LUG Pres Resigns Over Military Linux Use 1361
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is carrying the news that the founder and president of Linux Users Los Angeles (LULA) has resigned because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux."
Some people can't handle freedom (Score:5, Informative)
seems to me (Score:2, Informative)
Who the heck would want to hire him. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
The politicization of everything. (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of an obsessive compulsive form of political activism and the net effect is to annoy the crap out of everyone and make one's political beliefs look silly.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Informative)
Two years ago, I visited London. Outside of the parliament were huge signs demanding an end to the sanctions against Iraq. Why? Appx. 1,000 Iraqi children were dying each week, and that's only children age 2 or younger. The overall numbers of actual humans dying were a fair bit higher. Since the war started, www.IraqBodyCount.com (Full disclosure: An anti-war site which produced a rather inflated count, at least for a while) claims that, as of April 21, 2004, a min of 8897 and max of 10747 civilians have died. Seeing as the war started over a year ago, I'll round the number of weeks down to 52 weeks. Taking a likely inflated number, dividing by a known deflated number, and I get 207ish people dead a week. Yes, this is a horrid number. Look at it. Realize that each of those 207 people had a family, friends, and a life. Now look back up. Sanctions were killing five times as many people.
What seems to be advocated is a preference for death by inaction, rather than death by action. I'd honestly like to know, why is letting 1000 some odd children die because some asshat tyrant can't be trusted better than having a fifth as many die, while granting freedom and independance?
I am one of those engineers in SWA using Linux (Score:2, Informative)
The way I look at it:
1) I am saving tax payer dollars
2) I am accomplishing my mission
3) If my efforts in any way help the soldiers to communicate with their families or perhaps prevent the death of a SM, then whatever technology I use to accomplish that mission is fine by me. My duty to my country is first, regardless of personal opinion or politics. Everything else is secondary...
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. is not a direct democracy. The Federal government is a creation of the "sovereign states," and a number of its officials are elected by the state legislatures. The president and vice president, for example, and originally, senators.
So technically, your vote for President matters exactly as much as your state legislature chooses to allow it to matter. States can send delegates to the electoal college using any rules they want, more or less. Your state could, for example, choose to not follow the "winner taks all" rules, and send delegates proportional to the popular vote.
DOD abides by the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Where does he come off with the statement "...I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL." Let me tell you something-we bend over backwards to abide by license restrictions. I can't even download a shareware program (when we deal with Windows, not too many in Linux) copy without demonstrating we've paid for it. I understand the idea of "free as in beer", but I also understand "free as in speech". Speaking of free [rant]haven't people heard of the "Freedom of Information Act"? Just in case you haven't, click here [usdoj.gov]. If you want to know what software we're using ask us! Don't just sit in your field of daisies whining and complaining about things of which you know nothing. And, (just so you know I know what the GPL is) you can't have the modifications I've made to the machine in my office. Why? Because I'm not distributing it...if I was, yes, you can have my source code.[/rant]
Before throwing stones at that "big glass house", realize that much of it is glass. You can see in it (well, maybe not the utility room...well, not that closet either..never mind) more then some company that takes GPL code, puts it in their router, then sells it. That would never happen.
Re:Don't blame the military. (Score:3, Informative)
(Or at least everyone but Bush doesn't. For some reason no one cares that he deserted. You or I would go to jail.)
Could you post a link to the facts that prove this? It was debunked weeks ago... unless you are a mouthpiece of Kerry, who voted for the war and then refused to fund it putting himself under condemnation of his own previous statements.
Common... lets get our facts down. Dispite the pittiful content of Air America there are a few (though not many) liberal talk show hosts who deal with reality. If you are in the NYC area there are some very good ones on late in the evening on 770am.
Bush is far from perfect, but can we at least criticize things he really did?? Can we also criticize things that we can positivly an alternative action to?? No, no, can't do that. We might learn somethin' and I just wanna drink my nice partisan koolaide under the careful dispensation of Mr. Franken or Mr. Savage. Don't want to listen to John Bachelor or Sean Hannity, two rather able broadcasters on opposite sides. Might learn something about my own beliefs.
Sheesh...
Btw, I do largly agree with your post above, but the cheap shot at Bush is totally out of place. If you're aware of politics today, you probably are aware that I [intentionally] did not make the obvious reciprocal argument. Gotta keep "you guys" on yer toes... and I don't think it should be a major issue. That's me, though.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Informative)
Instead Saddam bought Russian tanks and French weaponry."
Please. This is not true.
Iraq did buy French and Russian weapons, but it was well before the sanctions. Well before the invasion of Koweit. In fact, this was before Iran-Iraq conflict. The very beginning of the 80's.
At a time when US did consider Iraq as a friend (remember those Rumsfeld/Hussein pictures).
I know that you watch FoxNews. Ok. But please remember that sometimes they have troubles with the very idea of 'exactness'.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
Remember. The French, Germans, and Russians all had vested interests in keeping Hussein in power. Their arguements were not "He might not have WMD's", but rather "The Inspectors should disarm Iraq of WMD's". The Chinese had no vested interest, nor a host of other countries, and their intelligence agencies all reached the same conclusion as the US and UK intelligence: Saddam almost certainly has WMD's, but we can't prove it conclusively. Keep in mind that Saddam did have active programs. Stockpiles, however have not been found, though that does not equal proof they did not exist (There was significant border activity with Syria that they could have been transported out).
So why would all these different intelligence agencies reach the same (Now it looks possibly wrong) conclusion? Well, that's a more complex question than it sounds at first. The first part is quite simply that Saddam had a vested interest in making it appear that he still did have weapons. Iran was (and still is) a larger, more populous country with a historical grudge against Iraq (And I don't mean limited to the last few decades, or even century). While Iraq had a powerful military, it simply didn't have the numbers to defend itself from Iran if they decided to invade in full force. WMD's were the great equalizer, allowing Iraq to become much more powerful than its number would normally allow.
Second would be an intelligence failure. If the programs were indeed active but non-manufacturing, quite simply most intelligence agencies aren't equipped to deal with that possibility, including the CIA.
Third, Saddam was sending clear signals that he *did* have WMD's, even though he officially denied it every chance he got. Authorizing the use of chemical weapons and distributing chemical weapons gear to troops is a fairly blunt signal. For reasons why he, in retrospect, might have done this, see the first part.
That being said, if you want to be mad at the government, be mad at them for not looking at the best interest of your respective country. In the short run, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Japan, Korea, and a few others got shafted big time in one way or another. Whether you view the long term benefit(s) as worth it is up to you, though.
Good solutions. (Score:2, Informative)
In reality- It's a fucking difficult thing to do. Especially when the enemy you're fighting uses human shields. [216.239.53.104] Not to mention every time a civilian dies because they get killed by a mugger or a Iraqi soldier, it's the US military's fault. At the end of the day, any dead people get stuck on the tally of whoever's in charge. (page 53)
Name a couple. Haiti? That went well. Cuba? Afghanistan vs. the Soviets? I dunno who these Taliban people are, but they gotta be better than the Communists. They were also one of the more nerve gassed [hrw.org] nations. People were dead.Ok- so we make Iraq go bankrupt, just like we did to the Soviets. You know what step 1 to making a country go bankrupt is? Economic sanctions.(btw- that's what we were trying to do for 10 years. We tried diplomatic means, didn't work, tried economic means, arguably made it worse, can't influence the population cuz the population isn't in control of shit. So we went to Plan D- take over.)
In reality- Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. No, he didn't top Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, (yeah, our bad) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come in and fix the blood that was dripping from his hands.
Re:pretty much is about oil.... but there's more (Score:5, Informative)
and some of the current regime's heavyweights outlined their plans before they even got into office. Then they did it, they followed through with their plans.
That actually doesn't prove anything. The Pentagon has legions of people who draw up all manner of contingency plans. So some day some guys in the Pentagon sit down at a table and say, "What if Iran makes an amphibious assault on Saudi Arabia?" or, "What if Syria attacks Jordan?" or you name it. Then it goes out to battle planners who look at current military capabilities and make a plan. Part of the report goes to the DLA (logistics) who check materiel requirements against what is stocked and if necessary order stuff to stick in the colossal wharehouse complex in, e.g., Columbus.
So when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 somebody walked aver to a file cabinet and pulled out a plan. Right next to 8,347 others that never got used (thank goodness).
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.warftp.org/faq/warfaq.html#AEN189
That would include the military.
Ignorant ain't ya? (Score:5, Informative)
All we had to do was get the UN to rescind the sanctions. Hell, look at the sweetheart deals that Total-Final-ELF had negotiated back when it was still a French-owned company.
Sorry to go and ruin a perfectly good diatribe with facts...
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
From a CNN article:
A six-month investigation into the overseas absentee ballots by the newspaper concluded that the Republican effort to get questionable ballots accepted had a "decided impact on the outcome," the newspaper said. George W. Bush won the presidency by 537 votes.
The newspaper analyzed 2,490 overseas absentee ballots that were counted as legal votes after the general election, November 7, 2000. It found 680 questionable votes: "ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced," the article said.
The newspaper said it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast, but that "four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Mr. Bush."
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
1960 was a very close election, too (Score:5, Informative)
And if Bush had won the popular vote but Gore had won the electoral college? Damn straight I would have said that Gore was the president. Just as if my favorite football team rolls up 3x the yardage as their opponent, but loses on the scoreboard, then they've lost the game, and I can bemoan the missed opportunities, but the scoreboard determines the winner.
The Republicans did lose a very close election before, in 1960, and you didn't see Republicans whining about the result like the Democrats still are about 2000. And recent analysis even shows that Nixon probably won the popular vote-- due to the Democratic electors in Alabama being half 'generic Democrat' and half for Kennedy; check out this url for details: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4275
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Informative)
News flash for you. The states elect presidents, not the people. Go read the Constitution some time. State Legislatures select the electors for President. They traditionally do it through a popular vote, but can do it any way they like.
Of course, certain people don't want you to know this, because you would then realize that Bush won the election constitutionally the moment the Florida State Legislature declared they were setting aside the popular vote and simply naming the electors for Bush.
But by keeping you ignorant, you become the useful pawn of certain groups who like the throw out phrases like Selected and not Elected.
Re:Maine and Nebraska do proportional delegations (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:1, Informative)
Um, actually, only five of those wise people agreed in that decision.
Five people who historically were very very protective of state's rights.
Yet in this one particular decision, they created a brand new federal right enforcible against the states... the right to have an election's result determined quickly.
And decided that this right was more important than the right to have your ballot counted accurately.
Bush v. Gore was the most result-based decision the court has ever handed down, and it came from the same justices who always decry "judicial activism".
Re:Don't blame the military. (Score:2, Informative)
Unexcused absences can not be made up, and if Bush had received a "U" as we call them, there would be a copy of certified letters to him telling him that he had received a "U".
Another big part of the reason that AWOL does not apply, is that if a reservist or National Guard soldier does not show up for drill, they do not get paid. While not easy, it should be possible to find out if the President got paid during this time period. While a commander may give an "A" for sombody that isn't showing up, they will not code them a "P" and pay them when they aren't showing up.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Informative)
Without the Electoral College a few things would happen.
If there was no electoral college, he couldn't "carry Virginia". To "carry a state" means to win all its votes, which only happens as a consequence of winner-take-all Electoral College.
very rarely lose their home state.
Again, you are somehow assuming that winner-takes-all would still be practiced without EC. But elminating that practice would be the most important result of abolishing EC! (Yes, that practice could be removed while keeping the EC, as two states have already demonstrated)
In reality, removing the Electoral College would mean that canditates don't campaign by state anymore, but by region. They'd aim for big cities. Rhode Island is small but dense, so it'd be visited. Virginia has large cities which would attract attention, but the rural parts would be ignored.
It's not much, but ultimately the EC makes things a little fairer for the smaller states, which is exactly why it was created.
Wrongo. The real reason the EC was created is that the logistics of counting 50 million nationwide votes in a short time was unmanagable in 1776. They needed to do things hierarchally.
(The reason you give, "fairness to smaller states", is why Senators are nonproportional)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Informative)
A principle which Abraham Lincoln thoroughly demolished. Moving right along...
Re:The reason why proportional voting is bad. (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, I don't have time to refute every little moron who repeats that idiocy. (Short conclusion: "Democracy" and "Republic" are not contradictory terms. The USA is a democracy and a republic. The UK is a non-republic democracy. China is a non-democratic republic. Iran is neither)
But if you're so certain that democracy is a bad thing, why don't you try explaining this to President Bush? He's sending 100s of soldiers to their deaths to bring Iraq the gift of democracy.
Re:the blood is on all of our hands (Score:3, Informative)
Kill, in modern english, is an all encompassing verb that covers taking life in any form. For example, look at the following two statements:
"The bank robber killed the teller."
"We killed our old lawn, so that we could lay down new sod."
Clearly there are two different concepts being conveyed in these examples. I would certainly hope that you are not implying that God would be opposed to the latter example.
Kill, as we currently use it, would be expressed in hebrew through the word "harag". The sixt hcommandment, however, use the word "ratsach", which is a completely different concept.
Ratsach is used only a few times in the Old Testament. (Judeges 20:4, 1 Kings 21:19, 2 Kings 6:32, Job 24:14, Ps 62:3, Prov. 22:13, and Hos 6:9). Based on the context of these verses, most scholars believe that Ratsach is more akin to our word for murder.
While quite a few special interest groups have taken the 6th commandment and used it to support their cause, in doing so they overlook the multiple instances in the bible in which God condones or commands war, animal sacrifice, and capital punishment. In other words, the argument contains no internal logic.
Full text of resignation e-mail (Score:4, Informative)
Not just unhappy with the military (Score:4, Informative)
It seems (from the email snippet) that he resigned because of some disillusionment with LULA the Linux community in general, "My one regret is that more and more it has become an insular collection of geeks..."
or
"I feel that Lula no longer reflects the vision I have had for it and has in fact belittled itself as an organization for change and progress."
Granted, the email wasn't completely presented, but one would imagine if there were more to the war issue, that would have been reported instead. But then, "I'm Tired of Being in Charge of a Group of Detatched, Narrow Geeks.", really isn't news, is it.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open Source Defense Projects (Score:2, Informative)
Get a Grip - Read My Whole Statement (Score:1, Informative)
NewsForge and Slashdot could have provided a link to the source but it seems in this case they elected not to give you full access.
My point is that there are times an issue must be raised in every quarter. The United States is massacuring people in Falluoja today. That makes this one of those times.
Last Word For Tonight (Score:2, Informative)
"NewsForge is carrying the news that the founder and president of Linux Users Los Angeles (LULA) has resigned because of his opposition to the war in Iraq"
If they had stopped right there they would have been technically true. As I said in the email anti-war work is a higher priority in my time now.
"and the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux."
If had they said "And he is opposed to the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux in Iraq" That also would had been an accurate statement.
But they mangled everything together to give the impression that I resigned from the executive of Lula because the miltary uses Linux, which is stupid. And then they forgot to include a link to the piece [linuxbeach.org] they were summing up.