Slashdot Mirror
Christian Science Monitor Putting OSS at the Helm
Jane Walker writes to tell us that the Christian Science Monitor is becoming quite the proponent of open source. The aggressive nature of OSS was a large part of what drew CIO Curtiss Edge into the fold, it seems. From the article: "But beyond the tangibles like open source code it was the community that made a convert of Edge. Behind all the open code, it was the forums and flexibility that were the driving forces he believes breeds better developers than those that toil away with proprietary code. Open source software makes developers more aggressive and more apt to go out into the communities that exist around the software to find solutions to their problems, Edge said, rather than holding on some proprietary help desk line while tech support looks up the answer."
We all understand your feelings. In 1998, when RH 5.2 was released, you failed at the most basic geek test. You couldn't even install the simplest Linux distro. Your life is in ruins. You can't get any work done, You're not eating properly, your wife is leaving you, the dog won't speak to you etc., etc.
And it's all our fault. Everytime you try to do anything coherent, useful, sensible, constructive etc, etc, like installing BSD or buying a Mac, the anguish of our mocking laughter washes back over you in that familiar hot flush of shame. 'RTFM' comments have destroyed your manhood.
And the worst of it is?
We're still laughing at you.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
You're probably still not getting the dedicated religious content => religious slant angle, so let me elaborate.
I'm going to go out on the limb here and say that the vast majority of religious articles in the CSM and other periodicals with a religious section has to do with the three major Abrahamic religions. To be blunt, the sacred texts of these religions are fairy tales and the vast majority of their adherents take them way too seriously, to their own intellectual detriment and to the detriment of happiness of those around them who do not share their own narrow view of the universe. Not to marginalize the good that has been done in the name of religion--there's absolutely nothing wrong with putting "good" up on a pedistal and praising good deeds when done in the name of religion. However, to put (again, mostly Abrahamic) religion up on a pedistal as a recognized and unquestionable aspect/catagory of newsworthy life lowers that newspaper's level of rationality and openmindedness, at least in my eyes. Even if they do it just to pander to their readers, this means that they are that much less likely to treat religious matters with an open mind for fear of offending said readers. On average, how many articles critical of religion are found in the religious section of the CSM (or any other newspaper with a religious section)? How many times do they say in interviews "yes, but isn't your war on love just a little counter-productive?" or "yes, but wouldn't the secular humanist way of doing things be a little better in this circumstance?" I don't read any religious section, so I couldn't say, but I would hazzard a guess that religious points of view are almost never questioned in any fashion. Compare that to an article in the main section or business section or whatever--those issues typically do get at least a modicum of objectivity.
Anyway, my $0.02, feel free to mod me down now.