Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Campaign Seeks LAMP Developers

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the choosing-sides dept.

Democrats 488

kgamiel writes "The Obama campaign's CTO is hiring LAMP-biased geeks for the Boston office to help elect the Senator in the fall. This got me to wondering, what if he instead announced a SourceForge project toward the same end? What would such a project look like? Tools that both sides could use 'equally' would not achieve the desired end. And philosophically, could the Open Source community support one side in a competition such as this? What other issues does this raise?" Another reader notes that the Obama campaign is also searching for a security expert to plug the holes that allowed a hacker to redirect Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).

cancel ×

488 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But they're anarchists! They can't have meetings! (-1, Offtopic)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616169)

And philosophically, could the Open Source community support one side in a competition such as this?

Killing is wrong, according to Christianity. Can Christians support one side of a war over another?

YES! Duh.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (2, Insightful)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616183)

Uh, no. Christianity holds that murder is wrong. Kiling and murder are two different things.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (3, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616251)

Uh, no, no. Some modern interpretations of Christianity hold only murder to be wrong, while many historical strains (and certainly the text!) argue for the stricter interpretation. Christian "just war" theory is a hotly disputed topic amongst even modern Christians, and for good reason: there is barely if any scriptural support for it, and many see it as simply a pragmatic concession to the fact that living as a Christian in a cruel, cruel world is rather difficult. I would point you, for example, to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s early writings, where he explains the man reasons why he rejected the Just War theory that he held in his youth as he found it inconsistent with the Christianity he studied and believed in.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616283)

Um, no. The original text indeed says "murder" rather than "kill"; this was mistranslated at a later point and has - by now - pretty much become dogman in the christian churches, but "murder" is not a modern interpretation or re-reading.

In fact, ask any rabbi about this, and you'll see for yourself.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (2, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616437)

Actually, I was referring to the New Testament (which any rabbi will tell you is simply Hellenic heresy, so don't ask a rabbi); e.g. turn the other cheek, etc.. That text repudiates the earlier rule that, it must be noted, governed a tribal people struggling to survive in an unpleasant neighborhood rather than a captive sedentary enslaved people living in Roman occupied territory. So, yeah, the OT splits the distinction between killing and murder, as the many military campaigns throughout the books describe; the NT does no such thing (until the wild acid trip that is the Apocalypse of John, which most theologians through out Christian history have viewed with, at best, a jaundiced eye).

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616447)

What's 'murder' then?

Didn't Moses murder a bunch of people? Example [thebricktestament.com] .

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616485)

Murder is killing for anything other than personal self-defense. Killing for the state is murder. Killing to save yourself or family is debatable in that we are not to judge whose life is more "valuable". To nature, all life carries the same value.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616599)

One of the main difference between "killing" and "murder" in many languages is that "murder" requires the patient of the action to be human, while "killing" applies to any living being. I don't know Hebrew, but I'd guess that this is a crucial difference in the lexical semantics there too.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616633)

I don't know Hebrew,
In other words, "IANAJ".

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616681)

That was my point. You must kill a plant in order to eat it.

There's also no perfect 1:1 relationship between languages, especially a modern language and one that is a few thousand years old.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (5, Informative)

HadouKen24 (989446) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616517)

Actually not.

If you're referring to the injunction "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments, you'll find that the word used--transliterated as ratsach--does not necessarily refer to murder. While that is one of its primary meanings, it also includes unintentional killings as well. Indeed, this is the most common use of the word in Deuteronomy. It enjoins the Israelites to found three cities as refuges for those who kill unintentionally, so that they can flee there and be safe from vengeful relatives.

I'm not sure where the claim that it just means "murder" comes from. A good translation and a concordance will quickly show it to be simply and obviously false. In any case, it is shamelessly used by (mostly) Protestant preachers to justify all kinds of killing as not being "murder." Which isn't exactly in the spirit of Christian charity, to my mind.

Not that it matters to me all that much. I haven't been a believer for years.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1, Offtopic)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616345)

a pragmatic concession to the fact that living as a Christian in a cruel, cruel world is rather difficult.
As Christians we make many compromises between our beliefs and our nature. I try to do my best and think most other Christians do too, but the only true Christian I know of was crucified about 2,000 years ago.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616473)

I agree, and that's a great way to approach this very difficult religion: as a striving towards an example (Jesus).

But it is an awful stretch to say that killing is merely a sort of "concession" or "compromise" with our natures that would be acceptable *at all* within the ethical/spiritual rubric that Christianity as it is presented in the Bible represents.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (2)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616483)

Jesus was a Jew...

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616647)

Jesus was a Jew...
A bad one, yes.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616493)

John the Baptist or are you talking about Andrew?

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616359)

Read what I typed, not that which you wish to project into it. Killing and murder are two different things. Any dictionary clearly documents that.

As far as Christianity goes, it is an inextricable extension of Judaism with the realization of the prophecies in the OT. The NT doesn't negate the OT, it fulfills it. The nature of God doesn't change.

I didn't type anything about "just war". Even so, you're wrong about that. There are plenty of citations in which God directed "just war". God did not instruct people to allow themselves to be slaughtered.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616463)

The NT doesn't negate the OT, it fulfills it. The nature of God doesn't change.

That's a cute notion, and all, but the text does not bear that out. Jesus instructed his disciples/students when struck to *not retaliate*. I've heard this canard about Christianity "completing" Judaism and maintaining a consistent nature for God, and it's an utter crock that reading the Bible for five whole minutes can put to rest.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

sveinungkv (793083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616581)

Seems like you have only seen a small part of the entire picture. Here are some other parts I hope will help you complete it:
  • "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Romans 12, 18-20
  • "Then said he (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
  • "For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans 13, 4

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616815)

The first passage simply extends my point: it is not in the purview of *humans* to visit violence upon one another; that, at best, is God's job. Same, BTW, for the third passage (vengeance is not *yours*; at best it rests with some God-ordained authority, if not God Hisownself). Also, it should be noted that the epistolary rulings diverge significantly from Jesus' teachings. Paul was a dirty revisionist, if you ask me. :)

The Luke passage, which is often trotted out in defense of a violent Christianity, is more likely than not a metaphor (one's beliefs are a sword that divides the good from the bad, etc.).

I appreciate that you think that my view is based upon an incomplete or ill-informed reading of the NT. It is not.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1, Offtopic)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616587)

No canard, it's right there. Jesus was the blood sacrifice which meets the sin debt of the OT. That's what the OT prophecies point to.

You are cherry picking. Turn the other cheek doesn't mean allow yourself to be killed, stolen from, etc.

The Jesus of the NT was a very buff guy, as would be anyone who was a "carpenter" in an age of only hand tools who was able to throw merchants out of the temple given all trade was done with coin, not electronic credit, and there would have been a lot of hired bodyguards.

Reading a translated few sentences from thousands of pages for five minutes will obviously give a very incorrect impression. Aramaic doesn't include temporal tenses and the overwhelming majority of people alive today would read ancient writings with their current philosophical viewpoints. Microwave mentality never leads to wisdom or insight other than it's stupid to stick your nose in the opening of the popcorn bag when you open it.

You don't have to agree with what is there. It's intellectually disingenuous to claim anyone can grasp intertwined prophecies and history of thousands of pages with 5 minutes of reading, be it the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Bhagadvadgita or cave drawings.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616277)

"Thou shall not kill" is "Thou shall not kill", not "Murder is wrong, but killing is ok". Go re-read your Bible.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616287)

Uh, it seems that some might not agree with you;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Killing_or_murder

And frankly your argument sounds like the kind of technicality that allows some so called Christians to support Bush.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616451)

Of course you're right, because Wikipedia is the authority on all things spiritual. :-P

Christians have engaged in war for centuries, it's a well-established tradition. ;-)

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." - Ben Franklin

Oh, and by the way, for the most part Bush has done a fine job. You'll regret it if a Dem is elected.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616507)

You'll regret it if a Dem is elected.

Oh, I don't know. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson did "ok" for us. Bush got the wrong guy.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (1)

tonytraductor (1284978) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616201)

In any case, while it is nearly impossible to get the entire FOSS community to support anything in particular, other than FOSS, of course, and related freedoms, there is no question that members of the community are free to support whomever they wish in a political concurrence. Then again, if one candidate were decidedly in favor of the use of FOSS, while another were clearly hostile to FOSS...

It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (3, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616217)

Murder is wrong. Get your theology right. The Bible only condemns homicide, not killing in self-defense, in defense of another or in times of war. In fact Jesus said that calamities like war and social problems like poverty would continue to happen as they always have until the time that God returns to take back control of the Earth directly from Satan (and humanity).

Read this [biblegateway.com] if you don't believe me.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (4, Interesting)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616319)

So, if you want to kill someone the right way, all you have to do is declare war on them? How small does the scale have to be? Can you have a war on one person? Who determines if this is a war? Does things like gang wars count? What about war on poverty, does that count? Would killing convicted monopolists fall under the protection of the war on poverty?

Thanx for any clarification.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (1)

nih (411096) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616393)

until the time that God returns
we're boned

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (0, Offtopic)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616439)

In fact, the Bible promotes and encourages murder... such as the part about stoning disobedient children to death and killing adulterous wives, and denouncing those with long hair as being evil (wasn't Jesus depicted with long hair and a beard in almost every representation of him?)

Oh the irony.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (1, Offtopic)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616495)

The great thing about the bible is that, for everything it supports, it condemns it, too, and vice versa. Turn the other cheek? An eye for an eye. Though shalt not kill/murder? Never suffer a witch to live, and kill any child that does not follow the faith. Plus it becomes very unclear whether children can be punished for the sins of the father. Various books disagree on this point.

What's the point of arguing over this? The book is not internally consistent, and there's no way to assign weight, so why bother? Do what you think is right. The bible doesn't have the answers.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (1)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616543)

It is nothing more than a fictional novel written by dozens of people (real and imaginary, for example there is zero evidence in the historical record of any civilization that a man named 'Moses' existed at this time who did the deeds he was claimed to do). who wanted to have their say.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616571)

No historical evidence? But what about the Bible?

I kid, I kid...

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (1)

Sopor42 (1134277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616595)

Your argument is bunk my friend. Your eye for an eye is an old testament/Jewish doctrine. When Jesus came along he said that the old ways were over, and that from his day forward the ways of peace, love etc would rule. That's when Christianity switched to turn the other cheek. The book does NOT contradict itself in these cases. It corrects itself, and sets forth a new doctrine for a new time.

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616611)

Then why is the old testament included? And, what's more, the other two examples I quoted were straight from the old testament. The new testament also doesn't agree with itself, with different ancestry of Jesus, as well as different accounts of Jesus' apparent resurrection, so my point stands.

Your religion is bunk, my friend. :-)

Re:It's murder, not killing, that is condemned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616457)

Jesus said to turn the other cheek. He said to forgive those that trespass against you.

Re:But they're anarchists! They can't have meeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616367)

They usually are one side of a war..

wtf? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616173)

lamp devs. you've gotta be kidding me. nothing but trouble has come from lamp. learn to use a real env

Re:wtf? (-1, Flamebait)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616329)

That's right. For real security, you want a secure platform, and a secure design/code on top of that. That means:

OpenBSD
Apache
PostgreSQL
Python

MySQL is just a database wannabe, and php is the shits for security

Pornstarrish, anyone? (5, Funny)

consonant (896763) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616177)

I *really* think Hilary Clinton's should've been advised against being a female candidate, and hosting her site via 'Rack'space.. :-D

Re:Pornstarrish, anyone? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616225)

Ha! But I wonder at the whole redirect to her web site from Obama's... I'm surprised her site didn't get DOSed from the traffic increase. :-)

But it also wouldn't surprise me if that was done by some republicans rather than Hillary supporters (not that it's always easy to tell the difference sometimes...). Remember the Limbaugh thing? There are lots of people who are interested in helping Hillary. You could even wonder if it wasn't done by an Obama supporter (or the campaign itself) to make Hillary look bad (not that she needs any help with that).

Re:Pornstarrish, anyone? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616343)

What is most important is that they fully cunt the votes of Florida and Michigan and seat the delegates.

An Obama OSS project ?? (3, Insightful)

phoxix (161744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616179)

Jeebus, he wants to get things done, and not spend forever arguing about schematics, philosophy, languages, and what color the bikeshed is.

Re:An Obama OSS project ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616261)

Err, you've just described *exactly* what a politician has to do.

Re:An Obama OSS project ?? (2, Insightful)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616281)

No. He's just described what most politicians are best at, and what they should spend most of their time doing. It's better to have an ineffective government than an active, misguided one. I'd much prefer it if Bush suddenly got a lot more interested in bikeshed paint jobs, for example.

Re:An Obama OSS project ?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616303)

No. The real reason is due to campaign contribution limits. If a programmer would normally make $100/hr decides to donate more than 23 hours of his time to the project, he would be in violation. You would also have the problem of the prohibition of foreign national donations.

Re:An Obama OSS project ?? (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616819)

$100 an hour for a LAMP developer? Developers are getting paid way too much these days. $100 an hour = 3500 a week for a 35 hour week. That's $182,000 a year. I don't know many developers who make that much money. I also don't know too many who only work 35 hours a week.

Re:An Obama OSS project ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616723)

No, you're as confused as the poster who didn't understand why Ron Paul supporters would also support Obama.

Obama wants transparency and openness.

And this isn't your typical open source project, either. It's not like they can just fork a campaign. So the arguments won't happen. If they can't use you, you're out, and no one cares if you think the bikeshed is plaid.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616207)

first

Hellz 2 da yea! (1)

DJ_Maiko (1044980) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616213)

OMG! A politician who not only knows something about tech but is also down with open source?

Could there be hope for our future politicians? Hire this cat to run the country right now!!!

Sourceforge project would... (5, Funny)

croftj (2359) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616223)

Lead to a project which is probably incomplete, no documentation, and maybe a tarball that won't build.

strip forp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616229)

strip forp

OBAMA FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616233)

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

        * First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
        * Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
        * Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This seems to suggest.... (3, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616235)

... his running mate will be Al Gore.

Re:This seems to suggest.... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616465)

Or John Edwards since he has a bigger support base from lower class white workers. Something Obama needs.

why would you want a partner from a failed bid? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616755)

First off, I don't care who they partner him with, there are too many bigots in the Democratic Party to get this guy elected. Clinton is pulling a Wallace, distasteful as it seems, because it works. I have diehard Democrats in my family (Ohio, midwest) and they won't vote for him, worse they will vote against him. He didn't help himself getting caught making negative remarks about these people and his former Preacher lost him even more. Character doesn't change just because of an election, only its appearance does Now these are people I didn't expect it out of but damn if there isn't an issue in these states. Its stupid to ignore... just because its wrong won't make it not matter.

Regardless, why would you want someone who was on a failing ticket? Let alone Gore or Edwards. Both of them are the worst examples of politicians I can imagine. Both are hypocrites of the biggest order, living the large life and telling everyone else to do without. No, he needs someone not connected to Washington. Even if he did get in he would be run over by Pelosi. Pelosi wants him simply because of that, Clinton would threaten Pelosi's empire. Get him a well know university type, perhaps someone verses in economics.

I thought the last election presented no real choices, this one looks even worse. A Congressman is getting into the Whitehouse and that should frighten anyone. I don't care what party they are, they don't respect us by example of how Congress operates.

Frankly, if /. becomes nothing more than a Obama or McCain fansite I am sure most of us will find a new site. This tripe belongs on Digg. Its not news, its an advertisement and expression of political affiliation

This doesn't look like open source politics. (4, Interesting)

the_hoser (938824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616243)

It looks like he wants to hire someone competent to run his web server. If I were running for a major political office, I'd certainly want someone competent runing my webserver.

If Obama does make a statement of support for open source software, then that'd give him kudos from me. Open source isn't the unstoppable freight train we'd like it to be, and could use all the friends in high places it can get.

Anything to piss in Microsoft's Cheereos makes me happy.

for any sponser in possible.sponsers, FOSS is FOSS (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616247)

Why is this different from other competitions, like which company can have better software? Am I missing something?
With any FOSS the company to sponsor it gets to use it first because they made the specs and were expecting it, but if other users are forbidden it is no longer FOSS. I could, for instance, pay someone to write a new DB search class, add it ot the archives of other such classes, and there I made some FOSS. Even if I have a jump on anyone else stumbling on it.

And JohnMcCain.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616249)

JohnMcCain.com runs on Windows Server 2003.

Re:And JohnMcCain.com? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616429)

John who?

I think the revision tree (5, Funny)

grizdog (1224414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616253)

for any political campaign would be pretty hard to keep track of. Subversion, anybody?

McCain==Vista,Hillary==MacOSX,Obama==Linux (4, Funny)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616255)

Which means Bush W.==Windows XP, Bill Clintion==Mac OS9, and Bush Snr==Win98/96.

Re:McCain==Vista,Hillary==MacOSX,Obama==Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616387)

No, George W. Bush is more like Win3.1 ;)

Re:McCain==Vista,Hillary==MacOSX,Obama==Linux (3, Funny)

Darkn3ss (812009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616405)

Which means Bush W.==Windows XP, Bill Clintion==Mac OS9, and Bush Snr==Win98/96.
No no, W. 1st term was Windows XP. Second term was Vista. It got worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. Then a service pack came out, and it got worse. Then again, definitely a MS error here. Afganistan blows up our buildings. Clicks Go to War button. Clicks Afganistan. 100,000 troops are then deployed to Iraq.

Oh God (5, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616307)

Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too? The Obama campaign is looking for people with server and programming experience. Big deal.

Re:Oh God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616531)

It has been for a long, long time.

Re:Oh God (1)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616551)

It has been for a long, long time.

He said Obmama, not Ron Paul.

BTW, Ron Paul for President!

Re:Oh God (1)

moseman (190361) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616601)

As long as kdawson is placing stories. Direct from the DNC to you.

Re:Oh God (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616631)


Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too?


Does this mean that I can go can back to digg.com and find articles in the news section about topics other than Ron Paul?

Re:Oh God (5, Interesting)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616643)

Can't seem to remember OSS being used by any other presidential candidate in the past, ever.

So, in a community championing OSS, yes, I would say that's kinda of a big deal.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, there's a good chance, if elected as President of the United States, he (or rather his technology people) might be advocating for more OSS within the Government. THAT would be a Very Big Deal (tm).

Re:Oh God (4, Informative)

Dausha (546002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616709)

IIRC, in 2000 Gore's site was taken down because it used Microsoft. So, he switched to Apache. So, OSS has been used in previous campaigns. I'll bet Apache has been used enough to invalidate your assumption that OSS is only now in the ascent in politics.

Re:Oh God (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616811)

Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too? The Obama campaign is looking for people with server and programming experience. Big deal.
Er.. what? I thought slashdot was a Ron Paul propaganda machine (or whoever is the most libertarian in any particular election). I chalk this one up to slow-news-day.

Tech (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616369)

Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).


Already tells you something about the candidates, doesn't it?

Re:Tech (3, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616401)

Yes, that they both have websites, thats all.

Re:Tech (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616499)

One uses a decent OS and shite hosting, the other uses a shite OS and decent hosting....

Re:Tech (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616509)

Yes, it tells you something: It tells you they understand marketing in 2008.

If you think the candidates have a clue ( or care ) what their websites are running on, or could even understand it all you are sadly mistaken. I doubt they even know who is doing their web stuff, its all handled by their respective 'committees'.

   

Re:Tech (1)

rawler (1005089) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616767)

If you think the candidates have a clue ( or care ) what their websites are running on, or could even understand it all you are sadly mistaken. I doubt they even know who is doing their web stuff, its all handled by their respective 'committees'.
Doesn't that describe basically ALL politicians in ALL matters? No clue, only survives backed by their support staff?

At least, I think Bush Jr. have proved that a great number of times, trying to speak script-less on his own.

Re:Tech (1)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616559)

Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).

Already tells you something about the candidates, doesn't it?

Hilary overestimates her bra size?

Sourceforge? - no. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616435)

No, it doesn't need to be polluted with some politicians lies. ( i dont care which one, they are all the same )

Ew, GoDaddy (1)

mdenham (747985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616461)

Why, Obama, why? Find a hosting service that hasn't shafted millions of innocents, or at least doesn't get openly castigated because it frequently does give its users the shaft for inane reasons.
I'm not going to specifically suggest one (not a fan of slashvertising myself), but at least pick a better hosting service.

No, not SourceForge (5, Interesting)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616487)

Please don't encourage the use of SourceForge for things like this. Not only is SourceForge a dead-end for time-limited projects, it is also full of dead, empty or completely abandoned projects.

A good 60% or more of the projects there have seen no activity at all (because people think creating a project there will automatically write itself), and many projects haven't been touched in 4, 5, 6 or more years.

They've consistently crippled the use of standard OSS tools like CVS, Subversion and Mailman just so they can try to retain control of projects by limiting the ability to use them effectively. They don't support other tools like git and proper MTA support for mailing commits to developers.

Also, quite a few projects have pulled the source to previous releases (a violation of the GPL that these projects were released under; gaim is one of them). Their management of projects and overall administration leaves MUCH to be desired.

Lastly, SourceForge was originally going to be called "Cold Storage", and it was supposed to partner with Freshmeat to permanently archive projects. I've seen many projects vanish from SourceForge, which completely negates the whole policy of its existance.

So while I respect and encourage the use of OSS tools, LAMP, retaining the mindshare of key developers who can help support a candidate they support, I don't think choosing SourceForge to host the project is a wise move.

Do you choose the type of hammer and nails you're going to use, before you draft the plans to build your new house? Do you choose the kind of vehicle you're going to drive before you know your destination and travel route? Of course you don't.

Why choose the hosting service before you've even chosen what kinds of components and requirements the project will need?

Re:No, not SourceForge (1)

hankwang (413283) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616615)

quite a few projects have pulled the source to previous releases (a violation of the GPL that these projects were released under; gaim is one of them).

It's only a violation if they continue to provide compiled binaries for download. See the bottom of section 3 of GPL v2.

Re:No, not SourceForge (1)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616655)

Incorrect. I am entitled to the source of the binaries they have already distributed. They've pulled all binaries and source from the site, which does not meet GPLv2 guidelines and requirements.

You skipped Section 3b of the GPLv2 verbage. They are not in compliance at this point due to that, and their removal of the source is a direct violation of the SourceForge TOS.

Re:No, not SourceForge (2, Insightful)

hankwang (413283) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616787)

You skipped Section 3b of the GPLv2 verbage.

Section 3b is about physical media (e.g., cd, dvd). Do you expect to be able to order a cd with the source code for every GPL program you download from the internet?

From the GPL FAQ:

How can I make sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?

You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the user whether to download the source.

Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the users can get the source code, not to force users to download the source code even if they don't want it.

what's that smell? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616505)

Ah, I love the sweet smell of astroturf in the morning.

Well done, Obama boys. Pity that the candidate, being black, has no chance of being elected in the red(neck) states, so it's almost in the GOP's interest that he's picked...

Nothing here, move on.. (4, Insightful)

1 a bee (817783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616511)

I'm an Obama fan. Reading his book, and look to maybe contributing some time to his campaign. And I love to discuss politics. But this story is stupid. It's not even an ask /. entry.

No, it would be silly to put up a sourceforge project for a candidate. Better concentrate on how best to use existing tools.

--
Have USB will travel - http://www.faunos.com/ [faunos.com]

What's wrong with you people?! (1, Flamebait)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616519)

Is everyone in the US so effing polarized that you can even get your website hacked by someone supporting a person you're running against, /even if they are in same party/?! This isn't democracy, it's a slum.

What gives here, honestly? It's /just/ a presidential nomination, not an attack on freedom or something.

If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place.

Christ, _just get along_.

*frustrated*

/Mike

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616617)

Please don't blame all of us for what some of us are doing.

Sure, all of us are responsible for who eventually gets elected, and for whatever process leads up to that (because the process is designed to work on the people who vote), but for most people, apathy is a much better explanation than partisanship.

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (1)

172pilot (913197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616707)

That's where you're wrong... ALL THREE major candidates *ARE* Proposing attacks on freedom. The Dems, by CRAZIER THAN EVER tax hikes and taking personal choice away from me in things like education and healthcare, and by McCain by continuing to infringe on all of our freedoms at home, by hyping the terror and fright, and extending "freedom laws" like the patriot act.

I know it's become an Internet cliche', but Ron Paul really is our only answer right now...

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616803)

Indeed. Ron Paul offers no tax hikes, freedom of education, personal freedom, and a reduction in the US's military footprint overseas. Unless you are black, poor, or unpopular, that is. Then you are pretty much fucked.

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (1)

172pilot (913197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616833)

Care to back your statement with any facts?? Show me where Ron Paul singles out blacks, poor, or unpopular prople....?? No? Can't do it? Didn't think so.. I think what you're referring to is that in a sustainable economy, it may no longer be MORE PROFITABLE to be lazy, and some of the "underemployed" people (REGARDLESS of color) may find it more lucrative to get a job, rather than to rely on the welfare of the rest of us. Personally, when I see 50% of my pay going to big government and the lazy, I think it's about damn time. SO... unless you can back up with facts, I'll assume that you're unemployed, living on welfare, surfing the Internet at a free Library computer, and are just pissed that your free ride will end whenever enough people realize that they're funding the lazy. -Steve

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616749)

They achieved their objective. As they do when they send female suicide bombers, they sent this Hillary lady, and her supporters, and they destroyed America from inside out.
They reopened the wounds of racism, bigotry and hate, and those won't ever close. From now on, will be American against American until the bitter end (which is close, thanks to Clinton and her supporters...).
That is why you should wonder why there are millions and millions of dollars in "contributions" coming from Saudi Arabia (the biggest supporter of Al-Qaeda) to the Clintons' personal wealth...

Re:What's wrong with you people?! (2, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616799)

It's mostly been embittered Hillary fans and angry feminists but you're right. But not to worry... the US is slowly losing as a superpower and having to take a backseat thanks to the administration of the last 8 yrs. The EU is now kicking our ass and people have now learned not to invest in the US dollar, US real estate and other risky US investments. We will soon be coming to real countries for help. :)

Tools (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616529)

that both sides could use 'equally' would not achieve the desired end.

What the hell does that mean? Since when is the tool more important than the message?

So... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23616539)

So, how many LAMP developpers does it take to change a light bulb?

New church (1)

moseman (190361) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616565)

Maybe he should put in an add looking for a new church. One slightly less bigoted ;)

It is a feature, not a defect (3, Interesting)

assertation (1255714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616613)



Another reader notes that the Obama campaign is also searching for a security expert to plug the holes that allowed a hacker to redirect Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).



If I was an Obama campaign manager I would actually be thankful that happened. People like me, who started off being fans of the Clintons, have gotten turned off to them because of the negative tactics they and their strong supporters have used.

I had a refrigerator magnet that read "Come Back Bill, All Is Forgiven". I just moved and decided not to put it back up. In one day Geraldine Ferraro's reputation was ruined for me.

Re:It is a feature, not a defect (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616763)

That's all it took? You'd think all the scum bag things they've done before would have been worse. What about the Peter Paul incident? She's going to court over it (mind you the media doesn't want to cover this). http://www.paulvclinton.com/ [paulvclinton.com]

Our generation is coming up (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616693)

yea, our generation. this guy is practically 10 years older than me. and many years younger than many of you here.

despite im 33 years old and many of you are over 40, and many of you below 25 even, we belong to a single generation - information age generation. this super generation is people who got influenced with the advent of information technology, from 60s and on. at those decades, the impact was limited to whomever worked in the i.t. field. but with the spread of the ibm personal computer compatibles, it reached a broader segment of the society (and internationally too) and with the internet it reached the masses. however, up to this point, the world has been ruled by representatives who had little to do with those changes. either because they are too old, and information revolution did not affect them (because they werent in field of i.t. in 60s and on) or because they were much older, derelict of cold war era.

clinton is an example of the former - despite she was young at the onset of 60s and 70s, the real start of this information revolution, she had nothing to do with i.t., wasnt working in an i.t. field, and henceforth remained out of these changes.

im not even talking about mccain.

obama is different. he is young enough to have lived his youth at the time when information revolution was reaching masses, and he had enough exposure to i.t. (and very probably to open source ideals) during his time working in community service.

he is an example of how the future will be. as the older generation of (i say dinosaurs) phase out, this new generation - practically 'our' generation, because internet causing people to do everything together regardless of nation and location - is going to take over the world step by step. rightly so, because that is the nature of life.

and things will change. see this difference in approach in between those 2 candidates (one seeking lamp developer, not even asking a college degree, and hosting their stuff on lamp servers, the other is going all old big buck style, hosting their stuff on microsoft iis) signifies the difference in understanding in between them.

change will come faster in europe, because europe did not experience mccarthyism of america, that killed the potential change a few generations would be able to bring in 50s and 60s. therefore the transition there is smoother, because there didnt happen a lost generation that was not able to take positions of government, power due to scaremongering.

in u.s. it will be a bit harder. because mccarthyism scaremongering in between 50-60s caused that period to be one of stale progress up until the end of 60s. big corporations are going to fight back in u.s., whereas in europe they are already kept in check with Eu institutions.

im turkish, i live in turkey, irrelevant to many stuff that is happening in u.s., and im an obama supporter. that is because he is one of the spearheads of our broad information-age/new generation to bring change, regardless of where that change happens, we all should support each other.

Honestly.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23616831)

Honestly neither McCain, Obama, or Clinton is going to be good for F/OSS. None of them are programmers, none of them know much about computers, Obama doesn't proclaim to use Linux, McCain isn't a Gnome (or KDE) fanatic and Clinton's favorite text editor is probably Notepad. Just because Obama wants to use some F/OSS guys in development of his website that doesn't mean that he is for F/OSS any more then any of the candidates are. And no, if Obama uses Linux in his servers and it runs on Apache that doesn't make that the "preferred" choice for the F/OSS community, because, really we have no choice unless a third-party member can win which I doubt they can...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?