Slashdot Mirror
Cuba Launches Own Linux Variation
willclem writes "According to Reuters, it seems that Cuba has launched its own variation of Linux in order to fulfill its government's desire to replace Microsoft operating systems. 'Getting greater control over the informatic process is an important issue,' said Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes, who heads a commission pushing Cuba's migration to free software."
That is to say, that's one of the smarter things I have heard about a government lately.
Since when is russia a communist or socialist country?
I am from Finland so I think I dont have your mindset. Could you explain to me, why exactly would we ever want to hope that. Cuba isnt any threat to the safety of the world or anything...
The embargo is only between the U.S. and Cuba. They no doubt buy from another country, and there's no real reason Microsoft would want to lose them as customers. Corporations aren't really moral entities with benevolent scruples about freedom of the press, good vs. evil, etc.
Looking at the record of foreign policy, privacy, and civil liberties in this country, we also have to ask ourselves if we really have the moral high ground to make judgments about other countries like this, as well. When was the last time Cuba started an international conflict? The expression "Physician, heal thyself" springs to mind.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
Still the same AC here... I hope you arent referring to Cuba Missile Crisis, because that indeed was very long ago. Even if you arent and there has been something later than that, it is hardly a valid argument. Doesnt USA target numerous countries with nuclear missiles? And support more countries that have those?
I can tell that there are a lot of people who are more worried about Israel than Cuba, seeing Cuba isnt even very militaristic country. Why in hell would they fire a missile to a country they cant invade? Just because they are (nearly) communists and thus evil?
If you wish to not answer because of it would take this too far offtopic, I can understand that and not automatically assume that you somehow lost. Just felt the need to mention that at least over here, I have never heard that Cuba would have somehow threatening imago.
I agree that the connection of open source with Socialism in peoples minds and the negative effect this could have on its adoption worries me.
Beyond this though I am sick and tired of the irrational fear of socialism in the United States. Im not saying lets become the USSR that obviously did not work out so well but we are still stuck at a point were it is impossible to have rational discussion about anything that gets labeled as socialist. Its a giant hypocritical mess. Look at public roads thats a beautiful example of socialism central to our society.
I think generations of Americans have been conditioned/brainwashed to attack at the first mention of the word socialism before considering what is being proposed. The irony of it all is that public schools the major institution doing this brainwashing is a socialist model.
I don't believe that socialist systems work everywhere. I am a fervent capitalist and believe in designing free markets with appropriate incentives. All I want to do is be able to have a rational debate about plans that might contain socialist components without people freaking out.
Well, if they aren't worshipping a god, looks like they are free already.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
So now Cuba has free software but not free people? It's a strange world we live in.
-- Cheers!
The U.S. was the aggressor. If it hadn't tried to invade Cuba, this crisis would have never happened. Cuba's decision to allow the Soviets to put a missile base in Cuba was a result from the Kennedy administrations attempt to destabilize them. The Soviets were putting missiles in Cuba because we had them next door to them in Turkey.
The "grudge" the US right holds towards Cuba has to do with the fact that they hold the belief that because Cuba is next door the US has the right to determine the type of government in Cuba. This is the same "problem" they now have with Venezuela and Bolivia.
Public schools are a socialist model, as are the police, the justice system, the libraries, the firemen or the free-health-for-all (at least in Europe).
I don't see what's wrong with this "socialism" me neither!
(Imagine explaining 'Free as in speech, not free as in beer' in Cuba or China. Or Russia, for that matter, with its open season on investigative journalists.)
Or in the USA for that matter... where you can put away without any trial, any right to contact anyone or even ask them why you were put away... just because someone did not like your name or something. You/We're not that much better. They can only hide it better here. No need for censorship, if you have FOX news.
I just hope they don't close that gap in difference soon. Because they work very hard on it.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Sorry, I just have to contribute my 2 cents regarding this statement.
In the old days, capitalists were the people who owned the means of production and simply profited from this ownership. The Forbes richest people in the world are the people we're talking about. In fact, these capitalists don't even need to actually support capitalism as a great ideal.
Now-a-days every layman who supports capitalism calls himself a capitalist. We lose an important distinction here, and I really think you might be better off by understanding this. Perhaps it will give you some more insight into each system and help you further refine your values.
In a very real sense, you are probably a socialist who happens to support capitalism. For example, do you pay Geico for car insurance (socialist) or do you own Berkshire-Hathaway (capitalist)? Do you invest in a 401k (socialist) or do you own your own investment firm (capitalist)? Do you fly commercial or in a private Lear jet? Do you go to work in the morning or do workers come to your building? I think you see where I'm going.
Anyway, I think it's an important distinction... more details here:
Capital
and here:
Capitalist
But not owning capital doesn't ipso facto make you a socialist. Buying car insurance is a capitalist, free-market transaction.
Besides, most people in the West are capitalists, as they own part of all of either a house or a car. A 'socialist' investing in a 401K with a stock aspect may become a part owner of Berkshire-Hathaway, which is a publicly listed firm.
By your definition, almost nobody is a capitalist as most firms are publicly listed and hence socially owned.
In short, I think the reason the distinction has blurred in usage is because it has genuinely blurred in reality. And a socialist is certainly not the same thing as someone with no money. Just see Polly Toynbee.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Our politicians aren't stupid either. The simply can't afford to piss off their backers, so they end up making all kinds of bizarre and unhelpful decisions in order to please them.
I mean... Fuck. We're well into the trillions now. How big is a trillion? 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. It's a lot of paper.
Here's a question for you... How much capital does a well run bank need?
Answer: SFA.
Under the existing fractional reserve system, banks don't need much money, as bizarre as that sounds. With 700 billion dollars and the existing 10% reserve ratio in the US, the American government could have entirely replaced the existing fucked up banks with clean banks able to lend, and the problem would largely have been solved by now. Instead, of allowing them to fail, they are propping up a bunch of what are effectively zombie banks, as the Japanese government also did. I assume they'll continue to prop them up until they can unload their toxic crap on the government.
Why? Well, have a look at the campaign contributions for that answer. I mean, jesus. Geithner; New York Fed. Do you really expect anything to change?
Oh, btw, you and your children are paying for the privilege.
Deleted
But not owning capital doesn't ipso facto make you a socialist. Buying car insurance is a capitalist, free-market transaction.
True, being broke does not (in and of itself) make you a socialist. I don't think I said it does, my apologies if I did. However, you could be considered a socialist (albeit an unknowing or reluctant one) if you need to participate in these co-operative organizations (like an insurance policy holder or 401k investor or job holder) because you don't profit enough from your capital to cover your costs.
Besides, most people in the West are capitalists, as they own part of all of either a house or a car. A 'socialist' investing in a 401K with a stock aspect may become a part owner of Berkshire-Hathaway, which is a publicly listed firm.
This is where the distinction is important IMHO. Simply owning some small part of a company or a house or a car doesn't make you a capitalist (given the distinction). You must own enough capital where you can profit without exchanging your time and labor for money. So, I may own my house and my car and even have some money in the bank... but if I need to go to work in the morning in order to pay for my mortgage, the car loan and my meals... then I'm not a capitalist (even if I subscribe to the ideal).
By your definition, almost nobody is a capitalist as most firms are publicly listed and hence socially owned.
Correct. By the definition I've chosen to adopt, very few people are truly capitalists. I would say you need at a bare minimum of 1/2 million dollars without having any debt in order to remotely qualify as a capitalist in my world. Relatively speaking, not many people have this kind of money. Most people need to trade their time and labor in order to pay for the things that they require to live. I.E. the interest from their investments alone is not enough to survive. Naturally, I'm not a final authority by any means so feel free to disagree.
In short, I think the reason the distinction has blurred in usage is because it has genuinely blurred in reality.
The above is a good point, and I won't argue either way. I think it may just be a matter of how deep we want the analysis to be. My point was simply that if we choose to re-focus the blurred image we may become more enlightened.
And a socialist is certainly not the same thing as someone with no money.
Again, I don't remember making this claim. If anything, I wanted some people to consider the possibility that (after some critical thought) what works best for them may actually be socialism, not capitalism. By no means do I think it should become a holy war. After all, we are each entitled to our own beliefs. Invoking the critical thought process is what I believe to be truly important.
Just see Polly Toynbee
I'll check it out, thanks for the recommendation ;-)
Israel will not get peace unless it's stops it's policy of stealing Palestinian land. Steadily expanding settlements, "security areas" and the like is just stealing by another name.
On the other hand Palestinians will not get peace unless they stop being the world's biggest morons. Shooting rockets at someone a thousand times more powerful gets you invaded and your infrastructure destroyed? Huh, imagine that.
And being "a liberal". Apparently in the U.S. it's best to be a selfish extremist. No room for moderation, tolerance or love for your community.