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."
Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
This person appears to have the thinking skills of a duck. He stops supporting Linux because the Military in using it,
but he still uses the internet which the military helped fund and currently uses.
Is he serious about his outrage or is he just being selective in his outrage and trying to play his leaving the LUG
into an opportunity to get a better job with one of the LA antiwar groups?
As a final note, having Iraq be free is important to our National Defence because, regardless of what those in DC say,
part of the war in Iraq is securing access to vital resources for the American Economy. In other words oil.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yes, he was elected. As spelled in the Constitution, by representatives sent to Electorate College by all of the States of the Union.
One of the states had a problem determining, which group of representatives to send, but the problem was settled according to the laws of the land, and I'm much more inclined to trust handling of it to 9 wise people with decades of legal experience than an enraged geek, whose side happened to lose.
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.
Maine and Nebraska do proportional delegations (Score:5, Interesting)
However, Maine only has 2 districts (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska 3 districts (5 evs), so in practice it doesn't really matter much, but I wish more states followed this system. Unfortunately, states that tend one way or another wouldn't want to switch to this system, since it'd hurt the candidate that's more popular in that state (California wouldn't want to take 20 or so of its 55 and hand them to Bush, e.g.), and states that are battlegrounds would be less of a battleground under this system, and thus would get less political attention. Nice idea, nevertheless.
Re:Maine and Nebraska do proportional delegations (Score:5, Insightful)
The people are an ass. Half of the US population doesn't even believe in evolution. Racist, genocidal leaders have been voted into office throughout the world (Milosevicz is just one off the top of my mind, Mussolini was another.) With our collapsing public education system, I see democracy being even less viable as a form of government for anything more than local concerns.
A semi-educated population can't support a democracy. There are 2 democracies in the Middle East: one is an ethnic-religious state and the other a theocracy.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was an article in Discover Magazine a few years ago about the the electoral system that we use. As it turns out, your vote counts more in a system like this.
Let's assume that one guy is ahead by 10,000 votes. Your vote does not mean much at all.
However, in Florida, each and every vote was worth a LOT!!! Only a few votes either way in this state could swing the election! Maybe the next time, it will be YOUR state which is close, and YOUR vote will be worth it's weight in gold (I know, paper does not weigh much, it is a metaphor!)
The current system was set up by very wise people two centuries ago. I think that they knew what they were doing, even if there is grumbling from the masses occasionally.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Electoral College Votes by State [fec.gov]
Population by State [census.gov]
Without the Electoral College a few things would happen.
1. The Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine, D.C., Alaska and Delaware would never see a candidate campaign in their state. They would be completely irrelevant. Carrying Virginia would completely invalidate losses in all of those states.
2. Every ticket would have a Texan, Californian, or New Yorker on the ticket. Politicians from the aforementioned states would be completely ignored. And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
Wyoming accounts for roughly 0.1% of the nation's total population, yet it makes up 0.5% of the Electoral College. California accounts for roughly 15% of the nation's total population, but only 10% of the Electoral College. It's not much, but ultimately the EC makes things a little fairer for the smaller states, which is exactly why it was created.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
The biggest irony about the 2000 Election is that Al Gore lost in his home state, Tennessee. If he would have won there, Florida would not have been an issue. Gore would have had enough electoral votes even with Florida going to Bush.
As far as staying on topic, I feel it is bad form to resign because the Military is using Linux. Even if he believes that invading Iraq is wrong, our Soldiers deserve the best equipment possible. After all, it's not G.W.'s ass that is getting fragged over there, it is the the Men and Women that are in uniform that face the bombs and ambushes.
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:4, Insightful)
They did know what they were doing. They were creating an electoral system designed for a country which it took several days to send information across. This was done by each state electing representatives who would then go to the capital and select a president. Now, however, you are not voting for your representatives, you are voting for the people the representatives will vote for (since it is actually feasible for a presidential candidate to campaign in every state in the run up to the election), which makes the representatives somewhat pointless.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Informative)
A principle which Abraham Lincoln thoroughly demolished. Moving right along...
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I happen to agree with the people who view Bush's election as flawed because of the supreme court desision. Here's the catch though, it would be just as flawed if Gore had won by the decision of the supreme court to support his cherry picked recounts of only a part of a state. That is the essence of the issue. What really pisses me off is when Gore supporters assume that him winning would have been "right", nope the supreme court's decision's only constant is that almost half of the people wouldn't like it.
As far as handing over the office because of a popular vote loss to the other candidate. A president who did that would be in my mind guilty of treason. The constitution must be followed, if it is allowed to be disregarded you start your way on the path to ignoring more and more of it and losing intent and ability for it to act as the charter by which we are governed. It has already been eroded on too many fronts. Blatant handing over of political offices by candidates to other candidates is a recipie for disaster.
The only thing the president can do and should be able to do is resign leaving the VP to assume the role of president, who can resign and give the role to the speaker of the house. Any other way is just plain wrong.
Oh and btw the LA LUG president is an idiot. If you believe in GPL software, you must BELIVE in GPL software. That means anyone can use it, even people you don't like.
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:5, Interesting)
One party strives for power, the other lusts after it, near I can tell.
Both are meatpuppets for rich interests, while feigning populism.
Gimme Jesse the Body in '08.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem, you credited your source wrong. Credit should be given to "1,000,000 idiots who think this line is clever.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually (as you pointed out,) one of the core concepts of the GPL is that you can't enforce such restrictions and have a GPL compatible license. By definition, how can you restrict something which is supposed to be free, as in freedom?
The major problem with things like this is the fact that the belief held by the majority/ones in power isn't always the right one. Usually there is no black and white right or wrong. In fact, enforcing your beliefs upon others is (in my opinion) often, but not always, worse than a live and let live style attitude towards stuff you don't understand.
PS. I'm totally not supportive of the war in Iraq, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, now can you?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the answer? There is no answer. Anything can be used as a weapon. That paperweight on your desk: weapon. That water cooler in your office: did you see that commercial where it was a fighting robot?
People should be concerned with why their inventions are being commissioned, especially if they're being hired to design/implement weapons. But they should be far less concerned if they develop something with a significant peaceful use that also gets used by the military. Their word processors, their long underwear and even their music players will end up being used by soldiers at some point.
One more example that is near and dear to lots of us is file sharing. Should the inventors of file sharing be held responsible for its unlawful use? The answer to me is clearly they should not. Gnutella in particular was invented for lawful uses. If we don't thing these people should be responsible for the misuse of their product, why would we think free software makers should feel responsible if their software is misused by the military?
TW
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fallacy of a false dilemna.
Working on nuclear missile guidance systems does not necessarily mean an abrogration of ethics. I personally, could work perfectly ethically on such a system in the United States since its values and ideologies are worth preserving, and a nuclear deterrant is a very effective tool in that arsenal.
Re:The underlying meaning of the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
All other ethical considerations are outside the scope of the GPL and are supposed to be that way.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this guy should not have resigned, he should instead have continued to advocate responsible uses, and ignored the bad uses. remember that all sorts of obnoxious people drive cars, eat food, watch TV..... You can't abstain from something just because some, in your opinion, bad guys also use it. If your abstention might force a change for the better, it might be different, and I would certainly advocate not using SCOundrel Unix right now, but that is a specific commercial product, not a free concept.
I also wonder why the military do not use BSD, or maybe some far-sighted person saw that it might allow a defence contractor to create a monopoly by keeping derived code to themselves? There could have been a contractual means of preventing that happening.
I would actually prefer BSD for this sort of thing (I am about to return to the defence industry, designing safety systems, not weapons) because the development model is more suitable (fewer releases, more closely controlled). Linux is great if you want, or need, to be at the leading edge, more often in military or industrial use a well-established version is more appropriate. My preference for this would have been OpenBSD, or NetBSD for embedded things, although I prefer Linux for general use.
Fuck that shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and there are tons more deployed Windows-based systems in the field then there are Linux (think about that for a second, which would YOU prefer?)
Well he should also stop support sex. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell kind of logic is that?
He should boycott EVERY operating system since you will find an instance of each of them on some military systems nowadays, from Solaris to Windows to Linux to FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
Re:Aaacchh! (Score:4, Funny)
No, you just can't eat the same foods they eat.
If it means never having to eat the [Dreaded/Breaded] Veal Patty ever again, I'll do it.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote reads more like he butted heads with other administrators/board members and decided to make his outrage as public as possible, without providing details.
"change and progress?"
"...country is doing in Iraq..."???
It's a [i]Linux User's Group[/i], bozo, not a political activist's group out to change American military policy. Get a grip!
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true, and maybe his reaction/handling/publicizing of events should be criticized. But politics are not (and should not!) be monopoly of political parties/organizations, handled in parlaments, by politicians. And I'm not talking about corporate politics, but various grassroots efforts; media coverage (indirectly or directly affecting politics); individuals standing up to their principles in political issues. Thus, I would claim that while it's definitely not main agenda for LUGs, you can argue that it's not completely out of question members, or even groups themselves, could and should participate in politics, in appropriate ways. Say, demonstrating against DMCA, petitioning 'your' candiate to get it changed or something else that really does relate to core interests of LUGs.
It all depends on what really happened. If LUG offered help for army, and person who stepped down strongly objects army's war on Iraq, are you claiming he should just suck it up? What if it was RIAA that asked help in creating spyware? It'd still be wrong to get politically motivated and make a stink about it?
Main problem I usually see, WRT to voicing one's opinion, in context of groups, is that it's usually impossible to get consensus on what is their common opinion. In this case I'd guess most members (admins, whatever) weren't agreeing with the guy, and that being part of the reason he stepped down. And in those cases, it'd be wrong to imply LUG (for example) is, say, against war in Iraq; or even implying it should necessarily be.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly sugges he also not only resigns as LUG president but stop's driving FORD,GM and Chrysler vehicles as they all make military components.. Oh wait! Toyota,Mazda,BMW,Mercedes,Porche,and Volvo ALSO make military components!
also he needs to never eat any HERSHEY products as they supply food to the troops over in IRAQ.
The fact this got news is depressing... a moron does something stupid for a stupid reason and it becomes newsworthy??
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
At my campus in the UK there was a campus-wide boycott of Nestle products, because Nestle was involved in a milk powder controversy in Africa, which resulted in death of thousands. So you couldn't buy Nestle chocolate anywhere on campus. But you could buy Walls ice-cream (made by the same company). Similarly, there was a protest because the University owned stock in GEC/Marconi, who produce weapons (among many other things). Same people who called for the boycott were happily using their mobile phones, which use several of Marconi's patents.
Basically, in today's society you cannot effectively boycot ANYTHING without sentencing yourself to the very edge of society -- and the number of people willing to do that is way to small for such a boycott to be effective. So with every penny you spend on bread, water, electronics, or entertainment, you are effectively building weapons, putting people in danger through horrible business practice and lobbying for Draconian laws. Welcome to the brave new world!
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
My opinion
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't use hammers or screwdrivers...they use those in the military.
I don't use computers or clothes or shoes or autos or medicine or
Ok, you get the picture...
Also, you'll notice that he says:
NewsForge: But what does this have to do with a Linux Users' Group? Or do you just feel your time can be of more benefit applied elsewhere?
Claiborne: Nothing directly, and I will still participate in the LUG, just let new leadership come to the fore.
And from the rest of the article, Claiborne really isn't saying he's quiting because the military uses Linux. I think he may have been going in that direction until he stopped and thought how silly that sounds.
The War and the use of Linux in the War are really not an issue. Linux is just a tool. Does the inventor/developer of the screwdriver (if he/she were alive today that is) not want their tools used in the war?
Claiborne seems a bit flakey to me...at least the article makes him seem that way. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but the NewsForge article paints him otherwise.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
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: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?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the UN sanctions Saddam was being given money that was specifically for food and medicines.
Instead Saddam bought Russian tanks and French weaponry.
Mystically people started dying due to disease and starvation.
Wonder how in the hell that happened? Oh no wait, I know, him and his cohorts stole *billions* on top of *billions* instead of giving it to his people.
But it's still my fault as a Westerner that Saddam has a fetish for tanks instead of penicillin and bread.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US could have made a case for the war based on that principal, but they didn't. They had to use scare tactics and lying to try to make us do something out of fear instead of doing it because it was the right thing to do. That's why I'm mad.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
You make a good point. But like the anti-war freaks you forget that best estimates are that Saddam murdered between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his ~20 years in power. That works out to between 50,000 and 100,000 per year, or about 1,000 to 2,000 per week.
It's interesting to note how the press has constantly minimized this. Before the war there were varying estimates, but now the numbers I see quoted in the press as Saddam's murder tool are just the numbers of bodies already found in mass graves (~300,000 I believe), as if that's really it and there are no more anywhere. I remember the shock I felt while reading an editorial by an anti-war columnist, when the writer, in the course of admitting that Saddam was a pretty bad guy after all, referred to "thousands of Iraquis killed and hundreds of thousands repressed". NO, jackass, it's millions killed and 10s of millions repressed.
Logical fallacy & an emotional appeal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, I see you are attacking the problem with utilitarian ethics. Consider this: The time and resources spent saving those '1000 children' in Iraq might have saved 10,000 children in north or central Africa. There are men far more evil than Saddam Hussein running around in the world today, and we collectively care little about them.
I'm sorry, but your emotional appeal is nothing more than a very weak justification. If the US actually cared about 'freedom and independance' it would not limit itself to helping strategically important countries while abandoning the useless places to misery and death.
===---===
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Well, there are two sub options to this. How do you define 'careful'? Take it slow, allow the Iraqi Republican Guard to react, and drag the war on probably more months, possibly resulting in even more deaths because the operation couldn't be hastened preventing the Republican Guard from entrenching in Urban population centers (You think it's a mess now? Imagine if the regular army survived in the cities, command structure and all)? Or do you define it as completely avoiding civilian centers altogether, thus eliminating many high-priority targets from the contest all together? I mean, let's face it. The US did a bang-up job of NOT killing civilians, given how densely populated Baghdad is.
D) Oust Saddam without invading. Hate to break it to you, but it works in other countries because they don't have a massive military. Iraq, pre Gulf War, had the fourth largest military in the world, behind only the US, UK, and Russia. Post Gulf War, it was still nothing to sneeze at.
E) Before we decided to impose sanctions, Saddam freely gassed the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and Iranians to the east. After the sanctions, the Kurds were basically autonomous and their living conditions improved *greatly*. The Shiites, who still were controlled by Saddam, simply started getting killed by lack of food and medicine, rather than bullets and bombs and gasses and poisons.
F) For one thing, the regimes in those places collapsed due to total economic ruin. Iraq, on the other hand, sits atop the second largest proven oil reserve on the planet. The French, Germans, and Russians would not stop trading oil, as it was too profitable to each (Especially the Russians, who are cash strapped as it was).
I'd like to take this time to point out that many people will look at my response to F) and think: See! The War was about Oil! On the contrary. Oil is thrice removed from the equation. This war was about stability, Iraq being an unstable and powerful country is a dangerous mix. Iraq was powerful because they were rich. Iraq was rich because they had oil. It would be no different if they were rich from Industry, Oil, or some other natural resource. To see the damage a powerful unstable government can do, look at the mess the countries you listed in F) left. Nuclear Weapons for sale (Hell, a few years back, somebody in Miami Beach, Florida, USA was arrested for trying to sell a Russian Nuclear Warhead), Biological research either unguarded or up for sale to the highest bidder... I think you catch the drift.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Invade Iraq and not kill so many civilians by being much more careful
Invade and 'be more careful'? Do you have any idea how 'careful' we have been in comparison to other armed conflicts? Yes, mistakes happen. But far, far less than in previous wars.
Here's a combat dilemna for you:
You're flying along, and your threat radar picks up a signal from the ground. You're being targeted with a SAM radar. You assess the area, and discover it's in what appears to be a residential area.
Do you:
A) Shoot back and maybe kill some civilians that may or may not be in the area, or
B) Don't shoot back because civilians might get killed.
If you don't take out that SAM site, you may get shot down, or the transport plane bringing in food supplies an hour later might get shot down.
What do you do?
D) Oust Saddam without invading Iraq (we do it all the time in other countries)
How, exactly? Assassination? It's not like they had a valid election process that could be influenced.
E) Lift Sanctions. Before we decided to impose sanctions after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was one of the more prosperous nations. People were fed.
How quickly we forget why those sanctions were put into place. To prevent Saddam from using his considerable oil wealth to buy and develop new weapons. The sanctions could have been removed at any time, had he complied. The choice was all his.
OBTW, it was UN sanctions, not US.
F) Find a relatively peacable solution to ousting the current regime. They do exist. For reference, see 1989: Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia and 2002 (?): Serbia.
Completely different situations. The fall of Communism in the former Warsaw Pact countries came about only after 40+ years of Cold War, and they fell apart due to internal pressures and the inevitable failings of Communism. That wasn't happening anytime soon in Iraq.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bomb that was set off, not by the US military, but by the sort of terrorists and miscreants they are fighting against. It's important to make that distinction.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free use is the whole point of free (as in speech) software. If you have Free speech, that means the racists are free to decry blacks and the anti-semites are free to rail against Jews and a whole host of thoroughly unpleasant people are free to say thoroughtly unpleasant things. If you have Free software, anyone can use it. Ths US Government can use it to track target data and plan air strikes. The Chinese government can use it for firewalls that block access to web sites they oppose. Terrorist can use it to build clusters that run physics simulations to assist in building a nuclear bombs. The only way to stop it is to stop Free software, and it's doubtful that that would be even marginally effective.
And he is blaming the tool. A knife can be used to sever someone's bonds or to kill them. A baseball bat can be used to play a sport or to bash someone's head in. Linux can be used to fight a war or to enable a poverty-striken African village. You don't blame the knife or the bat or Linux if it's used in a manner you dislike. You blame the hand that wields the tool.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Funny)
Like the air? Air is used by all the internal combustion engines in tanks, and is breathed by soldiers. Fighter jets use it to create lift!
I have an idea, maybe he should stop breathing....
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
You think it takes a pansy ass baby to express dissent in a country where dissenters are regarded as unpatriotic and verging on the treasonous? I disagree. I think it takes a lot more bravery than it does to just go along with the herd -- even if he does happen to be wrong.
Also, it must be nice to have the ability to take and leave jobs at a whim for such stupid reasons in a job market as poor as this one.
What on earth makes you think that the president of a Linux User Group is a salaried position and not just a shitload of unpaid work?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to respectfully disagree with your hypothesis that some form of technology might be able to "solve" the social problem of violence, or any social problem for that matter. History has shown us that no amount of technology can change the general tendency of a human being to put himself and his desires above those of another. Sometimes upbringing or religious belief or something of that nature will allow a person to choose to sacrifice something for the better of his fellows, but no technology has ever done that. The reason for this is that violence and selfishness and greed and all the "bad" things (which is an interesting discussion in and of itself - "who defines good and bad?" as a previous poster in this thread put it) are internal to a person where technology can only affect the external. Technology won't stop a man from beating or ignoring a wife, won't stop a child from sneaking around behind parent's backs, won't stop people from wanting what other people have, won't stop people from abusing power.
The only way I can see technology doing this is if somehow we become inhuman cyborgs, programmable to do something decided by someone else, and completely lose our free will. While in one sense this might be considered good - "it will be impossible for people to murder or rape or steal or cheat or lie" it is a taking away of something which makes us human; it would be an empty victory (if you could even call it a victory).
If you have any examples of how technology has actually eliminated any human issues, I'd love to hear them; I'm not talking about preventing disease or things like that, but social problems such as poverty (sometimes people choose poverty, believe it or not), unrest, greed, or violence. Technology can give us better conditions for some things, and generally make us less affected by our environment, but technology does not make us less affected by our selves.
I wish that I could have a more optimistic outlook on this, but the world is not a place which breeds optimism on a broad scale. I wish that technology could "save humanity" but that's not what humanity needs. I believe that there is a possible salvation for people though - but it lies in the even more mock-target realm of religion, and even more so because I believe there is only one Way (rather than the popular belief that there are many ways - but how often is the popular belief the correct one?).
At any rate, I applaud the LULA ex-pres for acting on his stand, rather than just paying lip-service, although it is a somewhat impractical gesture (because it likely won't effect any change).
The military uses Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Applaud (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they are stupid.
Ain't America great!
What would he have done? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad they're starting a LUG in Baghdad and I'm glad Hussein is gone. I just don't think it had to cost maybe 20K Iraqi lives and how many Americans' so far.
He's glad Hussein is gone, but thought it cost too many lives? I wonder what "cheaper" plan he would have suggested that still got rid of Saddam. At least he's not one of those people who think Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. What are the mass grave numbers up to now? 300,000 bodies?
Re:What would he have done? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds strange, little hasty decision (Score:5, Insightful)
take a stand, man (Score:4, Funny)
Re:take a stand, man (Score:5, Funny)
"Perhaps he was dictating..."
Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a publicity stunt to me. Doesn't make any logical sense. Just beacause someone is using a tool to help them do something you don't like , that doesn't inherently make the tool any worse, does it?
The article has an extensive interview with the former group's president where he goes on at length about his feelings about the Iraqi conflict. So it appears the stunt was successful.
Drama queen (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it sounds like he guy is just a drama queen. I mean, really, look at this quote. The group is a bunch of dorks who get together to drink soda and talk about computers on Friday nights instead of getting laid, and he's talking about "new leadership coming to the fore". Oh puh-lease. Imagine the lead fry cook at the local McDonald's quitting saying this.
ummmm..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you rather they use windows?
lets see...what else does the military use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly move dude.
Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, who cares? The guy has strong feelings about the war in Iraq. And just because he runs a LUG his opinion is God's word?
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
the blood is on all of our hands (Score:5, Funny)
It's time to repent for the atrocity that we have all committed.
Restrictions on who can use GPL'd software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people can't handle freedom (Score:5, Informative)
there's always MS (Score:3, Funny)
This is what the GPL tries to combat! (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you rather they use Windows? (Score:4, Funny)
Friendly fire
wrong move (Score:5, Insightful)
Its really just another way of saying, "Well things are going the way I want them to, so I'm gonna quit."
Don't give up, fight for what you believe in until you can't fight anymore because someone else stops you.
I understand that there is a human side of this, I know that there are probably a large number of people that know this guy and are going to say what a nice person he is. I have never met him, and I won't argue that, however I still feel as though his reasons for resigning are all the wrong ones and probably shouldn't make national news.
The whole point behind the licensing used for Linux is that anyone can take and make use of the same tools. Its the same concept that inspired PGP. You have to release something into the open so that everyone can use it. That means that the people that you don't want to use it have the same access to it as the people you do want to use it. The philosophy here is that at least the people that you do want to use it can.
Being consequential (Score:5, Funny)
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, he played the liberal media bias well! He got a wide read thread on Slashdot so all the liberals can rally around it and cry "Oh, imoral! Oh, Veitnam!"
As far as protests go, this one is loud and emotional, and that's all protests need to be and typically are. The invalid and unsubstantiated claims to the "morality" of the war just add to the inconsistancies of his view of "Free, but not that free... just kinda free... for stuff I support." He says he doesn't think Linux should be used to kill people which does fly in the face of the GPL (as others have pointed out).
More interestingly, if he can claim the war is immoral, that means he has some absolute authority for morality. I'm too busy to provoke someone who supports him on this board to tell me what that definition of morality is and how they can support it. :D The only answer you will ever get, when you press issues and facts, is black helicopter conspiracy theories about how the president "knew about 9/11," "betrayed this country, he played on our fears," "was AWOL during his service," "snipes Iraqi civilians," "this is George Bush's Veitnam," and on and on and on it goes.
For those in a media vacuum, all of the above accusations came from elected "leaders" of our coutry. Guess how many of them are soundly based in reasion, thought, and reality?
None! (It must be a vast conspiracy...)
But they are so emotionally charged and so outrageous that they get air time (like this story) and folks in the intellectual elitest society of higher situational ethics and the vacuuous contradictory enlightenment of postmodern cotton candy thinking swallow these statements as gospel and run around repeating them until the mildly thoughtful person almost buys into them. And we wonder why the electoral college is still in place...
For the political scientist in all of us, this is the funniest/strangest election year in quiet a while.
GPL & the Military (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I correct in assuming that if the military takes Linux & changes it, they don't need to publish anything if they keep it internal?
Non-discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
John.
Maybe he was just tired of being the president (Score:3, Funny)
"Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains."
it sounds like he just wanted out of the job:
After all, he believes,
So on one hand he is disappointed in how Linux is being used, that he has a vision for the right way Linux should be used, and that LUGs should be the ones to ensure the right way is followed, and on the other hand he's stepping down as head of a LUG. In other words, "I believe it's groups like mine that should lead the way, therefore I'm quitting as leader of the group."
free is free (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy has every right to resign, of course; but hopefully his views ring hollow to the rest of the free software supporters. He is advocating that people with some control use their power to limit the freedoms of others. It's as anti-freedom as the Patriot Act. You can't honestly call your software "free" if you are picking and choosing who can use it. Just as in free speech where no one has the right to silence unpopular opinions only because they are unpopular, no one has the right to decide who can use Linux and who can't. Military, nuns, terrorists, martians: as long as you meet the terms of the GPL (or whatever free license), you can use it.
What an idiot. (Score:3, Interesting)
What does GPL software have to do with the war in Iraq? What does the military's use of Linux have to do with anything related to Iraq?
Nothing.
Sorry, but if you really want to protest something, and involve Linux, then protest China. Sorry, but China has one of the worst human rights records of modern history, and is also, on a national level, one of the largest proponenets of Linux development and use in the world.
But no, Heaven forbid someone he doesnt like uses Linux. Those damned military guys! they should all use SCO UnixWare instead! (evil grin)
Get a grip... there are far more important things to protest/worry about, and do you really think that ANYONE outside a very small group (compared to the rest of the populace of the US) will care that the president of LULA resigned because the Military likes Linux?
Sorry, but while I do have great respect for people with convictions, I liave little respect for people who do the wrong things for attention.
Well that's too bad because.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that the next story will be someone quit because an abortion doctor uses linux.
Or maybe a Democrat?
How about a child porn website hosted on Linux?
You don't have to like free speech, but you do have to live with it...
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.
What if a private person throws a aantrum (Score:4, Funny)
Missing the point as usual (Score:5, Funny)
He probably just got a girlfriend and has to drive her somewhere on Thursday nights.
someone needs to tell it like it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Most hackers won't fit in clearly in one or the other group, but the tension is there.
Someone neutral, but with a reputation (perhaps mr. Perens, perhaps JWZ) needs to explain where RMS stands from and what he stands for, where ESR stands from and what he stands from and so on.
Because whenever RMS pulls his bohemian/hippie/rebel act on BusinessWeek or some people with radical politics try to get Linux associated with their (perfectly fine) stances, they hurt people who are investing money and careers in Business Linux.
We can't, and we shouldn't alienate the public image of Linux from the Free Software/Free Society crowd, but we can sabotage the Business Linux public image with a few well-planned stunts. Should we? I don't think so. When you choose to be against business or military or televangelist use of Linux, you are pretty much contradicting the Free Society stance, as well as the spirit of the GPL.
And, shit, nor IBM, nor some long-haired anti-war activist should be allowed to hijack the spirit behind Linux.
He is wrong on a few levels. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, while I can respect the viewpoints of people who oppose the war, I have utter contempt for people who oppose "the military".
Let me put it this way: No matter where our troops are sent into, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the actions they are in, I would want the members of our armed forces to have every possible advantage we can afford them to get their job done and done with as few casualities as possible. They aren't a legion of faceless oppressors, they are our brothers, sisters, our compatriots and fellow citizens, and are fully deserving of all the support our country can muster.
Nothing gets me angrier than when an addlepated fuckwit like this utter disgrace to humanity decides that "our military" is evil and must be opposed. You can oppose the president, you can oppose the policies of the government, and you can protest both, but don't antagonize a group of people I hold in the highest regard.
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.
Freedom #0 Baby (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the GPL everyone deserves freedom, even those that do things that many do not like. That's freedom people. While not perfect the alternative is much worse.
I'm thankful for the line "Free as in speech."
Is any profession righteous? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he achieved his aim very well indeed.
What a pussy. (Score:5, Funny)
I know how he feels (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I am completely mocking his heartfelt position as being nearly equivelent to my pretended protest.
The LALUG is better off.
Wow this shows the downsides of autism (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow it just goes to show you how head in the sand some people can be.
Hey.. He's got a right Too!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going quit an cry because I don't like who's using my FREE software.
Hey... go work for Microsoft now why don't you... Instead of supplying the Military for the best software possible, lets give them something buggy, secretive, and who knows what else.
Let me step down and NO LONGER promote linux and other unix variations, because I let POLITICS get in the way!!!
Man, get OVER it!!!
Agree with whats going on or not... it doesn't matter. But by NOT promoting linux and playing with your undersized dink isn't going to do the community any good at all....
Hope you enjoyed your 2 seconds of fame... I didn't know your name before, but I do now... and I'll be sure never to hire you to help my corporation out! Maybe you'll leave because I hurt your feelings by making you try and meet a deadline!!!
grrrrrrrr.....
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:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A reasonable decision (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what a military is for, in some sense. Better to blame the politicians in charge for their failures or directives. At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
I find it impossible to blame the military as a whole for their actions. Bush, on the other hand, I can lay all sorts of blame on.
Re:Don't blame the military. (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree with you more and am amazed that your post is currently marked "troll".
Members of the US military do not get to pick and choose their assignments.
The don't get a letter in the mail that says:
"Gee guys, we're going to war. Anyone who wants to help can, but feel free not to show up if you don't like it."
(Or at least everyone but Bush doesn't. For some reason no one cares that he deserted. You or I would go to jail.)
My point is: Don't blame some poor marine for the war they're fighting.
Unfortunately many people don't get it. Back when I was going to college in Ithaca, NY there were a number of protests in front of local military offices. One of the officers wrote a letter to the editor expressing pretty much this sentiment:
We (the military) did not choose to fight this war, your elected representatives did. You should be protesting in front of their offices, not mine. Why work at demoralizing people who've signed on to protect your life with theirs and have no choice, when you could protest those who actually made the decision?