you that Despotism is preferable to Anarchy. And I agree that Iraq was not the ideal front to fight the "War on Terror."

That said, there are some serious flaws in your thinking:

On the first point, you are forgetting that Saddam only has to play nice with the inspectors for so long. As soon as the international community gets tired of babysitting him, Saddam will kick the inspectors out of the country and go back to Business As Usual. Sure, as a short-term solution, containment is a good policy, but the Administration is trying to forsee long-term ramifications.

On the second point, it's not just that Iraq violated some letter of some international agreement. They attempted to take over a neighboring country (and before that, tried to take over another country with the help of the U.S.), and we had every reason to believe that, left to his own devices, he'd do so again. The idea is that the mere presence of Saddam was in impeding factor to the economic and political growth and development of the entire region. Saddam can't be kept in check without constant babysitting and crippling embargoes. Iraq suffers. The rest of the Arab/Persian world has to deal with a skewed balance-of-power in the region. They suffer. It was perceived as an unsustainable arrangement.

Let's not even get into Israel... suffice it to say that when the "international community" won't allow a people to defend themselves against butchers who send teenagers to blow up civilians on buses, that people has every right to thumb their noses at them.

On the third point (and I'm not saying I agree with it this thinking, but...) the idea is that 9/11 proves that there is a means in place to attack US cities and kill vast numbers of Americans. Organized, global groups like Al Quaeda are, in and of themselves, a powerful weapon, and a great delivery system for anyone who wants to attack the U.S. Al Quaeda PLUS rouge governments developing WMDs constitute a clear and present danger to the U.S. and to the world. Personally there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam would have "made a deal with the Devil" to attack America if he thought he could get away with it.

Your speculation about "fundamentalists Christians" buying guns and fertilizer, and cooperating with Islamist terror groups betrays vast misunderstanding of the nature of the threat. You need to understand a few things:

1. Islam teaches that all the world must be converted, by force if necessary, and anyone who refuses to convert must be killed. This is not an extremist position. This is orthodox Islam.

2. Mainstream media in the Muslim world regularly gives air-time to religious leaders and professors who state that suicide bombing is justified, and that America and Israel are the enemies of the faith, and must die. This hatred is primarily a result of their doctrine. The U.S. and Israel could bend over backwards to satisfy every demand of the Arab people, and they would still be infidels that must die.

3. "Fundamentalist Christians" do not kill people for the advancement of the faith. Yes, you have the odd-ball who kills an abortion doctor. Yes, people wishing to overthrow the government are sometimes right-wing Christians. But this has more to do with them being right-wing than being Christian - really, any religion can be used as an excuse for abominable political beliefs. The case of Islamist terror is very different. The terror and hatred is a direct result of their faith, rather than their faith being used as an excuse to justify their hatred and terror.

Now, all that said, I think this Iraq invasion was a stupid idea vis-a-vis the war on terror. But then, I don't know a thing about conducting a global war against rogue criminals. Our war isn't against governments. It's against criminals. But obviously, "law enforcement" as we know it isn't going to do a damned

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.

Re:Obstacles

[double-oh three]

Computers are fairly common there actually, I remember reading a story in the NYT about how a IT person for one of the army units went out to buy a bunch of 64mb flash drives and was able to find a lot of (pirated) software like Photoshop and Windows at the store.

Re:Obstacles

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

Overall, however, a proliferation of F/OSS would be a positive step forward for Iraq, where proprietary software is very expensive.

Are you sure? How much is the price of CDs with MS software (copied without permission from MS) on the streets of Bagdad?

How does this compare to F/OSS?

Re:Obstacles

[Gumpmaster]

When I was in Baghdad, pirated programs were less than $10, including windows (pirated movies were $2). I don't think the everyday joe has a computer. The cost is still too much for every family to own a PC. The locals are making a bunch selling to US forces. The selection of computer components wasn't great. We made a weekly trip to the local tech store and bought thousands of dollars worth of stuff (flash drives included).

How does this differ from other efforts?

[garcia]

A lot of high profile Linux users believe that Linux could be the savior to all areas of the world (developed countries as well as third world countries). How is this guy any different than the rest of those out there promoting and educating others about Linux?

"There is a shortage in power and water supplies, and sewage systems, so the last thing Iraq needs is spending billions of dollars on very expensive and overpriced products, especially software products," he said.

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

As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[cheezedawg]

As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 70% of unemployed of Iraqis?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[TopShelf]

Obviously, send in the hippies! Once Phish wraps up their tour, I'm sure they'll need something to do.

Seriously, though, of course corporations are picking up most of the work. Don't forget, however, that federal procurement rules also carve out a portion of bids for small businesses. I saw a recent TV news story that claimed roughly $500 million in contracts have been given out already to small businesses engaged in the Iraq rebuilding effort.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Mz6]

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

Well definetly corporations should have a chance to help rebuilt Iraq, however, there should be more competition for it rather than a company being handed a "no-bid" contract. If the military did this instead of corportations, there really would be no spark to help the economy out.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[American AC in Paris]

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

The US government and the local population.

Seriously--does it make sense to rely on private enterprise to tough it out in a war zone? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for security consultants--people who typically cost several times that which a soldier costs? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for multi-billion dollar cost-plus contracts--contracts which stipulate that a contractor is guaranteed a profit? Is it really all that smart for our troops to be dependent on private companies and individuals who can simply up and leave at their discretion?

Iraqis aren't knuckle-dragging cave dwellers, you know. They know how to do things, and even the ones that don't are generally capable of lifting things and following basic directions. Why are we so anxious to throw billions of dollars at American companies while there are millions of unemployed, discontented Iraqi workers already there?

How are we supposed to win hearts and minds when we're not even willing to trust Iraqis with the task of rebuilding their own country?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Iraqis have a higher concentration of PhDs per capita than the US. Education was free through grad school. They've been rather proud of their educational system, and with good cause. The big thing that's been setting them back has been the boycott; even trade publications have been barred many times under the sanctions.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

First off, you're only talking about unskilled labor. This sort of system is humiliating to the highly educated Iraqis. You know what? I would *love* to have some Iraqi artists and architects come over here to design buildings over here in the US. Have you seen the sort of beautiful bridges and monuments they've made? For a tenth the cost we're paying these US companies to do so? And the ugly-as-heck replacements that these US companies are doing?

Case and point: read

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[workindev]

Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors.

Halliburton's KBR has always been at or near the top of the bidding process. They were even awarded so-called "no-bid" contracts during the Clinton administration to help rebuild the Balkans.

KBR did a risk assessment of potential oil fires before the invasion, which was covered by their 2001 contract. In March 2003, when the attack was unfolding, Pentagon planners issued an additional bridge contract to KBR to put out any fires that were set. KBR had the experience and their personnel were in place. It would have been crazy to open up a three-to-five-month bidding process at that time.

Even Steven Kelman, who was an administrator in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Bill Clinton, said this regarding the Halliburton Iraq contracts:

"One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd"

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting that 99% of Iraqis are just fine, but it's that damned 1% that you've got to worry about

And I'm betting that 75% of those 99% think that those damned 1% are heros.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Why not the 35% of Iraqi males who are currently unemployed and have nothing better to do than listen to paid propagandists working for Islamic extremists?

Probably would cut down on the numbers of people we'll have to kill there, not to mention the number of American soldiers who don't deserve to die because their civilian leadership was completely incompetent.

Instead of busing over tons of Indian and Egyptian contractors for 'cost plus' via Halibuton, why wouldn't the invading force organize the local people and give them the resources to rebuild their own cities and infrastructure? Oh wait, that wouldn't be as profitable for Haliburton. Crap, it also would have required the administration being honest about the number of troops and money this endeavour was going to take. Oh, and Rummy wouldn't have been able to use his new "light and cheap" reorg of the military, instead he would have had to use his nemisis, Powell's, doctrine of overwhelming force.

I guess your right, war-profiteering, incompetent fools should be wasting our tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers cause those poor Iraqi's can't do anything for themselves. Quit giving these bastards the benefit of the doubt, fire their asses.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[myside]

All Things Considered just did a story on the Iraqi educational system yesterday. I got the impression that it was pretty much devastated under the Saddam Hussein regime.

Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

How difficult would it be to start a successful Free Software business in Iraq? For example by selling installation/training/troubleshooting services?

If the Iraqi population is not already hooked on the MS stuff, maybe the widespread anti-American sentiments could help gain such a company an important advantage over competing companies which provide similar services for (unauthroized copies of) proprietary software?

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Andy Mitchell]

Apart from forces of one insane religious fanatic (George Bush) trying to kill the forces of another insane religious fanatic (Bin Laden) who is trying to do the same back, with neither party trying that hard to avoid hurting anyone vaguely in the same area I don't think there are any major problems with your business plan :-)

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[dodongo]

Widespread anti-American sentiments have been enough to drive me to using linux and supporting F/OSS...and I'm a lifelong resident of Indiana.

Go Iraq!

First things first

[L. VeGas]

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

They need to tone it down

[stecoop]

And so enters a new age of a gigantic battle between vi vs emacs users in Iraq.

Over in Fallujah...

[S. Baldrick]

...they run it headless.

/going to hell

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[alexandre]

It's never too soon for any joke! This planet would be a sad place if it was...

What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do not?

[scumbucket]

What features does Linux offer Iraq that Windows does not? Does it offer any special advantages besides the standard ones for open source? For example, are there better translations or special software used by people in Iraq?

Haliburton's burned hallowed hurtin' ballads

[dominion]

Wait, so you're saying that Microsoft won't be getting a no-bid contract?

Riiiiiiight...

that'll do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

get them internet access (porn) and accounts on everquest and you'll see a 95% decrease in bombings and protests...

Re:that'll do it...

[nick13245]

If the p0rn don't do it then nethack sure will....

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[liphel]

Try turning it around, things don't necessarily start with Windows. What features does Windows offer Iraq that Linux doesn't?

Good thing...

[moehoward]

Good thing that Bush invaded Iraq. Now we get to have a daily Linux in Iraq Slashdot story.

If we hadn't invaded, we be stuck with all those "Windows 98 in Afganistan" success stories. And we all know how painful THAT can be.

Sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone took the idea of a bullet-proof OS a little too literally.

--ac

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[Mz6]

I'm not really sure on features, but it's a step forward in security so long as the people setting it up can do it right. And since the country is being rebuilt, they are doing it right and not using pirated software. They also don't have to pay for Microsoft licenses.

The Vole

[drunkahol]

The article also points out that Microsoft are "helping" rebuild the country with huge discounts on licenses (i.e. free???).

How long are these licenses to be free?

It's not just drug dealers that get people hooked by supplying freebies until users get dependant.

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...)

Re:In other news...

[errxn]

It's not the next wonder drug.

You're new here, aren't you?

Not too sure about this...

[Dr. Bent]

One of the major "selling" points of Linux is cost. Obviously there are other reasons to use it (security, flexibility, access to source code, etc.) but most laymen don't care about those reasons...they just care how much it's going to cost them.

As was mentioned in the article, most of the software in Iraq is pirated, so cost isn't really an issue since most people don't pay for software. So, in my opinion, Linux is going to have a bit of an uphill battle to gain wide acceptance among the people. Government instutions and large companies might see it a little differently since they're more likely to abide by the law, but I just don't see your average Iraqi citizen using Linux (which he's probaly has never heard of) when he can get Windows for free.

Obligatory Gentoo

[swordboy]

emerge weaponsofmassdestruction

Liberated

[burtonator]

They've only been liberated for a few months now and they're already moving towards communism!

Regan must be spinning in his grave!

hehe

Of course...

[bigberk]

They might have been better off before we started dropping bombs on their country. I used to receive emails from some engineering students in Iraq who enjoyed using my software. I stopped hearing from them around war time, and have no idea whether they were killed, fled the country, or what. They were around my age, early 20s.

Anyway, my point being that it seems kind of silly to 'celebrate' rebuilding Iraq when they had all kinds of existing infrastructure before the US invaded. We just, uh, BOMBED it all.

Re:See!

[Lester67]

Next Stop: Redmond. :-)

Depends On What "Rebuilding" Means.

[ericlp]

Check out the June 2004 Issue of National Geographic. In it is a story on Iraq. Shows some good pictures of what can happen to a computer user that has the wrong kind of material on their computer. You get a beating by a religious fanatic. Of course that all depends where you live. This showed one Shiite region.

I wonder what OS is the best for assisting in inspecting peoples computers so you can beat them if you don't like what is on it?

Re:Tux will die...

[B2382F29]

The good thing with Open Source is: you cut its head off and it will fork three new heads.

The Iraqi Information (Technology) Minister Says:

[stratjakt]

"Linux is a great and powerful Operating system! Open Source desktops are fully mature and without flaws! All hardware works perfectly with linux! Authentication with PAM/SAMBA/LDAP/nsswitch is easily configured! Printing is plug and play! BSD is dying in the street!"

You need computers "first"

[puppetluva]

How do you think that that electricity is regulated and metered? By hand? How do you think that that the distribution points are monitored and controled? By hand? How do you think that the electric-plants run their offices. . . etc. etc. etc. You need computers to run the infrastructure they are building.

Linux isn't just something that sits on your desk at home like most Windows computers. It is actually QUITE approporiate that they are considering Linux at the same time they are building the nation's infrastructure. It's most common use these days is _as_ server infrastructure.

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:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So why is Iraq's unemployment rate still hovering at around 25%- same as when Saddam was in power- if all this work is being done by Iraqis? There are some facts that just don't add up in the story.

Re:Iraqis?

[toiletmonster]

these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07. ht m
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_ar tic le=99

couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.

They should make their own distribution

[miodekk]

If Iraqis Linux User Group is going to succeed, they should make their own localized distribution. It could be based on Knoppix or any distribution they like, but should be localized as much as possible and easy to install and use.
I think Knoppix or something similar is the easiest to start with. AFAIR from earlier slashdot articles and posts there is lack of proper localization for Iraq in Windows so it would be a great advantage for Linux.

Regards

Better enjoy it while you can

[Ark]

Before MS goes and pulls a Halliburton on the country.

Re:And the political flamefest begins in

[WormholeFiend]

I submitted this story with a better headline... /one ticket to slashdot hell, aisle seat, please.

Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

Well, that's your assumption - provided that the amount of work required to provide those services is more cost effective than buying commercial software and investing time in doing something more profitable (such as fixing oil pipelines or catching the remaining Saddam's lunatics)

Paying licensing fees to an American company means that this money is *leaving* your economy, and that there is no current expectation that it will come back. Paying it to a local contractor (especially if labor is cheap) may save you money, but it WILL certainly keep the money in the Iraqi economy, where it can be later used for these other things (fixing oil infrastructure, increasing security, building political institutions, etc).

This is not about one business's pocketbook. It is about the economy as a whole.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Donny Smith]

Francis Bacon wrote on this subject quite some time ago (the thing about Portugal focusing on wine exports, comparative advantages et cetera)

>Paying licensing fees to an American company means that this money is *leaving* your economy, and that there is no current expectation that it will come back

Buying US software also means American consumers will be able to buy more oil-guzzling SUVs, so if the Iraqies can fix their oil industry in the meantime, they will see their monies come back a runnin'!

This may not be correct, but it's a possibility just like your idea and both should be considered if the best approach is to be found.

The advantage here...

[Mongoose Disciple]

As far as I'm concerned, the thing to get excited about is not, exactly, Iraqis running Linux on their desktops or what have you...

Rather, it's the notion of how OSS grows. It's a good thing if geeks in the west and geeks in Iraq can collaborate on an open source project together. (And if that, or Western/Middle-Eastern OSS collaborations become a more common thing.)

Granted, I think techies tend to be a little more progressive than the general population, but still -- people in the U.S. and people in Iraq being able to work on a project together and come to understand each other better as people, in any capacity, can only be a good thing for the people of both nations, and indeed even the world.

NYTIMES article: Iraq rebuffed Al Qaeda

[Zilfondel2]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-1 1-Commission.html?hp

Why did Saddam not ever have any dealing with any Islamic extremists, including Al Qaeda? Because it would have challenged Saddam's rule. He was a dictator, and we helped support him because he was anti-islamic - just look at the 10 year Iraq/Iran war. We funded him because that ended up killing over 1 million Iranians (and Iraqis, too).

I don't even want to get into invading Iraq and stuff, but needless to say, we didn't find millions of pounds of weapons of mass destruction, mobile weapons labs, and missiles capable of reaching the US.

However, we have set up a lot of other tin-pot dictators that aren't in the middle east. Just look at Pakistan, Haiti (just a few weeks ago!), etc,etc, google if you want to.

come on

[cookiepus]

I understand we had to bomb these people for their own good, we made them sacrifice their security for a potential freedom down the road, but why the FUCK are we going to make them use software that's not ready for the desktop? Haven't they suffered enough?