Slashdot Mirror
Running an ISP in a Warzone
musatov writes "SGT Coughanour, David A (HHC 1-110th Infantry US Army) speech on NOTACON 3: "Right now I am currently serving in Iraq where I run IT operations for a small chunk of the Sunni triangle. One of the major projects that we have accomplished here is setting up an ISP that supports 350 subscribers. It has also survived multiple mortar attacks, and is built entirely on Linux."
Download video (80 MB QuickTime) Requires latest QuickTime installed. A mirror is available for people to download it."
I don't know what ISPs you've worked for, but most of the places I've worked for weren't getting hit by mortar rounds while I was trying to manage the servers. I mean, I know ISP jobs are stressful anyway, but I would think that sort of thing might ratchet the stress level up just a little bit.
I don't think the interesting thing here is that he's running Linux necessarily, but rather that they can keep an ISP going at all in that sort of environment. Of course, I'd be running Linux in that situation too, as anything that could keep me from having to come into work to babysit the servers while the bombs are flying would be a positive.
It's just very, very neat to see how people do technical work like this in adverse situations.
I'm passing this one on to my branch's VP of disaster planning. He's very cool, and likes to have a little "extra" to hit people over the head about good planning.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Yes, because open source stops shrapnel!
Linux has bollocks all to do with the stability with regards to mortar fire. It's the fact that all the hardware hasn't been blown to shreds yet!
Let's see them survive a mortar hit.
Well, considering they can still email and phone home as well as hit the major news websites, I'd say the troops are at least as well as informed as those of us at home. As for your polls re: retaliating for 9/11, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. If you're saying that it's a direct cause and effect situation, I'd agree that it's a little shaky. If you're asking the troops whether they think that stabilizing the mideast after 9/11 is a worthy cause, they I can see how many would agree with that.
Dick Cheney was on TV not too long ago defending the Saddam-9/11 connection to some reporter.
I guess 9/11 revenge feels better than say strategic geopolitical and regional dominance for future energy concerns, err I mean "saddam has WMDs and will give them to terrorists. We don't want to wait for the mushroom cloud."
So, has OJ found the real killer yet?
no WRONG... howevermuch you disagree with them they are NOT terrorists they are fighting against an occupation of their country by a foreign power and even if you agree with the aims and objectives of that operation (I don't by the way, or rather I do not believe the stated aims and objectives; democracy and the rule of law. Nowhere in them is oil mentioned!)
Even calling them insurgents is being a bit disingenuous although by stretching a point I could agree. However unpalatable 'freedom fighters' is more the correct term, at least by any dictionary definition.
computers don't care if bullets are fired near it. and if bullets were fired at it, then it wouldn't matter what OS it was running.
I live 30 minutes west of Detroit; off of Baseline (aka, 8 Mile) Rd. in fact. I'm allowed to poke fun at the city (and the Lions).
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
They're fighting against an occupation by killing their countrymen? Have you SEEN the casualty figures? These fuckers kill something like 10 Iraqis for every 1 US soldier. I don't remember George Washington blowing up crowded markets in order to kill 3 British soldiers, or putting American children in the path of British horses and then blowing up all of them when the brits come to a stop.
Whatever term you decide to use for them, don't for one minute beleive that their goals have anything to do with freeing Iraq from opression or occupation. The vast majority of your "insurgents" employ terrorist tactics, and their ultimate goals have more to do with gauranteeing power for themselves and their supporters than with bringing freedom to the average Iraqi. If that doesn't make them terrorists, then you must be employing a very unusual definition for that word.
Our troops do try to help where they can w/ water, power and food. Sadly, the insurgents destroy most of their and the Iraqi governments efforts. As far as this guy setting up an ISP for his soldiers to stay in touch with their families and keep up with current events, I say more power to him. As far as you saying "So what" to his efforts, then I feel sorry for you. Unless you have been over there, then I think you have not the slightest clue about what you are speaking. Try not to belittle our troops, please. They did not choose to go to Iraq and they may or may not believe in the war itself, but I think it shows alot of ingenuity that they can set up a network that can stay up in those harsh conditions. Also, since I am in the military and I know firsthand what these brave soldiers are going through, I feel compelled to let you know that I think you are a complete F-tard. Stop parroting whatever hollywood and the news media crap out onto you tv. If you think that the U.S. military isn't bending over backwards to help these people, then you need to either join up and help or get a plane ticket and head on over. Obviously you know how best to change the situation over there for the better, you loudmouthed jerk.
I have 200,000 buddies who aren't useless in the slightest and I rely on them every day to do their job effectively and without complaint, the military is full of amazing hard working people a great many of them are very mindful patriots as well, a great many of them disagree with the war, but they go anyway, why? Because they love their country, and could care less about the stupid partisan politics that the people of this country refuse to involve themselves in other than cursory complaining.
Their is a democracy, but the people refuse to vote there, the people refuse to involve themselves in their countries politics, so tell me, who's fault is it, me and my 200,000 buddies all working our asses off to better our country in at least some way, or you, mocking my friends and my fellow men/women at arms?
Iraqis were starving but mostly that was due to the sanctions imposed on them. Before the sanctions it was a fairly well off population living under a secular socialist dictatorship.
The sanctions did cause immense suffering mainly because they were implemented after Bush the elder destroyed a lot of infrasture like water treatment plants, factories, roads, bridges, electrical generation facilites etc. The UN estimated that more then a million people died as a consequence including hundreds of thousands of children.
Having said that I for one am greateful there is an ISP in iraq. The voices of the iraqis would not be heard otherwise. I have learned so much from reading the iraqi bloggers. I would reccomend everybody else seek out the read them too. Your news outlets are not giving the real story (if you live in the US).
evil is as evil does
I'm 100% against the war, and 100% agree with your post. Nicely put, man. All these pseudo-liberal, pseudo-intellectual democrat douchebags need to stop talking out their ass and realize that to some, certain things extend beyond rooting for their as-corrupt-as-the-republicans team. When you're fighting out there, you're not fighting for an ideal or a flag, you're fighting first and foremost for your buddies next to you. There's a reason Smedly Butler is popular reading in the Marines: he spells it out for you. You may not have realized it before you signed up, but you're a glorified corporate security guard. You're fighting to ensure the stability of a source of economic gain to companies with defense contracts. Well, now that you realize it, fight for your brother next to you, because otherwise you'll both die. War may be a racket, but that doesn't mean the soldiers fighting it are racketeers.
Yes I have nothing better to do with my life than take a year long time out to violate the people of Iraq... If you want to talk about violation, let's be honest and talk about what Saddam's troops were doing to the Iraqi people before we got here. I am unsure how you perform the mental gymnastics it will take to equate the two, but I am sure you will find a way.
(Please feel free to strengthen the arguments in this off-topic post.)
In order for the U.S. military to operate effectively, there must be strength in the chain of command. Following orders is critical, dissent cannot be tolerated .
Therefore, it is up to the non-military citizens of the U.S. to provide a check on the transient civilian military leadership (president, vp, sec defense).
This is nominally the job of the U.S. congress. But when the dominant party in congress is the same as the party controlling the white house, congress is very unlikely to act responsibly with respect the their oversight of the executive branch.
FURTHERMORE:
Bush/Cheney knowingly and willingly used faulty intel to argue for removing Saddam from power.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld knowingly and willingly disregarded professional military advice for stabilizing Iraq after general military victory.
These acts resulted in the deaths of U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians.
These deaths were preventable, either by not entering into this needless war, or by conducting the war according to professional military planning. People would still die in the event of military conflict, but creating a completely insecure and destabilized country where people die needlessly for years on end was avoidable.
These acts by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld constitute gross criminal negligence and incompetence resulting in death (manslaughter).
So my question for those in uniform is: to the extent to you are allowed to address these points, what should we (American civilians who are not memebers of congress) do about it?