Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Sigs cause cancer.
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?
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?
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
Let's see if we can get the electricity working first.
Best Windows Freeware
And so enters a new age of a gigantic battle between vi vs emacs users in Iraq.
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.
dinner: it's what's for beer
get them internet access (porn) and accounts on everquest and you'll see a 95% decrease in bombings and protests...
Try turning it around, things don't necessarily start with Windows. What features does Windows offer Iraq that Linux doesn't?
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.
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...)
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
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.
emerge weaponsofmassdestruction
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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
Yes, please leave comedy to the pros.
Or at least leave it to the funny.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
"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!"
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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!
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.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
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?
Sure, from Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph 3:
"All other Persons" would be slaves. Although the term itself isn't used in the Constitution, that is to whom the framers were refering.