it is an amazing demostration of islmaphobia on slashdot. i have always held that at least slashdot retained sanity but i am now compelled to note that without exception every post on this topic has linked islam with terrorism with conviction.
It has been assumed by everyone that Al-Azhar breeds terrorists. Almost all the posts have also implied that all Egyptians are by nature terrorists. And that Islamic punishments are a rule rathar than an exception. While not completely off-topic, i would like to point out that these ghastly mediveal punishments are not carried out by popular demand but by the governments who are considered 'friendly' by USA (like the 'Kingdom' of Saudi Arabia).
For long, USA has maintained a policy of hoisting and supporting kings and despots in these lands. For instance, where was the need to get back the king after Kuwait was 'librated' (they could have declared elections under UN supervision) ? Why has Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan? Why doesnt USA make noise about the gross human right violations in Saudi Arabia? In a word 'money'.
Has Islam been invariably linked to terrorism? Can't the posters even contemplated (hypothetically atleast), the possiblility of Al-Azhar being a moderate religious university?
Does christianity preach violence? Should we link the fact that USA has been responsible for more killings (in war and military action) in the history of the World than any other nation to the fact that it was christian? Or worse, should we simplify and say that all USA citizens are by nature as violent as those responsible for veitnam and Nuking Japan?
It is not only important, but necessary before posting any islamophobic, anti-semitic to look at things from a logical perspective rather than be driven by political ambitions of a few.
more than *nix vs m$, i guess this is about sane designing. the fault lies not in which O/S to use but rather what kind of design to implement.
the most reliable design for IM is ofcourse the one that loads the servers ever so lightly. that would mean that the businesses that run the servers will have little control over their user. this is a business decision that won't go down well with the suits. therefore we have highly centralised IM services.
on the other hand, if the IM servers only gave out the ip/ports of each user to the 'callers', they could handle millions of connection and scale very well.
at the IETF's SIP work group, we are trying to achieve something pretty close to this.
as an enterprise, i will hate to hold a chat conference where all our conference passes through AOL or Microsoft's servers.
The question is why should i develop on Linux. I use linux but for development, i prefer the Visual Studio. the day i get something close to that on linux i will gladly switch. Make no mistake that I like Linux. I like the clean implementation the simple api (i will keep all the mess of ioctl() aside for the time being). the idea is to develop with as much help as you can from the development system. and visual studio does that better than others. those who take pride in doing it the hard way should have stuck to programming with toggle switches on altair systems (something i still do). we are NOT discussing MFC or Windows API vs. Linux (somthing that this discussion has rapidly degenerated to). we are discussing whether visual studio is better than emacs + man + gcc + gdb. i program on visual studio. i very rarely dip into windows specific code. i get by with standard c a fair distance. and i am not talking about any silly stuff - i am right now implementing an edge to edge telephony solution using extensive networking calls. i develop on windows and deploy on linux. all my kingdom for an ide where i can select with shift held down, cut copy paste with control-x,c,v, see the stacks of various threads, place break points with a click. point and see variable values and get help on F1. this is something even turbo c did in 1992.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been assumed by everyone that Al-Azhar breeds terrorists. Almost all the posts have also implied that all Egyptians are by nature terrorists. And that Islamic punishments are a rule rathar than an exception. While not completely off-topic, i would like to point out that these ghastly mediveal punishments are not carried out by popular demand but by the governments who are considered 'friendly' by USA (like the 'Kingdom' of Saudi Arabia).
For long, USA has maintained a policy of hoisting and supporting kings and despots in these lands. For instance, where was the need to get back the king after Kuwait was 'librated' (they could have declared elections under UN supervision) ? Why has Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan? Why doesnt USA make noise about the gross human right violations in Saudi Arabia? In a word 'money'.
Has Islam been invariably linked to terrorism? Can't the posters even contemplated (hypothetically atleast), the possiblility of Al-Azhar being a moderate religious university?
Does christianity preach violence? Should we link the fact that USA has been responsible for more killings (in war and military action) in the history of the World than any other nation to the fact that it was christian? Or worse, should we simplify and say that all USA citizens are by nature as violent as those responsible for veitnam and Nuking Japan?
It is not only important, but necessary before posting any islamophobic, anti-semitic to look at things from a logical perspective rather than be driven by political ambitions of a few.
the most reliable design for IM is ofcourse the one that loads the servers ever so lightly. that would mean that the businesses that run the servers will have little control over their user. this is a business decision that won't go down well with the suits. therefore we have highly centralised IM services.
on the other hand, if the IM servers only gave out the ip/ports of each user to the 'callers', they could handle millions of connection and scale very well.
at the IETF's SIP work group, we are trying to achieve something pretty close to this.
as an enterprise, i will hate to hold a chat conference where all our conference passes through AOL or Microsoft's servers.
The question is why should i develop on Linux. I use linux but for development, i prefer the Visual Studio. the day i get something close to that on linux i will gladly switch. Make no mistake that I like Linux. I like the clean implementation the simple api (i will keep all the mess of ioctl() aside for the time being). the idea is to develop with as much help as you can from the development system. and visual studio does that better than others. those who take pride in doing it the hard way should have stuck to programming with toggle switches on altair systems (something i still do). we are NOT discussing MFC or Windows API vs. Linux (somthing that this discussion has rapidly degenerated to). we are discussing whether visual studio is better than emacs + man + gcc + gdb. i program on visual studio. i very rarely dip into windows specific code. i get by with standard c a fair distance. and i am not talking about any silly stuff - i am right now implementing an edge to edge telephony solution using extensive networking calls. i develop on windows and deploy on linux. all my kingdom for an ide where i can select with shift held down, cut copy paste with control-x,c,v, see the stacks of various threads, place break points with a click. point and see variable values and get help on F1. this is something even turbo c did in 1992.