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.
Gives new meaning to the term patch rollup.
Anybody want my mod points?
Seeing as you have to go through great hoops, (most of them not legal), to get anything Cuban around here, how is the Cuban government running american products? I suppose they purchased from south american, european or asian retailers, but one has to wonder, how many legit copies of windows are in Cuba? Can Microsoft go in to sue the Cuban government about illegal copies? What jurisdiction would Microsoft have to keep Cuba from enjoying their cracked copies until communism dies?
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
...but many pirated copies can pass those checks. Have been able to do that for a long time.
And they could have bought computers from some European retailer with pre-installed Windows.
What I am impressed with is a country that just made having personal computers legal is developping Linux distro.
Ever since hearing that, I have been aspiring to move to Cuba after getting my degree in CS. It will be pretty rapidly growing market there in a while.
Somehow I have a hard time picturing penguins in Cuba.
I don't.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If we are voting, I vote for Castrix
-- Terry
Tell me I'm not the only one who expected its name to be Cubuntu.
Since when is russia a communist or socialist country?
Shit, you're worried? A friend of mine has been saying Linux is Communist for aeons.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
I dont see the big deal here. Governments would love to have direct control of operating systems, so that they can place undocumented "features" inside them. Even if they release the source code (which I suppose they have to, theoretically), 99.99% of the users who will be employing their distro will not be able to understand what source code even is, or how to interpret it.
Well, I guess there are still people (the people who are reading this message) who will be able to report any backdoors/home phoning they notice placed into the source, but that will only make a difference provided:
1- Cuba releases the source
2- The distro is popular enough to have people using it
3- People carefully examine the source code
4- Said examiners are able to spot a problem
5- Said problem is heard by the end users of the distro
6- End users of the distro have options as to what operating system they are able to use, if it is mandated by the government, they pretty much have to live with it.
I'd love to see the logo be an image of Fidel dressed-up as a penguin.
I'm pretty sure the guy has a sense of humor. When I was a kid, I was a "shortwave listener" (before I got my ham license) and sent of to Radio Havana (among others) for a "QSL" card, confirming that I had heard their station.
Besides the card, I got other periodic mailings, including a Christmxxxx New Year card one year, bearing the cartoon likeness of Fidel Castro, laid-out on the dining-room table as a pig, complete with an apple in his mouth. I kid you not. I'll bet he had a big laugh.
Wish I still had it - could probably sell it for a bundle on eBay!
(Other "interesting" material I received included a copy of the Little Red Book from Radio Peking, and a subscription to China Pictorial - a beautifully-printed bled-to-edge full color magazine with gorgeous pictures of fields and tractors...)
If it's Red Hat based, I say Sombrero!
Anybody want my mod points?
I vote "Fidelity" or "Fidelix" (Raulix doesn't sound quite right....) ... in honor of the Regime outlasting multiple US administrations...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I said something similar regarding the Russian decision to use Linux. It wasn't received too well. I think that this sort of event truly does mean trouble for MS and proprietary software in a rather large way.
I think that it is more likely that F/OSS developers will beat large proprietary vendors to the punch though. There will be a new market for proprietary Linux software though. When Adobe does port to Linux it doesn't have to be Free or Open Source to run on Linux, but it will be hard to sell software to people that are happy to use the F/OSS alternatives.
It should be interesting times.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The whole thing has been cleverly orchestrated by Microsoft. And when they defeat the red menace, they shall be seen as heroes.Beautiful plan. I wish I thought of it myself.
What?
You are Right. You have red flag in China; The new one in Russia; Various South American states are talking about doing more. Funny thing is, NOW is the time to fire up new apps on Linux. The other companies like Adobe, Intuit, etc are NOT there. A start-up can make a killing by not having commercial competition. As to FOSS beating them to the punch, FOSS works GREAT for OSs and MAJOR apps. But when you have SPECIALIZED apps, like say design a deck for a house, or design your yard, etc. than Commercial really shines; Service, Market or Trade Data, etc. I would not be surprised to see a number of new start up companies around the world taking on these companies because they have the Windows system locked up. That is how it happened on the move from mainframe to DOS and then Windows. The companies that had the mainframe locked up did not move until new and better competition came along.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Apparently that old story just isn't true.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
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.
In Soviet Russia, Russia is a Soviet country!
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Well, if they aren't worshipping a god, looks like they are free already.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
Hey, Americans are dumb (and really, the only place where being "socialist" is something you have to worry about really would be the US). Many probably still associate Russia with communism, even though it was socialist when it was Soviet and hasn't been Soviet for ~20ish years now.
So now Cuba has free software but not free people? It's a strange world we live in.
-- Cheers!
All commercial software I have ever written runs on Linux. Almost all companies I've worked for ran Linux on some or all of their computers. All customers I've worked with ran Linux on some or all of their computers. And most of these computers running Linux ran commercial software.
Linux is already big. Linux is already receiving major commercial support.
The only reason people think Linux isn't big is that it isn't big on the desktop.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
Since when is russia a communist or socialist country?
1917. Just wait a few weeks, I'm sure that kdawson will post it.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
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 ;-)
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.