Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Jesux is a Bad Pun 339

Lots and lots of Slashdot readers have either sent in this ZDNet article or a direct link to the Jesux homepage." It's a hoax, folks. Think: if you were a Christian believer, would you name your Linux distribution something so close to "Jesus Sucks?" The concept isn't even original; variations on this theme have been floating around the Net for years because of Unix and its "kills" and "aborts" and "daemons."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jesux is a Bad Pun

Comments Filter:
  • by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @05:47PM (#1654663)
    ...that the Eunux system for harem and whorehouse management is a hoax, too.

  • There is a reference on the Jesux homepage to emails received from slashdotters, claiming definitively in response that it is NOT a hoax.

    I think their intent to change the names of system calls such as 'abort' pretty much singles this out as a hoax.

  • I changed it to "years." But yes, the Internet had its 30th birthday a few weeks ago. I first logged on to a DARPAnet terminal in 1972. And even then there were jokes about how some Unix commands were anti-Christian.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 27, 1999 @05:51PM (#1654666)
    Designed for penetration! Lightning fast mounts! Cracking supporting with the hhway module! Uses finger as an antering wedge -- you think it's finger, but it's not!

    I have been at work too long ...
  • to provide accurate information, unlike ZDNN. Besides isn't Windows in more need of divine intervention than Linux?
  • Did this originate from the joke about linux users being fundamentalists to their OSS religion? A lot of people have drawn a line between both on many sites including this one.

  • by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @05:55PM (#1654672) Homepage
    Among other things, the GPL specificially prohibits placing additional limitations via sublicenses, so requiring, say, quotes from Scripture is all out. At least that's from a quickie reading (IANAL...).

    If anything, it might be a parody put forth -- a crude dual joke on both those who actually care about or respect religion, and reporters who don't check out the facts.
  • by debrain ( 29228 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @05:57PM (#1654674) Journal
    Lucifux : Latest hardcore fundamentalist Anti-Christ OS available!

    Kill referenced in every man page.
    Killall referenced in every man page.
    Random thread kills. Threads scream in pain when killed.
    Suicide replaces old shutdown command.
    Anal probe replaces ping.
    All threads given daemon privaleges.
    Sporadically downloads and plays Marilyn Manson mp3's.
    CD-ROM drive spins backwards.
    Pornographic links hardcoded into Lynx, the only true fundamentalist browser.
    Software written by heterosexuals or women will only be permitted if they are sent email informing them of their transgressions against pleasure. Mastrubration is a form of pennance.

    Ok, we're all satisfied. I'm going to hell. No doubt about it. But I bed a DAMNED someone out there got a chuckle out of this parody! Extremism with extremism never works, the exception being when one extreme is humour.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The good thing about Linux is that there is interest in the Christian community in using and evangelizing it to their followers. Here's an article [gospelcom.net] in Christian Computing magazine. I suppose they may even discuss this Jesux issue at some future time. And, may be we'll get their take on this matter--is it hoax or is it fact?

    I personally don't see the need for a Christian Linux distribution. I have always felt uneasy about that daemon looking BSD mascot. So, the sooner that's replaced with something else, the better!

  • As a born-again (and Bourne-again (RH 6.0, FWIW)) Christian, I got a few chuckles from the site - but it was REALLY obvious that it was a hoax.

    I think the biggest laugh I got came when I learned that ZDNet was treating it as a serious news story [zdnet.com].

  • Two things:

    1) The obligatory licencing quip:
    Isn't in violation of the GPL to release Red Hat's distro, with changes, under this new license?

    2) The obligatory cluster comment:
    Man, those would make a fine Beowolf cluster


  • What's wrong with the BSD mascot?

    The christian version of a 'daemon' is not that shared by other religions (in particular, satanism). Why should Linux kowtow to any certain faith?

    Forget it. The daemon stays. :>

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • by jcs ( 90508 )
    Linux | Posted by Roblimo on 08:40 PM September 27th, 1999 CST
    from the another-reason-to-dump-Linux-for-freeBSD dept.
  • by zempf ( 4454 ) <zempf@nospam.bigfoot.com> on Monday September 27, 1999 @06:06PM (#1654682) Homepage
    A friend of a friend saw that Jesux page and created the Lucix [unixpunx.org] distro. Same stupid puns, just from the complete other side of the religious viewpoint :)

    -mike kania
  • Why do you imply that it is bad to respect religion. I imagine it is because you have a limited view of religion. I don't necessarily mean christianity either. If you argue about it enough, you could eventually hold that science is religion, if you wanted to. There is no good reason to disrespect an attempt to explain existence just because it exists. Oh well, I am probably overreacting to what you said.
  • Beowolf cluster = congregation

    just wondering (no offense to anyone) exactly how many religious "christian hackers" are there?

    ----- --- - - -
  • by loki7 ( 11496 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @06:09PM (#1654685) Homepage
    This story ahs been floating around the net for a long time (about 6 or 7 years?):

    Linda Branagan is an expert on daemons. She has a T-shirt that sports the daemon in tennis shoes that appears on the cover of the 4.3BSD manuals and The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System by S. Leffler, M. McKusick, M. Karels, J. Quarterman, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA 1989.

    She tells the following story about wearing the 4.3BSD daemon T-shirt:

    Last week I walked into a local ``home style cookin' restaurant/watering hole'' in Texas to pick up a take-out order. I spoke briefly to the waitress behind the counter, who told me my order would be done in a few minutes.

    So, while I was busy gazing at the farm implements hanging on the walls, I was approached by two ``natives.'' These guys might just be the original Texas rednecks.

    ``Pardon us, ma'am. Mind if we ask you a question?''

    Well, people keep telling me that Texans are real friendly, so I nodded.
    ``Are you a Satanist?''
    Well, at least they didn't ask me if I liked to party.
    ``Uh, no, I can't say that I am.''
    ``Gee, ma'am. Are you sure about that?'' they asked.

    I put on my biggest, brightest Dallas Cowboys cheerleader smile and said, ``No, I'm positive. The closest I've ever come to Satanism is watching Geraldo.''

    ``Hmmm. Interesting. See, we was just wondering why it is you have the lord of darkness on your chest there.''

    I was this close to slapping one of them and causing a scene--then I stopped and noticed the shirt I happened to be wearing that day. Sure enough, it had a picture of a small, devilish-looking creature that has for some time now been associated with a certain operating system. In this particular representation, the creature was wearing sneakers.

    They continued: ``See, ma'am, we don't exactly appreciate it when people show off pictures of the devil. Especially when he's lookin' so friendly.''

    These idiots sounded terrifyingly serious.

    Me: ``Oh, well, see, this isn't really the devil, it's just, well, it's sort of a mascot.''

    Native: ``And what kind of football team has the devil as a mascot?''
    Me: ``Oh, it's not a team. It's an operating--uh, a kind of computer.''

    I figured that an ATM machine was about as much technology as these guys could handle, and I knew that if I so much as uttered the word ``UNIX'' I would only make things worse.

    Native: ``Where does this satanical computer come from?''

    Me: ``California. And there's nothing satanical about it really.''

    Somewhere along the line here, the waitress noticed my predicament--but these guys probably outweighed her by 600 pounds, so all she did was look at me sympathetically and run off into the kitchen.

    Native: ``Ma'am, I think you're lying. And we'd appreciate it if you'd leave the premises now.''

    Fortunately, the waitress returned that very instant with my order, and they agreed that it would be okay for me to actually pay for my food before I left. While I was at the cash register, they amused themselves by talking to each other.

    Native #1: ``Do you think the police know about these devil computers?''

    Native #2: ``If they come from California, then the FBI oughta know about 'em.''

    They escorted me to the door. I tried one last time:

    ``You're really blowing this all out of proportion. A lot of people use this `kind of computers.' Universities, researchers, businesses. They're actually very useful.''

    Big, big, big mistake. I should have guessed at what came next.

    Native: ``Does the government use these devil computers?''

    Me: ``Yes.''

    Another big boo-boo.

    Native: ``And does the government pay for 'em? With our tax dollars?''

    I decided that it was time to jump ship.

    Me: ``No. Nope. Not at all. Your tax dollars never entered the picture at all. I promise. No sir, not a penny. Our good Christian congressmen would never let something like that happen. Nope. Never. Bye.''

    Edited and converted to HTML by Dan Bornstein, danfuzz@milk.com.

  • And then there's Heretix, Lunatix, Dominatrix, Dislexix, Paramedix,.... Truly, a distribution for everyone.

  • Oh, I meant no disrespect to religion. {shrug} Not sure where it was implied, but eh.
  • http://www.zdnet .com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,78176-250601,00.html [zdnet.com]

    Hoax? As I wrote in the article, I wasn't sure. I'm still not. I've been given 'proofs' that it's a hoax, but none of them stand up.

    This guy lists his occupation as "Cyber Cynic".

    I feel really stupid for this, but... can someone please explain the humor in chmod accepting hex modes? I just don't get it, and that's frustrating me. Maybe I'll find some caffeine and think about it again.

  • Okay, so ZDNet writers aren't actually journalists, so you can't expect much from them. But their link to the Jesux company's Web page [geocities.com] is rediculous. How many companies host their web page on GeoCities?!?!?

    I think I'll recommend that as a cost-cutting measure at the next company meeting. ``Say boss, I think that outsourcing our company's web page is not cost-effective. Look at all those places where you can get a web page for free!''

    Here comes that promotion!

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe if the daemon were wearing cowboy boots and had a shotgun they would have accepted it.
  • But a hoax nonetheless. C'mon, didn't you figure that out right away? First (and most superficial) they didn't have www.jesux.org/com/net. And then.. a hierarchical file system? It's an interesting idea, may be easy to set up (I could set up premissions like that in NT) but still, it makes one wonder. Speaking of wondering, though, what if it isn't a hoax? Most of the changes wouldn't be too hard (other than changing kill &c) but again, the prominent lack of existing holy E themes should be a clue. Hard to say.
  • But a hoax nonetheless. C'mon, didn't you figure that out right away? First (and most superficial) they didn't have www.jesux.org/com/net. And then.. a hierarchical file system? It's an interesting idea, may be easy to set up (I could set up premissions like that in NT) but still, it makes one wonder.

    Speaking of wondering, though, what if it isn't a hoax? Most of the changes wouldn't be too hard (other than changing kill &c) but again, the prominent lack of existing holy E themes should be a clue.

    Hard to say.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    So don't go joking around at what everybody at slash-dot is using.

    If any of them knew there were using somebody else's Penix, then would immediately throw it out a man would only use his own.

    Don't forget to set up automount when you give your penix to a girl so that it will happen on demand w/o needing to go through the procedure.

  • roblimo, I don't see a necessary correlation to jokes about these things and the fact that this must be a joke. I mean, look at Ross Perot: sometimes jokes are indisinguishable from reality.

    Anyway, I think the name "Jesux" probably wouldn't be used if it were legitmate. On the other hand, they could have just made a bad choice, not noticing that it could be rendered as "Jesus sux". I've seen dumber mistakes than that.

    I actually don't care if it is a joke or not. I mean, what will it change, whether or not it is real? Will we get any less of a laugh out of it either way? Will it change Linux significantly? Even if it is a hoax, that does not preclude people from taking some of its ideas and making a real "Jesux" distribution (with a better name :). It may be interesting to see how it plays out.
  • by extrasolar ( 28341 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @06:20PM (#1654699) Homepage Journal
    Hoax or not, it does bring up a good issue. I used to be a Chrisitian but I never thought that God would care what I did on my computer. I think it seems plausable that God would overlook the creations of His creations. The commandments say "Thou shall not kill" but does that include inanimate processes? What if we develop artificial intelligence? Would it be immoral to kill such a process?

    And is it sin to view porn on the internet? Is that akin to adultery for those who are married? And is saying His name in vain into xterm wrong? what if you said it in a shell script with an infinite loop?

    Is worshipping RMS^H^H^HUnix against the First Commandment?

    I am mostly serious about this. I have never thought that religion and computers have anything to do with each other. But you never know. Anyone know of a way to sin using a computer?

    Whatever the answer, the Ten Commandments are long overdue for a revision.

    Note: I am not trying to be sacro-religious either. I don't mean to offend anyone, it is just my curiousity gets the best of me.


  • So you think you can handle Penix? Ok, big guy - I will call your bluff. I will give you control
    of penix.com, and you create the web site and distribution. It's up to you, but I suggest:
    "Loosely based on the BFD distribution",
    "Comes with the book 'Penix Unzipped'",
    "Available as an embedded system",
    Including utilities like: finger, head, man,
    mount, tail, touch, and uptime.
    Supports frontpage, hard links, ports, and sockets, of course.
    Well you asked for it - get to work :-)
  • by SEGV ( 1677 )
    They missed the obvious host puns.
  • chmod(1) accepts hexadecimal modes, such as 0x01B6

    ..that one was kind of cute. At least it made me stop and think. The rest of the joke blew, mind you, but that was cute.
  • Note that the WHOIS report for 'jesux.com' shows it's registered to "Satan's Minions." And it was just registered a few days ago...

    Found that quite amusing... ya' think someone did that just in CASE Jesux is real?

  • then why don't I see any names etc of the (dist) creators on the jesux page?
  • by plopez ( 54068 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @06:26PM (#1654706) Journal
    Due out any minute now. Be ready!


  • I have never thought that religion and computers have anything to do with each other. But you never know. Anyone know of a way to sin using a computer?

    That's akin to asking if anyone knows of a way to sin using a car. The instrument doesn't sin, the operator sins. If you fornicate in a car, it's not the car's fault but it was intimately involved in the commission of the sin. Computers are tools. The sin is in the use of the tool in an improper manner (like installing NT).

  • Looks like it didn't take long for somebody to claim the domain name. The homepage is last updated on the 24th September 1999. This domain was registered on 24th September 1999 by, believe or not:

    Satan's Minions (JESUX2-DOM)
    330 Washington Blvd Suite 602
    Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

    I am gonna lookup for lucifux and penix next. If you guys have nothing better to do, I suggest you sign up these domain names fast! :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Part of the list of features includes:
    qmail replaces sendmail as the standard MTA (sendmail was written by a prominent homosexual)

    But I don't think this goes far enough to describe how many alternatives would have to be found to classic RedHat (or SuSE or Debian or FreeBSD or DR-DOS or Novell or NT or etc) for the strictly homophobic Christian Coalition [cc.org] supporter to ensure that they aren't using homo-authored/contributed material. I would also like to encourage the Jesux maintainers to pre-configure squidGaurd to ensure that the homo-contributed sections of Apache are never indirectly used by locking out any site which claims to be using Apache in the HTTP header. I have the nessary modifications available but I have questioned my own sexuality a couple times so to ensure the purity of Jesux squidGaurd configuration someone more blessed should make the offical modification. It also states on the list of feature that the Emacs "doctor" has been modified to do "pastor" which is a great feature. But since Emacs is distributed from the FSF with such material as "sex.6" and "condem.6", I would request that the Jesux distribution find an altertive to Emacs/Elisp to run "pastor." I belive the authors of Common Lisp walk the straight and narrow, possibly pastor can be executed by their hevenily enviroment.

  • 'can someone please explain the humor in chmod accepting hex modes?'

    So xtians don't have to type in '666' when setting file attributes.

  • Waittaminnit...

    If I remember correctly, Linux has a fat, happy penguin as a mascot. FreeBSD has a fat, happy, "daemon" as a mascot.

    Now, I know, when I'm wearing my black cape and black make-up, whilst walking around with a severed goat-head on my back is when God-Groupies come up to me and ask "Are you saved?" (and every time, I hold up my horned hand and yell "Yes!")

    And this is what strikes me as odd...

    Wouldn't the Christians want to assimilate the BSD-ers into the "flock" because of the "demonic" logo? I mean Chu.., er, Beastie seems happy enough. Maybe that's just because he's happy about the amount of souls he's just harvested.

    Damn, me and my big mouth. Now, in a week, we'll see pointers to the new FreeG.O.D. O/S. What have I done?

  • I couldn't help it. If you'd been in my shoes, could *you* have resisted the temptation? ;-)
  • by Imperator ( 17614 ) <(ten.reknehsremo) (ta) (2todhsals)> on Monday September 27, 1999 @06:32PM (#1654716)
    init now performs random acts of niceness

    kernel periodically sends GOSPEL messages, which appear on all ttys by default

    /home subdivided by denomination

    alias burn-at-stake='rpm -e --force --nodeps'

    functions of root now split into 3 accounts

    Biblical quotes in /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/motd, and similar places

    xearth replaced by xheaven and xhell

    random numbers a a form of gambling, so /dev/random and /dev/urandom are symlinked to /dev/zero

    CGAN -- Christian Gospel Anti-heretic Network

    serpents are sinful; python will not ship default with distribution, neither will anaconda be used as the installer

  • by Zurk ( 37028 )
    Its a hoax for one simple reason - it has a license thats incompatible with the GPL. You can rerelease linux as a BSD style program, so they cant release it anyway. OF course you cant host 600+megs of linux on a 10 meg geocities account either.
  • ..a bit on the Satanic side for this distro.
  • They can hack out a Linux distro but they put their page on Geocities? I've lost all faith in ZDNet for believing it.

    For those of you who think this isn't a hoax, you should check out my new distro, "Geosux". It's basically Linux, but it wants nothing to do with obnoxious pop-up HTML frames.

  • (disclaimer: IANAC; I am a devout agnostic. also, this references the story posted as a sibling to this post.) Because Christian fundamentalists tend to be stupid, bigoted, and don't know what they're talking about. I know a few fundamentalists who do know what they're talking about, and they're good people, but most of them are just sheeple. They buy more into media portrayals of satanism and think that anything with any sort of potential religious connotations or lack thereof is evil unless it falls flatly within their own sheeple beliefs.

    These ignorant yokels, of course, wouldn't understand this, being uninformed, stupid, unthinking sheeple, and any amount of explanation wouldn't help any because they would have immediately labelled the original author as a satanist and therefore anything she says would instantly might as well be direct from Satan himself.

    I hate sheeple.
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

  • What can one say about a Linux distribution whose home page is on Yahoo?

    Does anything even need to be said?
  • The page says "All *NEW* code" (emphasis my own) is to be released under the CSPL.

  • Where'd I leave my mod points....
  • chmod 0x01B6 == chmod 0666
    The CSPL is based on the (Daemon-mascotted) BSD license?

  • Check out Star Trek Is SATANIC [tripod.com]. Even more funny than the page itself is the guestbook [guestworld.com]. (As a European, the US ability of taking even the most absurd religious parodies for real never ceases to amaze me.)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This subject tends to come up when fundamentalists start discussing computers as the ultimate proof that computers are the devil's tools, etc. (I'm a evangelical Christian and a hardcore computer user/operator, and I'm convinced that Christians have nothing to gain by fear.)

    In literary geeky contexts, "hex" works in 2 ways: "Hex" by itself means a curse in witchcraft. However, using "hex" as a short form of "hexadecimal" (sp?) means the number system based on the number 6 (base 6 perhaps? Math fails me at the moment), just as our everyday number system is based on the number 10. In the Bible, the number 6 is representative of humans (I believe the reason is because humans are the sixth thing created), just as 7 is perfection. The last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation (also known as the Revelation of John or the Apocalypse of John), a creature called the Beast (it's a vision, remember) who does Satan's dirty work is given the representative number 666, and anyone who wants to get in good with the Beast has to have that number on their forehead or hand in order to do business, and so on (the vision is not terribly specific further to that). It's been suggested that the triple six relates directly to humans, especially considering the notion from the book of Genesis that humans are intrinsically evil because they ate what God told them not to eat and were thrown out of the Garden of Eden. So, therefore, 666 would be the ultimate expression of evil and disobedience to God. (Actually, this is largely my way of trying to make sense of it, feel free to offer a more Orthodox interpretation.)

    So, I guess this is a round about way of explaining that some Christians, attempting to read the modern world into the Bible, feel that computers are evil because they can be programmed/modified/whatever using a system based on the number six, which has evil apocalyptic connotations.

    Hope this helps.......Glenn

  • Is that akin to adultery for those who are married?

    Looking upon a woman with lust is adultery according to a quote attributed to Jesus in Gospels that are considered the Word of God.

    So, looking at porn on the 'Net is okay, as long as you don't get aroused by it. Otherwise, it's adultery -- a crime punishable (like murder) in the Old Testament and in the time of Jesus by death.

    In short, according to the Word of God as accepted by Christians, looking at one nudie pic for the erotic thrill is as equally deserving/undeserving of the death penalty as murdering someone by slow torture.
  • Sure, this is a fun joke thread, but let's assume for a minute that this is a serious micro-distro instead of a funny hoax that fooled ZDNet.

    When I refer to a micro-distribution, I mean one of the many little "distributions" floating around that are really just a set of patches to a major (macro?) distribution. These micro-distros generally serve to make an existing distro more useful to a particular group of people: for example, the blind, Russians, Christians, Windows refugees, etc. What's wrong with that? Isn't Linux all about having choices? If there's demand for a particular (serious) micro-distro, then let it be. Not every distro aims at every user.

    Disclaimer for the humor-impaired: the hoax in question is not what I consider a serious micro-distro. But it's the idea that counts here.
    Bah, I really need a sense of humor.

  • Don't forget Asterix, Obelix, Getafix, Vitalstatistix, Cacophonix, and the rest of the indomitable warriors.
  • This was on segfault before, its not original and should be moderated down. Jesux sucks!
  • I think it's interesting that the majority of comments here are anti-christian rather than anti ZDnet for printing a rediculous story. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can tell immediately that this is a joke. But the ZDnet article reports it as fact getting all your undies in a bunch.

    Speaking as a rather devout Christian, I have no problem with any of the Unix slang/terminology. You're putting too much focus on the minority of Christians.


  • http://vasendek.lightcom.net/prayer.htm [lightcom.net]

    It's funny. If you haven't seen it yet, take a look.

  • This completely reminds me of the crudest first parameter that works with so many Linux commands: penis.

    For example:
    cat penis
    finger penis
    touch penis
    grep penis
    unzip penis
    rm penis

    Think of a few yourself, and you'll realise just how versatile penii are... I mean, how versatile Unix is.
  • It only encourages people to take shots at each other over this issue. It would be nice if everyone could be lighthearted about it, but they are not.

    I wish you would have resisted.
  • Think in Octal, and then you'll get it:

    0x01B6 = 438 base 10 = 666 base 8 aka octal

    chmod xxx file uses xxx as an octal argument.

    I must admit, that one was nice.
  • chmod typically takes its argument as an octal mode, because it's a natural fit (there are three permission bits for each access group on a normal file). However, this usually means a three-digit octal number, and when you're dealing with three-digit numbers in base 8, the number '666' pops up rather frequently. The humor is that, by changing your number base, you could eliminate this Satanic occurence (at the same time, you would make it hard as hell to use...).
  • Yeah esp. with that autistic donatello, always keeping to himself(Donnatello loves machines) fux0ring some machine, he must be gay, he never helped kick shredders ass either, he just screwed with machines, what a geeky turtle.
  • Wasn't booboo yogi's illegit son


  • by Anonymous Coward
    Neiner neiner neiner! Buttlix [buttlix.com] is already taken!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The new license only applies to code they've written, not to existing GPLed code.
  • I know my Christian university is converting to use Linux for various servers. Not only Linux, but other UNIX variants as well. It used to be all Windozes, but the university had too many problems (duh)!
  • "Bad sense of humor"? I thought it was the funnyest thing i read all day, with the exception of my comp sci classe's next project.
  • Christian fundamentalists tend to be stupid, bigoted, and don't know what they're talking about

    Luckily, you yourself have no irrational prejudices. :P

    (And have the balls to call yourself an atheist, if you're going to be so uppity.)

  • Don't forget unIX, the new anti-UN*X from Microsoft!

    What can we get you to buy today?®

  • I knew something was up when I read, among other "clauses" in the "Jesux" (pronounced as "Hay Soos" distribution, is that thou shalt not use it on Sundays.

    And I immediately filed a report to Rob, and our dear Robby had to gone through several days of searching in reaching the conclusion that it's all a hoax.

    Hahahahaha !! I've had some fun !

  • Hmm...you forgot Matrix...
  • ...maybe because they're not really girls?

    Being a geek can be a lonely existance, after all. :>

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Heh -

    Well, I was going to say about the same thing - I was just trying to be nice. :>

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Speaking your mind on the 'net is wrong. To make others read opinions with which they may potentially disagree is a violation of their rights to comfortable metaphysics.
  • I am always amazed how /. folks overreact to such obvious stupidity. ZDnet was a total joke before this, and this level of "journalism" is nothing new for them. Lay off the Christians, too. Believe it or not, most of them aren't wacko fundamentalists. I'd be in deep shit and get labeled anti-semitic if I railed against Jews the way some of you guys do Christians. People are WAY too quick to overreact nowadays. And as for the BSD T-shirt story, not everyone from Alabama or Texas is not an intolerant bigotted redneck. <SARCASM>Of course, everyone who reads slashdot is a pimply virgin teenage script-kiddy, right<
  • I am really curious about this now...bad hoaxs aside. How many Christian Hackers are really out there? The person who introduced me to Linux was a Christian and since then several of (almost half) the Linux users I've come into contact with have been Christians...as agents of Love and Truth in the world shouldn't we (Christians) be sharing with others and fostering the freedom of information anyway? I've always felt that Open Source and Christianity easily went hand in hand but many posts here are just batting around the stereotyped picture of (fake) christianity. Those who understand Christ's message should be aware of this; Christianity is about Love, truth, and freedom. (these at the very least)
    hmm...I wonder if ChristianHackers.org is registered yet? (yikes! It IS registered!!!)
  • by Baz Quux ( 33444 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @07:39PM (#1654779) Homepage
    I'm sure they'll get around to these, in addition to the other revisions they mentioned:

    fsck(8) -- becomes know(8), as in the biblical sense: "And the user did know(8) his partition, and thus begat lost+found."

    gcc(1) -- becomes jhc(1). "JHC, how much longer is this compile going to take?!?!" (Must be asked sincerely to avoid blasphemy.)

    more(1) -- wholly (pardon the pun) replaced with less(1), the opposite of more, because it is selfish to want more.

    true(1) -- can only return a value of 0.

    expect -- replaced with "prophesize", a lesser known subset of tcl.

    C++ programs are now said to be abject-oriented, as they will only compile and run after sufficient subjugation and hours of blood-soaked sweat inducing prayer (which is not entirely unique to this distribution).

    Christmas -- is always referred to as Xmas (see /usr/X11R6/bin/Xmas).

    guile -- is an immoral trait, and thus is removed from the distribution.

    help -- available to all unsaved souls who ask. See also: save, gideon.

    nice(1) -- applied to all user functions, because Jesux brothers should all be nice to one another.

    /etc/HOSTNAME -- renamed to /etc/HEAVENLYHOSTNAME.

    MySQL(1) -- is now HisSQL(1), because after all, He created it, and all of us who use it, and it is His. Sinners on the system are relegated to TransGresSQL, PostGres' replacement.

    nslookup(8) -- replaced with nsbowyourheads(8).

    and finally...

    root -- becomes God, obviously. "God, root, what is difference?" -- Pitr 0:0

    Whether these were funny or not, I blame it all on the Mountain Dew.
  • Even if it is a hoax, there are a few interesting points. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment, and assume it's not. There's some silly, funny stuff (e.g. the hex mode chmod :), but I know quite a few people who would consider the following to be fairly legitimate, useful services:
    • a bookmark list of Christian sites
    • Christian holidays built into cal(1)
    • proxy server with subscription to URL list service
    • hierarchical user structure (i.e. "parent" account can access "child" account) (this in particular is a feature that many parents would require in a realistic multi-user OS in the home!)

    I mean, after all, why not bundle these things together? Is there any such service already existing for Linux? I'm sure there is for WinX if not for the Mac. While I personally wouldn't be using it, I'd be thrilled if something vaguely along these lines marketed itself as a service to the more (small o) orthodox Christians who might be considering Linux. I mean, like it or not, Christians of strong faith make up a huge percentage of the US population; we have the largest number of Sunday-church-attenders per capita in the world.

    So basically, I guess I'm just saying, don't automatically assume it's a hoax. Is it so stunning that a geek could be Christian? I mean, really. And the same people who would find the above services useful are perfectly capable of being amused by chmod's extra functionality, or the occasional amusing extra link to kill---I remember in my early UNIX-using days getting the biggest kick out of setting up funny symlinks. Christians can have a sense of humour, too. :)

    Oh, and as for the CSPL: why not? They won't be relicensing old code, just new code; and they would just be taking advantage of the same viral properties as the GPL folks are (though to different ends).

    Final note: nothing in the entire feature list indicated that there would be any features disabled. The extra features of the distribution could be used or not used according to the wishes of the owner. They wouldn't even remove hardly anything---just a couple games, which of course could be re-downloaded if desired. A hoax this may well be, but it is neither obvious nor provable from the information they've given on the website.

  • by Apuleius ( 6901 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @07:47PM (#1654782) Journal
    This could be a new section (with dunce cap icon) of links to media articles whose authors show a severe lack of clue. (The purpose of making it a section would be so that people could cross it out of their preferences. Not everyone wants to read all about how Jesse Berst needs another harshing.)

    What this would accomplish would be to institutionalize the capacity of Slashdot to review and respond to mainstream media articles, in a way that does not involve floods of email flames toward the Dunce Cap candidate.

    The reason I am advocating this is shown well by
    this Forbes story. This can harness Slashdot's vitriol to good use: whipping the media into shape. There could be a poll with every story (weighted by /. Karma, maybe).

    Allright, enough punting. Back to work.
  • by Geekholder ( 77875 ) on Monday September 27, 1999 @07:55PM (#1654786)
    useradd(1) -- replaced by convert(1) and/or baptize(1)

    su(1) -- replaced by deify(1)

    init replaced by creation

    rc files will be reorganized from rc1.d to rc7.d. rc7.d must be empty, as no work may be performed at that run level.

    apache -- the heathen web server is replaced by pilgrim

  • hierarchical file system... maybe easy to set up...

    Two lines of kernel code per file system. And that's with the patch done "right" (e.g., having root-like powers over your children's files don't give you similar privileges over your spouse's files.)

    I don't think this particular patch is useful, but it gave me ideas for an unusually crippled UID that can only read its own files - it can't even read 0777 files that it doesn't own. This might be useful for network daemons - even if you trick them into sending /etc/passwd, they can't read it.
  • No encryption provided; Christians have nothing to hide.

    I don't know, personally most Christians in the know I've meet supported encryption. Though mainly because they get a kick out of overthrowing governments (can't blame them) and encyption is a powerful tool in this effort.
  • Check it out. Their are lots of us Christian geeks out there.

    Don't be alarmed - Jesus warned that the world would hate us and Paul told us to consider it pure joy when we are persecuted for our faith. Satan has a lot of people here by the you-know-what...
  • In short, according to the Word of God as accepted by Christians, looking at one nudie pic for the erotic thrill is as equally deserving/undeserving of the death penalty as murdering someone by slow torture.


    Romans 3:10-26 [gospelcom.net] (bold by me) :

    • 10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know." 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes." 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
    • 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

    That, in a nutshell, is Christianity. Nobody is perfect, and God requires Perfection for someone to earn their way into Heaven. It is only by God's grace that those who have faith in Christ will be saved.

  • Native: ``And what kind of football team has the devil as a mascot?''

    Are you telling me that people in Texas have never heard of the Arizona State University Sun Devils [thesundevils.com]?

  • The Christian Ministry [wreck.org] I'm with here at Georgia Tech [gatech.edu] has a lot of strong Christians and a lot of big geeks, and most of us run Linux most of the time. We've found that we can use geekiness as a means of evangelism and ministry to non-Christians. And we have also found that we can further a good product (Linux) to people who would otherwise not have it (random Christian friends).

    This is not to say that our ministry is based on our deep-seated love for Linux, just that computing is a very important part of academics at GaTech and so it is a topic everyone is aware of...

    And, when you're not fiddling with re-installing your OS or restoring from a crash, you have more time to pray and discuss the love of Christ.

  • Debian is already the Universal OS. Whatever that means, I'm sure it would please Taoists (get your Zen and Tao straight, BTW).
  • Yes. There is, morally, no difference between activities undertaken in real life and in "cyber-space" (sic).

    The reason there is no difference is that Sin is not so much about a set of rules that thou shalt obey, but rather about the state of your heart. Man is not sinful because he sins, but sins because he is sinful.

    When you view pornography, online or not, you are acting out of the sinful nature.

    Your post typifies something I see constantly. People don't know anything about Christianity and yet presume to criticize it based on the shallow bit they've gleaned from Sunday School teachers at the age of six and Televangelists. This is like trying to become a Linux guru from "Linux for dummies" and Jesse Berst, failing, and deciding to use Windows!

    There is a wonderful quote from George MacDonald: "We must ask whether what most non-believers think God is is worth believing in." I think he has a point. Don't assume that your preconceptions are what God is, or what most Christians actually believe.

    Why is this relevant to your post? Because your post is dripping with a "thou shalt not" view of Sin, which is distinctively non-Biblical.
  • Standard Disclaimer: I am a Christian. I am serious about it. If you don't like this, I'm sorry, but I'm not changing for you or anybody.

    I wish I could be sure this is a hoax. Sadly, it looks to me like just the kind of silliness that many Christians waste their time on. I'm not going to get into the (really divisive) issues behind this. I feel an incredible sadness for this topic having come up in this forum in this way.

    Instead, I would like to talk about what Christianity really is. Maybe its off-topic, maybe not. In any case, I will post it and the moderators can do their thing. I will not come back to reply to this thread to comment further -- I have no interest in doing so. If you have questions, email me. Flames will go silently to /dev/null. This is not a comprehensive theodicy (as one slashdotter criticized me for not providing in the past). I can't provide that, I'm not smart enough and a full theology takes /years/. This is my personal statement of what Christianity means to me.

    At its most basic level, Christianity is the outgrowth of Judaism. Judaism, based in the Old Testament, has a very clear and radically monotheistic understanding of God. The God of the Old Testament has rigourous moral standards: the Ten Commandments are chief of these. However, all these moral standards can be summed up in his demand that we "Love God with all our hearts" (Deuteronomy something). Throughout the Old Testament, God continues to reveal himself to the Israelites, and we learn a few things about him:
    • He loves the little guy. That's right. He picked the Jews, as slaves in Egypt, and took care of them. There were greater peoples that he could pick as his chosen people, but he picked the Hebrews. Remember the story of David? The shepherd boy who became King?
    • He is forgiving. If someone seeks forgiveness, he will give it. See the end of Psalm 51 for this quote: "A contrite and broken heart, Oh God, you will not despise".
    • His greatest desire is that we love him as he loves us. "You do not desire sacrifice" (Psalm 51 again). He doesn't really want all the complex sacrifices: those are more for the people than for him.

    As the Old Testament progresses, a tradition develops that a Messiah will come, who will take the form of a "suffering servant". See Isaiah 53.

    I, and all other Christians, believe that this suffering servant was Jesus Christ. In a way that is clearly mysterious, Jesus was God taken human form (John 1). He lived a very distinctive life -- throughout his life, he upheld very high moral standards. And hung around with Drunks, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors and anyone else who loved him. These people loved him because, although he was a righteous Jew, he loved them. He refused the social standards of his time that called for him to separate himself from those who were not Righteous jews as he was. See the woman at the well in John 4 for a good picture of this.

    Jesus was killed for challenging the religious authorities of his day. If you will, he was executed for telling Jim Baker how wrong "prosperity theology" really was. On the third day, Jesus rose from the grave and appeared to hundreds of witnesses on many occasions. Despite substantial opposition to the Christian movement from the earliest days (Read Acts sometime) no one seriously questioned the Resurrection until the third century AD -- and then, as now, they criticized on the shaky assumption that such a thing /must/ be impossible.

    The Bible teaches that Jesus' execution and resurrection bought us a unique privilege: that of being forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future and having our sinful natures (that thing which leads us to Sin) replaced with the power of Jesus. This incarnation of Jesus in us gives us the ability not to Sin. Before Jesus, we did not have even the ability not to Sin. Now, we can avoid sin although it is still hard. How this works is a mystery. When I die and meet Jesus, I plan to ask for an explanation in simple pictures and diagrams.

    Why do I believe this? Because just over 4 years ago, before accepting Christ. I was a broken man. I had explored every world religious system, and had discovered that I (like all of you: don't get self-righteous on me) could not be truly "enlightened" of my own accord. I was extremely active in Eastern religions for years -- I did all the meditation, all the reading, all the study. And yet I was empty and failed being suicidal only by shear stubborness.

    And then, through a series of encounters with some wonderful Christians, I accepted that I could not do it myself and asked Jesus Christ to come into my life. Immediately after this, I went home, shook my head, and muttered something to the effect of "Pat, this had to take the cake. You have now become a Bible thumper. Maybe if you don't do anything about it you'll get out of it". That's right: I didn't start going to church. I didn't even buy a Bible. I started trying to spend more time in my then current philosophy du jour (Taoism) because obviously I had flipped my lid. Incidentally, I started the definitive Taoism page on the net in like 1994. It's still out there somewhere under different management. I'm not making this up and you can verify it if you so choose.

    But God had me and wasn't letting me go. First, he started straightening out my life. Then, slowly, over a period of months, he overcame my intellectual resistance to Christianity -- largely through the works of C.S. Lewis. Finally, about 4 or 5 months after accepting Christ, I reached a turning point and went to the local Christian Book Store and bought a Bible. Walking into that store was the hardest thing I ever did -- I was afraid that someone would see me and KNOW that I was a bible-thumper.

    Once I got a Bible, I started reading the New Testament and have never looked back. As hokey as this sounds, I LOVE JESUS! And I know that he loves me. How? Because He, when I was still a sinner and hated him, died on a cross to save me from my sin. You don't have to believe this, but that doesn't keep it from being true.

    Since that time, my life has been nothing but uphill. I enjoyed blessings in every area of my life. I have gone from being almost literally impoverished (making $4.35/hr) to a six figure income. I have gone from being lonely and horny, trying to find love wherever I could (as a classic nerd), to a beautiful wife and a wonderful 2 year old son who is smart as hell and meaner than a rattlesnake. I have gone from a fear of society -- a certainty that I was entirely alone born in my stereo-typical geek childhood including physical and sexual abuse -- to enjoying the wonderful blessings of a church family that loves me no matter how often I screw up. I have even watched God extend salvation into my family, slowly overcoming their intellectualism and unfaith and rebuilding my family to something it never could be before.

    In short, I have see how just allowing Jesus into my life has totally changed it, and I would not change back for anything. Many of you are fond of Galileo as an example to frame your anti-Christian sentiments. At the end of his trial, there is a legend that he said, under his breath, "It still moves!". Well, despite your derision, despite your pseudo-intellectual bullschnit, despite all your arguments, I say that Jesus /still/ changed my life. And there is absolutely nothing that you can say or do to take that away from me.

  • By the START button.
  • I used to work for PR1ME, back in the days when every minicomputer vendor offered its own "almost exactly like UNIX" operating system.

    Our marketing department wanted to name our version P/Nix.

    Tech Docs mocked up a P/Nix manual. Some sample chapter headings:

    • Using your P/Nix
    • Unexpected Downtime
    • Customer Support

    Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed.

  • 2) If it is real, then Slashdot is doing a serious disservice and actually undermining these peoples' belief system. Have some respect.

    If it is real, then it should be taken seriously. However, if it is real, there is something seriously wrong with their Christianity.

    I forget which one, but they said they were dropping a program because it was written by a homosexual. Okay, let's rephrase that: a disbelieving sinner. That doesn't stop a Christian. If you're using Linux anyhow, you're probably buying your memory from Japan--very likely built by disbelieving sinners. We use Arabic numerals, for the love of sanity!

    Something I see a lot of in Christianity are people seeing who can out-Bible-thump the other. Not only is this the height of arrogance ("I am so much humbler than you!"), but it causes you to stop thinking and start reacting in a counterproductive McCarthyism mode. God gave us brains, he expects us to use them.

  • Folks, you're all saying it's a hoax, but you know what, I still don't see the proof. No one is standing up and saying "We tricked em!" Saying, "Of course, it's a hoax because of licensing, it's been talked about for years, etc." isn;t enough.

    As for cluelessness and the like, hey, I said up front that it might be a hoax.

    Is is a hoax? I've spent more time digging away at it and I can't prove it. Annoyingly, I'm finding more circumstanial proof that it is real. Nothing positive yet, but it's what I'm finding.

    If anyone knows what's real here, I really want to know. If it does turn out to be a hoax, of course I'll report it. There's no mistake to correct, there is a story that needs a better ending. If anyone out there can help me ferret out the truth I'd welcome the help and give the credit where it's due. If you know my work at all, you know I call them like I see them.

    Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
  • I wish I could be sure this is a hoax.

    I would be if I were you. It seems unlikely that the Christian authors of a Christian operating system named "Jesux" would insist that it be pronounced "HEY-zooks."

    [ massive snip ]
  • Interesting that this christian has studied the bible so intensely, but as a hardcore computer operator, doesn't care enough to know what hexidecimal is.

    No matter, should a problem arise, I'm sure he can always call on the almighty to get the system up and running again.

  • Yeah, I think there are quite a few of us. I've been nearly -- but not quite -- surprised by the numbers of Christian hackers I've met. And some of the venerated members of the CS community are Christians as well, including one of the true originals in the free software movement, Donald Knuth. How about Fred Brooks -- anyone who reads The Mythical Man Month can tell what his beliefs are. Larry Wall. The list goes on and on of Christians whose faith, as a natural part of their lives, mixes artlessly with their good and worthwhile work in the CS world...

    I agree that being a follower of Christ and a developer and proponent of free software are more than compatible. I think that my overwhelming desire to work with free software is a vocation that God gave me as a gift the same way he gives other vocations, whether they look secular or religious.

    I think there's a strong moral (Christian or not) element to free software. I see that it creates software that frees people from certain external manipulation. Proprietary, closed-source software locks people in. That is not a value judgement against anyone who makes proprietary software, only those who use their position to manipulate the people who use their software. I think that manipulative ones are a small minority, honestly. But I like the fact that it's harder to manipulate software users with free software; it's one of the things that makes me love my job. And if I help people taste freedom, I hope to give them a glimpse of Christ, the ultimate author of freedom.

    ...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

  • Mmmm, I have to take exception to this because the computer is no more special than any other human invention.

    If we hypothetise that God would not look down on what we do with computers, we would have to make the same allowance for all of our other inventions. Guns, drugs, nuclear bombs, electric chairs, gas chambers, crowd-sized ovens, etc...

    Killing is killing, lying is lying. The means itself has little moral content. What you do with it matters, what you do it with matters little.

    I'm not particularly religious, in fact, I believe on the basis of Pascal's Gambit more than for any other reason. But, we have to remember that the computer is a tool. Nothing more.

    No belief system in the world, be it Judeo-Christian Commandments or the Gita, or the Quoran, exempts technology as a means of deviation from 'acceptable' behavior. To do so would be to open up a can of worms the size of creation itself. Simple machines (i.e. pitfalls) would be allowable as modes of killing, and not frowned upon morally, because they would be the works of man. Crimes would only be crimes if committed with bare hands. Children would be exempted from moral behavior as creations of their parents...

    Messy. Morality of an act is defined by the act, not the means by which it is performed. The intention is more significant than the medium in which it is performed.

    (Wow, parochial school was useful for something after all. :) )
  • Heh heh heh. Their response to whether or not the site is a hoax is a pretty clever dodge. They say they are "saddened" that anyone would think it is, but *not* "This is not a hoax!" It sounds kinda like something an undercover cop would come up with to avoid blowing his cover and still prevent an entrapment defense.
  • by Wah ( 30840 )
    I read it in like 7th grade. I do remeber that Tuxowolf link, which I found hilarious (I lost the link, search would work). I remember thinkning how neat it was, but sounded like grunting to me..
  • (Responding for the record, since I missed the response while the article was live.)

    The original Jesux page refered to a hierarchial user structure. Linux/Unix are slowly moving in the same direction, via "capacities."

    Of course you can use standard permissions and override them as root, but that introduces all of the usual problems with using root for routine chores. The two-line change I mention are actually a form of hard-coded capacities tied to a two-tier user permissions space. It's silly in the case of "parents" vs. "children," but not so silly when you're trying to create a secure sandbox for your web server.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.