Slashdot Mirror
Obama Campaign Seeks LAMP Developers
kgamiel writes "The Obama campaign's CTO is hiring LAMP-biased geeks for the Boston office to help elect the Senator in the fall. This got me to wondering, what if he instead announced a SourceForge project toward the same end? What would such a project look like? Tools that both sides could use 'equally' would not achieve the desired end. And philosophically, could the Open Source community support one side in a competition such as this? What other issues does this raise?" Another reader notes that the Obama campaign is also searching for a security expert to plug the holes that allowed a hacker to redirect Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).
It looks like he wants to hire someone competent to run his web server. If I were running for a major political office, I'd certainly want someone competent runing my webserver.
If Obama does make a statement of support for open source software, then that'd give him kudos from me. Open source isn't the unstoppable freight train we'd like it to be, and could use all the friends in high places it can get.
Anything to piss in Microsoft's Cheereos makes me happy.
So, if you want to kill someone the right way, all you have to do is declare war on them? How small does the scale have to be? Can you have a war on one person? Who determines if this is a war? Does things like gang wars count? What about war on poverty, does that count? Would killing convicted monopolists fall under the protection of the war on poverty?
Thanx for any clarification.
Please don't encourage the use of SourceForge for things like this. Not only is SourceForge a dead-end for time-limited projects, it is also full of dead, empty or completely abandoned projects.
A good 60% or more of the projects there have seen no activity at all (because people think creating a project there will automatically write itself), and many projects haven't been touched in 4, 5, 6 or more years.
They've consistently crippled the use of standard OSS tools like CVS, Subversion and Mailman just so they can try to retain control of projects by limiting the ability to use them effectively. They don't support other tools like git and proper MTA support for mailing commits to developers.
Also, quite a few projects have pulled the source to previous releases (a violation of the GPL that these projects were released under; gaim is one of them). Their management of projects and overall administration leaves MUCH to be desired.
Lastly, SourceForge was originally going to be called "Cold Storage", and it was supposed to partner with Freshmeat to permanently archive projects. I've seen many projects vanish from SourceForge, which completely negates the whole policy of its existance.
So while I respect and encourage the use of OSS tools, LAMP, retaining the mindshare of key developers who can help support a candidate they support, I don't think choosing SourceForge to host the project is a wise move.
Do you choose the type of hammer and nails you're going to use, before you draft the plans to build your new house? Do you choose the kind of vehicle you're going to drive before you know your destination and travel route? Of course you don't.
Why choose the hosting service before you've even chosen what kinds of components and requirements the project will need?
Another reader notes that the Obama campaign is also searching for a security expert to plug the holes that allowed a hacker to redirect Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).
If I was an Obama campaign manager I would actually be thankful that happened. People like me, who started off being fans of the Clintons, have gotten turned off to them because of the negative tactics they and their strong supporters have used.
I had a refrigerator magnet that read "Come Back Bill, All Is Forgiven". I just moved and decided not to put it back up. In one day Geraldine Ferraro's reputation was ruined for me.
Can't seem to remember OSS being used by any other presidential candidate in the past, ever.
So, in a community championing OSS, yes, I would say that's kinda of a big deal.
If you take this to its logical conclusion, there's a good chance, if elected as President of the United States, he (or rather his technology people) might be advocating for more OSS within the Government. THAT would be a Very Big Deal (tm).
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Did you forget that after he got his diploma he spent some years as a community organizer? That clearly jives with his speech.
What you quoted doesn't say "make no money, ever." It says "volunteer your time instead of focusing only on money."
I see no disconnect in anything but you and your failure to grasp simple logic.
please drop the mccarthyism shit that has plagued your nation for the last 50 years.
balance needs to be pursued in EVERYTHING in life. if you let big corporations go unchecked like you did in u.s. for the last 50 years, they go haywire like they are doing there. trying to scuttle internet like at&t and bell do, kill small businesses, sell tools and weapons to oppressive regimes, buy out senators, every kind of shit.
if balance is way distorted towards the government in cuban socialism, its way distorted towards megacorporation enslavement in america. you are on the other end of balance spectrum.
Read radical news here
Can you tell me what you think a community organizer is? You seem to think he was out there helping people out and generally being of service to the community. Which is wrong. Look at where he was and who he was working for: the Chicago political machine. His community organizing was all about getting people to show up and vote for the politician of the machine's choice. When he ran for office, his community organizing consisted of getting all his opponents removed from the ballot so that the community had exactly one person to vote for, him.
If you want to talk service, then go ahead and talk service but don't tell the world that pushing class, race and religious division in order to get votes is some kind of community service.
Actually, a big part of it was community service through the Woods Foundation. He also organized voting drives and, yes, supported the candidates of his choice. But as a politically-involved person in Chicago, I can tell you that it's anything but a machine. He was a guy who was extraordinarily good at getting things done and his heart was in the right place.
Your post seems to be agenda-driven in that it assumes that he was "pushing class, race and religious division in order to get votes." But he brought people together then just as he seeks to do as president. The best evidence of that is his Senate election, where he was overwhelmingly supported by people from all walks of life in Illinois. And during the period of time you are talking about, he was working on behalf of the campaigns of others (along with a large variety of other community service programs). Many of these people are still and office today, and tend to be very well-liked by a broad cross-section of constituents.
In response to the question above yours, which is a good one, many of the activities you're asking about overlapped. For example, he was a professor at the Univ. of Chicago Law School during the entire time he was employed on a case-by-case basis by a law firm. Much of the community organizing took place during this period of time as well.