As a SUN employee, it is good to hear feedback that documentation and tools fill the needs of part of the community. Computers are obviously complicated general purpose tools, and thus will have a wider range of uses than your average physical artifact. Managing complexity can be accomplished by increasing options or by decreasing complexity. Clearly trouble occurs when tools conquer complex problems with little flexibility, or when they force too many decisions to accomplish a simple task: ease of use is diminished in both cases. Often times the cost of training a person to use a complex computing system outweighs the gains won by a more efficient or reliable system. For some people, ease of use means a system they don't need to administer and can replace cheaply, while others may want or require minute control of every aspect of the system. In the end, the decision on TCO must factor in reliability both in terms of the hardware/software and the wetware of the admins and end users. When making these decisions, it is best to remember that it is not the right tool if you can't learn how to use it.
Sarcasm aside, I feel this country stands for freedom (including freedom to be narrow minded) and thus it is likely you I have vastly different ideas about what constitutes "the enemy". I hope we can come to a place where we can incorporate a variety of other mindsets into our moral dialogue (note this is coming from someone who got check-minus in "plays well with others)
I can't be completely sure that your argument isn't simply satire, however I will offer an answer in case it is not.
Having read the article thoroughly, this startling news shows the flaws in the brewing Open Source Zeitgeist that is gripping the software community. Have you considered that providing software for free to countries such as China is essentially tacit support for oppressive regimes?
It does not follow that from having read the article that your argument makes sense, in particular, the fact that you read the article is completely irrelevant to the remainder of your argument.
Far-fetched? Think about it: With MySQL, the People's Army will now be able to do multiple queries on their tables of democratic activists in Olog(n) time instead of lengthy searches in card catalogs. The bureaucratic overhead previously allowed activists enough time to flee the country. How about building cheap firewalls so the people can't get the unbiased reporting that CNN provides? Or using Apache to publish lists of Falun Gong people to their police forces instantly? I doubt that never crossed your minds when you were coding away in your parents' basements. Consider putting that little thought in your mental resolv.conf file.
Your argument is absurd. It is patently obvious that databases, firewalls and web servers are not designed for the purpose of oppression. Even assuming that such tools were designed to oppress people (which is silly at face value), it does not follow that designing open source counterparts to ALREADY EXISTING technologies makes it any easier for a government the size of China to deal out oppression. If you are going to posit these tools are going to be used immorally, there is no reason to believe that fear of simple copyright violation would prevent regimes from using extant proprietary tools to without payment to accomplish the same means.
Think about it: Just because a screwdriver can be used as a weapon in a fight does not mean a screwdriver is an inherently bad thing. Tools can be used for various purposes, some of which are obviously not their primary use. The tool itself is not a bad thing, it is the USER of the tool that should be judged as morally culpable. When a tool author introduces an entirely novel technology into the world, it would seem prudent to make an effort to discern whether or not this technology will more likely lead to harm or benefit of others. In introducing a tool that is not new technology into the world, such a moral consideration is mitigated by the fact that the technology is already available.
If that does not concern you ( which it probably doesn't, since the slashdot.org paradigm is publishing articles about how not to pay for things ), consider something else. When China eventually goes to war with Taiwan, we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck. One of the advantages of Windows never mentioned in the article is the ability of Microsoft to remotely deactivate Windows XP in the case of a national emergency. Thanks to GNU/Lunix, Taiwan will be on a collision course with the mainland in the near future.
Even if I accept your argument that China will go to war with Taiwan, and the further claim that "we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck", it does not follow that the availabilty of open source makes such an action impossible (an EM pulse doesn't check your vendor before rendering your electronics useless). Additionally your argument is based on the premise that outside of open source, Windows technology is the only possible source of command and control capability: this is obviously incorrect. Futher, assume all of China's current military uses Windows exlusively: it doesn't follow thatv everyhting is remotely available to be deactivated. Obviously, if China wanted
Personally I found the parent to be a little comical, but in the way you find clips in America's funniest home videos comical: In a sad, sorry for the person to get clipped in the groin, and ashamed at yourself for finding it funny sort of way.
As for your remarks, while I respect your freedom to speak, I remind you that the closed mouth gathers no feet.
Since all of their arguments seem to be misdirection, how are we sure that their recent downtime isn't just more smoke and mirrors being used to shift the focus away from their total lack of solid arguments?
Slashdot Mirror
As a SUN employee, it is good to hear feedback that documentation and tools fill the needs of part of the community. Computers are obviously complicated general purpose tools, and thus will have a wider range of uses than your average physical artifact. Managing complexity can be accomplished by increasing options or by decreasing complexity. Clearly trouble occurs when tools conquer complex problems with little flexibility, or when they force too many decisions to accomplish a simple task: ease of use is diminished in both cases. Often times the cost of training a person to use a complex computing system outweighs the gains won by a more efficient or reliable system. For some people, ease of use means a system they don't need to administer and can replace cheaply, while others may want or require minute control of every aspect of the system. In the end, the decision on TCO must factor in reliability both in terms of the hardware/software and the wetware of the admins and end users. When making these decisions, it is best to remember that it is not the right tool if you can't learn how to use it.
Sarcasm aside, I feel this country stands for freedom (including freedom to be narrow minded) and thus it is likely you I have vastly different ideas about what constitutes "the enemy". I hope we can come to a place where we can incorporate a variety of other mindsets into our moral dialogue (note this is coming from someone who got check-minus in "plays well with others)
You can't fix stupid.
It does not follow that from having read the article that your argument makes sense, in particular, the fact that you read the article is completely irrelevant to the remainder of your argument.
Your argument is absurd. It is patently obvious that databases, firewalls and web servers are not designed for the purpose of oppression. Even assuming that such tools were designed to oppress people (which is silly at face value), it does not follow that designing open source counterparts to ALREADY EXISTING technologies makes it any easier for a government the size of China to deal out oppression. If you are going to posit these tools are going to be used immorally, there is no reason to believe that fear of simple copyright violation would prevent regimes from using extant proprietary tools to without payment to accomplish the same means.
Think about it: Just because a screwdriver can be used as a weapon in a fight does not mean a screwdriver is an inherently bad thing. Tools can be used for various purposes, some of which are obviously not their primary use. The tool itself is not a bad thing, it is the USER of the tool that should be judged as morally culpable. When a tool author introduces an entirely novel technology into the world, it would seem prudent to make an effort to discern whether or not this technology will more likely lead to harm or benefit of others. In introducing a tool that is not new technology into the world, such a moral consideration is mitigated by the fact that the technology is already available.
Even if I accept your argument that China will go to war with Taiwan, and the further claim that "we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck", it does not follow that the availabilty of open source makes such an action impossible (an EM pulse doesn't check your vendor before rendering your electronics useless). Additionally your argument is based on the premise that outside of open source, Windows technology is the only possible source of command and control capability: this is obviously incorrect. Futher, assume all of China's current military uses Windows exlusively: it doesn't follow thatv everyhting is remotely available to be deactivated. Obviously, if China wanted
Personally I found the parent to be a little comical, but in the way you find clips in America's funniest home videos comical: In a sad, sorry for the person to get clipped in the groin, and ashamed at yourself for finding it funny sort of way.
As for your remarks, while I respect your freedom to speak, I remind you that the closed mouth gathers no feet.
Since all of their arguments seem to be misdirection, how are we sure that their recent downtime isn't just more smoke and mirrors being used to shift the focus away from their total lack of solid arguments?