Slashdot Mirror
The Software Politics Of 2004's Presidential Race
mjamil writes "The NYT(free registration required) has an article talking about the polarized use of OSS in the building of campaign Web sites. Specifically, it states that the sites for John Kerry (Democratic candidate for President) and the Democratic National Committee are built using OSS, while the site for President Bush's re-election campaign uses IIS. Linus and ESR are quoted. It's an interesting look at how even presidential politics are no longer immune to the free software war (free as in beer)." (David Brunton, pictured in the article, wrote to say "Now I'm going to go call my mom... won't she be proud? For all those girl geeks and gay geeks out there, I'm already taken, but it is an awful nice picture, isn't it?")
I dont know, maybe i'm wrong? It just seems to me that most politicians wouldnt really *care* about what platforms their websites are hosted on..
Could be that /.er are not interested in Bush link... for some reason.
this has to be the single most unimportant issue in world politics today. I really struggle to believe that anyone would read anything into, or make any kind of an issue over what webserver hosts a politician's website.
What's the reasoning here? "Kerry's webserver runs teh linux, so if he wins he will destroy MS and the world will be happy and live as one with no more wars or fighting."
You will die if you register? They pay to hosting, the guy /gal wrote the article, admins running that mega site, staff...
So, if you register, they will mail "make your xxx 5 inch bigger"? NY Times? What happens if they show you a damn gif file to cover costs, you will die?
Karma whoring at its best...
Bush believes in supporting hard working American workers. Even if he has topay for it, he knows that it's worth it to put food on the plates of his citizens and subjects. He probably also eats American grown food, flies in an American buiolt plane and drives an American car Kerry on the other hand uses foreign imported free software. He thinks that cost is the only area that matters. He probably drives an imported car and flies using foreign airlines such as Quantas and Aeroflot.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but this one is too good. My bet is that you are typing this on a computer that has large chunks of the hardware manufactured in Taiwan and assembled in mainland China(China actually doesn't do much high tech manufacturing...yet). Probably on Microsoft software, Microsoft has had large development centers in India(thus foriegn) for a while.
And while linux may have originated in Finland, a very large chunk of the code was written in the US.
So I find it hard to believe that Kerry's platform is any less American than yours...
I have to wonder if Timothy would have posted this story had it been the other way round? Same as the Greenpeace story earlier. Ooo, political organizations that Timothy personally likes use technology too!
This is not news, Timothy.
In 2000, I remember noticing that GWB's site used Apache and Gore's used IIS
This is an important point to make. I'm neither trying to be a Bush apologist nor a conspiracy theorist, but it would seem to me that MS put its money where it thought the winner would be (when it made the donations). Certainly Bush has let MS off the hook from their previous trial, but I wouldn't read a cabal in that, rather just a "let's get the govt off of big business' back" appeal to core right-wingers.
If MS handed a campaign a bunch of software with hints of donations to go along with it, any campaign manager would quickly overrule the IT guy who wanted to use Apache "on principle". I wouldn't doubt that the Kerry people would do the same if the same carrots were held out to them (like they were to Gore in 2000).
The sad part is that Open-Source is actually closer to the heart of what used to be core rep[ublican values: openness of information, openness of commerce, libertarian leizzes-faire approach to the market.
*sigh* where are you Ike?
davejenkins.com |
Call me crazy, but I think really this has as much or more to do with their web designers and/or sysadmins as it does with their political stance. I mean, I guess their webservers do somewhat match their political standing, but I doubt it was really a concious decision. Bush could have just as easily hired some Unix heavy group who would probably run Apache or John Kerry could have just as easily hired some sort of ASP.net dream team for his site. If I recall correctly in 2000 Gore DID run IIS and Bush DID run Apache.
I would bet that if you were to look at political websites beyond those of the Democratic and Republican candidates the division would be far less clear (although I would bet you would still see some of the same division).
with a gap in financial support in the tens of millions of dollars, the kerry campaign has had to save every penny it could, and free software and low-cost LAMP hosting is certainly one way to do that.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
The principal consideration, Mr. Ellis said, was computer security and protecting the privacy of personal data on the Web site. The programming tools, procedures and the larger pool of workers skilled in using Microsoft software, he said, prompted the Republicans to opt for Microsoft's Web server, called Internet Information Services, running on the Windows 2000 operating system.
This guy obviously has his head so far up Microsoft's ass that hey's bought everything they've said about secure computing. Let's see, there's currently a worm that's infected thousands of IIS servers across the internet (who knows, it could have even infected the GOP's), and it's spreading via Javascript to millions of IE users, for which Microsoft has issued no patch, and yet this is somehow the most secure solution? The mind boggles. Even joe sixpack by now knows that MS is not secure after his Windows box sends him popups when there is no browser loaded and he has to reformat it and start over every three months after being infected with the worm du jour.
I personally find it interesting that the vast majority of the people I talk to consider this to be a "normal" computing experience. When my landlord told me the other day that they'd been infected by Bugbear and had spent a difficult few days trying to clean it off, I said "Well, that's one of the reasons I switched to Mac... No worms or viruses (yet)." He said "Oh, really? You don't have to run Norton's?"
I find it amazing that the majority of computer users out there think that spending $30 a year on subscriptions to AV software and firewalls is a normal expense that you just have to pay for, like the electric utility or water bill, if you want to use a computer. They have no clue that this software is only necessary to make up for a lack of security in the OS to begin with.
The only analogy I would compare it with is if Ford, rather than recalling all of the Explorers that rolled over, simply said, well, you'll have to buy a subscription to our special "tire tread enhancer service", and bring in your car every week to have the treads updated to the latest and greatest treads that won't separate. That way you won't roll over in a crash and explode in a ball of fire. Can you imagine the outcry if that happened? Why isn't MS held to the same standards?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Amen.
Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.
It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.
Finally, as regards the article itself:
So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?
So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.
And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?
This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.
That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that
OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it
the NYTimes is pro-Kerry
if you must read the Times, read the whole article.
Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
I think the article makes a large omission when it doesn't point out that the Internet was a government funded project that grew up with the proto-free software movement. DARPA first approached ATT, then the owner of all phone lines in the country (when modems came along you weren't allowed to plug them directly into a phone line), about building a network based on open protocols and ATT turned them down because they wouldn't be able to control it. Remember AOL before they built in access to the Web? That probably is what the Internet would have looked like had ATT had control over whatever the Internet might have been in that alternate universe. Hell, even in the late 80's the head of ATT said there was no need for NSFnet because they could provide ISDN to the desktop.
It was a specific type of policy oriented towards open-ness that led to the Internet being the way it is. The software that underlies the Internet is free software, it has been and still is the dominant form of software in the infrastructure which makes up the Internet. Open source is not "counter culture" on the Internet as the article portrays. The only reason MS has any role on the Internet is they have leveraged their desktop monopoly.
I wish reporters understood these things.
I disagree. I'm not in the computer industry.
I'm a long time linux user at home, however I use NT at work.
My friends and family use windows 2000 and XP. I can't figure it out. I spend a lot of my time asking them how to do the simplest of tasks, different applications have different default save locations. I don't know where the configuration files are.
I like knowing that when I use an application it will save in ~
The user specific configuration is in ~/.application.
When I reinstall windows I am sure to forget some details like IE bookmarks, or other preferences buried around the computer in random locations.
I know linux isn't the simplest easiest most straightforward OS. But once you learn it, it is really easy to use. Windows IMO works okay if you click around and hunt, but it has so many odd details to remember that it is a frustrating user experience if you haven't done something recently.
The odd details in linuxland tend to be command line switches, which are typically documented in the man page. Where in the windows help system is the location of my IE, netscape or opera bookmarks documented?
Yeah maybe one uses Linux and the other is MS, but both of their developers can't code worth beans
John Kerry W3C
George Bush W3C
A liberterian? Voting for bush? NEVER.
Bush has grown the size of the govt more then any other president in recent history.
He runs up record debt.
He invades sovereign countries which are of no threat to the US.
He is the champion of the patriot act.
He wants to amend the constitution to prevent gays from marrying.
He fights states that want to legalize medicinal marijuana.
He fights states that pass right to die statutes.
Like most people who call them sleves liberterians you are simply a republican you is ashamed to say so. Please don't besmirch the liberterian party by calling yourself one while voting for the least liberterian candidate.
evil is as evil does
So, since I'm an advocate I spend a lot of time on both of these websites and have watched them as they were developed. I also had up my own website last year as part of a state effort for Wes Clark's candidacy. These things start off by someone volunteering something, usually time, and they use what they know. It starts from there.
The Kerry website is better designed visually, it's less hectic, easier to find the critical information you want.
But the Bush website has better tools, they have a very nice database of contributors that you can search. They've put together nifty features with video, automatic creation of PDF posters and different things like that.
Whatever.
It's not the tools people, it's what you do with them that matters.