Noam Chomsky: Iraq is a trial run

[MC Habber]

zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3369

Iraq is a trial run
Chomsky interviewed by Frontline
by Noam Chomsky and VK Ramachandran
Frontline India
April 02, 2003

Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq.
V. K. Ramachandran : Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a qualitatively new stage in that policy?
Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless.
This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.
This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963, Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S. attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that.
That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future.
Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something, not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture, going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is unconscious.
So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be.
Ramachandran :Is it also a new phase in that the U. S. has not been able to carry others with it?
Chomsky : That is not new. In the case of the Vietnam War, for example, the United States did not even try to get international support. Nevertheless, you are right in that this is unusual. This is a case in which the United States was compelled for political reasons to try to force the world to accept its position and was not able to, which is quite unusual. Usually, the world succumbs.
Ramachandran :So does it represent a "failure of diplomacy" or a redefinition of diplomacy itself?
Chomsky : I wouldn't call it diplomacy at all - it's a failure of coercion.
Compare it with the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, the U.S. coerced the Security Council into accepting its position, although much of the world opposed it. NATO went along, and the one country in the Security Council that did not - Yemen - was immediately and severely punished.
In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy.
What is interesting about this case is that the coercion did not work. There were countries - in fact, most of them - who stubbornly maintained the position of the vast majority of their populations.
The most dramatic case is Turkey. Turkey is a vulnerable country, vulnerable to U.S. punishment and inducements. Nevertheless, the new government, I think to everyone's surprise, did maintain the position of about 90 per cent of its population. Turkey is bitterly condemned for that here, just as France and Germany are bitterly condemned because they took the position of the overwhelming majority of their populations. The countries that are praised are countries like Italy and Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations.
That is another new step. I cannot think of another case where hatred and contempt for democracy have so openly been proclaimed, not just by the government, but also by liberal commentators and others. There is now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government ought to follow it.
That is real contempt for democracy, just as what has happened at the United Nations is total contempt for the international system. In fact there are now calls - from The Wall Street Journal ,people in Government and others - to disband the United Nations.
Fear of the United States around the world is extraordinary. It is so extreme that it is even being discussed in the mainstream media. The cover story of the upcoming issue of Newsweek is about why the world is so afraid of the United States. The Post had a cover story about this a few weeks ago.

[MC Habber]

Of course this is considered to be the world's fault, that there is something wrong with the world with which we have to deal somehow, but also something that has to be recognised.
Ramachandran :The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.
Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except, interestingly, the population of the United States.
In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran.
Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war.
This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and people huddle under the umbrella of power.
This is exactly the way the country was run in the 1980s. Remember that these are almost the same people as in the Reagan and the senior Bush Administrations. Right through the 1980s they carried out domestic policies that were harmful to the population and which, as we know from extensive polls, the people opposed. But they managed to maintain control by frightening the people. So the Nicaraguan Army was two days' march from Texas and about to conquer the United States, and the airbase in Granada was one from which the Russians would bomb us. It was one thing after another, every year, every one of them ludicrous. The Reagan Administration actually declared a national Emergency in 1985 because of the threat to the security of the United States posed by the Government of Nicaragua.
If somebody were watching this from Mars, they would not know whether to laugh or to cry.
They are doing exactly the same thing now, and will probably do something similar for the presidential campaign. There will have to be a new dragon to slay, because if the Administration lets domestic issues prevail, it is in deep trouble.
Ramachandran :You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of nuclear war.
Chomsky : I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for self-defence.
There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the world an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large part of South Korea.
So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets. In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".
For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Ramachandran :How do you think the U.S. will manage the human - and humanitarian - consequences of the war?
Chomsky : No one knows, of course. That is why honest and decent people do not resort to violence - because one simply does not know.
The aid agencies and medical groups that work in Iraq have pointed out that the consequences can be very severe. Everyone hopes not, but it could affect up to millions of people. To undertake violence when there is even such a possibility is criminal.
There is already - that is, even before the war - a humanitarian catastrophe. By conservative estimates, ten years of sanctions have killed hundreds of thousands of people. If there were any honesty, the U.S. would pay reparations just for the sanctions.
The situation is similar to the bombing of Afghanistan, of which you and I spoke when the bombing there was in its early stages. It was obvious the United States was never going to investigate the consequences.
Ramachandran : Or invest the kind of money that was needed.
Chomsky : Oh no. First, the question is not asked, so no one has an idea of what the consequences of the bombing were for most of the country. Then almost nothing comes in. Finally, it is out of the news, and no one remembers it any more.
In Iraq, the United States will make a show of humanitarian reconstruction and will put in a regime that it will call democratic, which means that it follows Washington's orders. Then it will forget about what happens later, and will go on to the next one.

[MC Habber]

Ramachandran :How have the media lived up to their propaganda-model reputation this time?
Chomsky : Right now it is cheerleading for the home team. Look at CNN, which is disgusting - and it is the same everywhere. That is to be expected in wartime; the media are worshipful of power.
More interesting is what happened in the build-up to war. The fact that government-media propaganda was able to convince the people that Iraq is an imminent threat and that Iraq was responsible for September 11 is a spectacular achievement and, as I said, was accomplished in about four months. If you ask people in the media about this, they will say, "Well, we never said that," and it is true, they did not. There was never a statement that Iraq is going to invade the United States or that it carried out the World Trade Centre attack. It was just insinuated, hint after hint, until they finally got people to believe it.
Ramachandran :Look at the resistance, though. Despite the propaganda, despite the denigration of the United Nations, they haven't quite carried the day.
Chomsky : You never know. The United Nations is in a very hazardous position.
The United States might move to dismantle it. I don't really expect that, but at least to diminish it, because when it isn't following orders, of what use is it?
Ramachandran :Noam, you have seen movements of resistance to imperialism over a long period - Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War I. What are your impressions of the character, sweep and depth of the present resistance to U.S. aggression? We take great heart in the extraordinary mobilisations all over the world.
Chomsky : Oh, that is correct; there is just nothing like it. Opposition throughout the world is enormous and unprecedented, and the same is true of the United States. Yesterday, for example, I was in demonstrations in downtown Boston, right around the Boston Common. It is not the first time I have been there. The first time I participated in a demonstration there at which I was to speak was in October 1965. That was four years after the United States had started bombing South Vietnam. Half of South Vietnam had been destroyed and the war had been extended to North Vietnam. We could not have a demonstration because it was physically attacked, mostly by students, with the support of the liberal press and radio, who denounced these people who were daring to protest against an American war.
On this occasion, however, there was a massive protest before the war was launched officially and once again on the day it was launched - with no counter-demonstrators. That is a radical difference. And if it were not for the fear factor that I mentioned, there would be much more opposition.
The government knows that it cannot carry out long-term aggression and destruction as in Vietnam because the population will not tolerate it.
There is only one way to fight a war now. First of all, pick a much weaker enemy, one that is defenceless. Then build it up in the propaganda system as either about to commit aggression or as an imminent threat. Next, you need a lightning victory. An important leaked document of the first Bush Administration in 1989 described how the U.S. would have to fight war. It said that the U.S. had to fight much weaker enemies, and that victory must be rapid and decisive, as public support will quickly erode. It is no longer like the 1960s, when a war could be fought for years with no opposition at all.
In many ways, the activism of the 1960s and subsequent years has simply made a lot of the world, including this country, much more civilised in many domains.

[The New Guy]

Ah. Noam Chomsky. Founder of the feared and hated Chomsky Grammers upon which our entire electronic existance is more or less based (ok, so really it's not quite that simple. But Chomsky grammers allow us to describe Turing Machine's more fully... anyways - way off topic now. I apologize. I spent a term studying such things). Take one look at some of the stuff he's designed and tell me he is not evil.

Okay...

Not really. It's just incredably abstract. That's all.

Now - I'm not going to cut and paste the entire interview. It's long, and I want to save some electric trees for an electric bonfire. But a couple things I would like to point out:

(1) Noam Chomsky is a very intellegent man. Before I go any further, let me just say that's he's smart. I'm not disputing that. I'd be a fool to do so, since, as I've said, he's done a lot of work with the underlying theory of computers. That said - he is a renown political dissident. He argues against almost every measure the government makes, and has for quite some time. Why? I don't know. I don't think anyone does. But it seems to be the natural thing for him and his ilk to do. Complain. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right, or that it's a bad thing - I just want you to keep that in mind.

(2) Noam Chomsky has been harping about such things as was covered in this interview since the beginning of time (or at least for quite some time). Witness a statement made in a MADRE (An international women's human rights organization) in 1999 (www.madre.org/resources_features/noam.html):

The UN is no longer a pliant, and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years.

And compare that to something he said in his latest interview:

Chomsky : You never know. The United Nations is in a very hazardous position.
The United States might move to dismantle it. I don't really expect that, but at least to diminish it, because when it isn't following orders, of what use is it?

Same thing twice over - he's been focused on the weakening UN for years saying this one and that one have been trying to destroy it. Of course in the MADRE interview he was railing against US imperialistic intentions in Yugoslavia. Which uhh... I don't know. Did they ever materialize? Or was it just as the US and NATO said - to get rid of Slobodan Milosovic?

(3) Noam's facts are a little less than straight. Take his comments about the US dragging the UN into GWI. That's another dove-purported half truth at best. In fact, it was Maggie Thatcher who dragged the US (who helped the UK bring the UN on side) for the first gulf war.

(4) If Noam thinks CNN is bad, he should turn on Iraqi TV. Have the US taken the airport yet?

(5) Yes, N. Korea is protected by MAD. Is anyone surprised by that? Or should we just wander in and incite nuclear war?

(6) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to determine that this interview was very one sided and conducted in such a manner so that Chomsky could get on a soapbox and speak rather than really answer questions. Or maybe VK saying "The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present danger is, of course, without any substance at all." was really supposed to be a question. Really.

[Cranky]

Some people think that their voice has a special message but I see nothing special from Chomsky. Nothing new or original and nothing more then any other celebrity anti-war hero has done.

Now if Bill Gates says he will crash all the computers in the world, then I will get concerrned. Bah, Bill Money has only one thing on his mind.........

[The New Guy]

Some people think that their voice has a special message but I see nothing special from Chomsky. Nothing new or original and nothing more then any other celebrity anti-war hero has done.

He aint quite a celebrity HA. At least not as say, a Martin Sheen celebrity goes. He's an intellectual, and known in certain intellectual circles as such, but I don't think he qualifies as a celebrity. The other point to make is that Noam has been doing this since the Regan administration at least. Most of the 'celebrity views' you hear are taken from his writings.

Now if Bill Gates says he will crash all the computers in the world, then I will get concerrned. Bah, Bill Money has only one thing on his mind.........

Bill crash all the computers in the world? Bwahahahahahahahaha....

*cough*Linux*cough*

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The Noam of the Rose is Chomsky.

Rah-rah sis-koom-bah!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

HabsAddict said:

Some people think that their voice has a special message but I see nothing special from Chomsky. Nothing new or original and nothing more then any other celebrity anti-war hero has done.

Now if Bill Gates says he will crash all the computers in the world, then I will get concerrned. Bah, Bill Money has only one thing on his mind.........

People see what they want to see. Especially those in a position of power. A stance which ultimately leads to their downfall.

Truth isn't concerned with being *new* or flavour of the month. It just is. Chomsky isn't anti-war (just as there are no anti-war posters in this forum). He's anti-stupidity (as are the posters against the unilateral American invasion in this forum). Think long-term rather than short-term.

Bill Gates is a thief. Pure and simple. Only those who are blinded by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ would say he isn't. Gates' stroke of genius was to rip off the Apple and Atari GUIs (poorly in fact), use customers as paying beta testers, and launch pre-emptive strikes against truly original and innovative companies by crushing them and usurping and implementing their advances (poorly, once again). A model for some, to be sure.

Linux baby. People around the world are seeing through the Micro$oft hype, just as they are seeing through American foreign policy. Same smokescreen. Different colours of smoke.

TNG wears a RedHat, TNG wears a RedHat...(or some variant)!

[The New Guy]

mr said:

People see what they want to see. Especially those in a position of power. A stance which ultimately leads to their downfall.

Same goes for those who complain about people in power. Or people that complain about those who complain about people in power. There's an old adage that goes something like "there are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth". That's not true. There are an infinite number of sides to every story. It's called perspective. And the purpose of forums and discussions like these are to broaden ones perspective.

That's also how I can have a great deal of respect for Chomsky and still think he's dead wrong.

mr said:

Truth isn't concerned with being *new* or flavour of the month. It just is. Chomsky isn't anti-war (just as there are no anti-war posters in this forum). He's anti-stupidity (as are the posters against the unilateral American invasion in this forum). Think long-term rather than short-term.

Again, it's all about perspective. That's what you see yourself as being. I see you as being pro-paranoia. I see myself as anti-stupidity, or pro-getting rid of Saddam as opposed to pro-war. Though it was a cute trick to try and slip in that jab with the connotation that we (the hawks) are anti-anti-stupidity (or pro-stupidity, if you prefer).

I almost laughed.

As for truth being concerned with 'new', I think that HA was pretty much railing against the fact that he brings nothing new, which is what the truth is concerned about. That is to say that it's pretty pointless to continue to repeat the same arguments over and over and over again. We've heard it once, we've heard it again. My point was that I feel it's much more informative to hear the 'celebrity viewpoint' from the source itself rather than some uneducated movie or television star.

mr said:

Bill Gates is a thief. Pure and simple. Only those who are blinded by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ would say he isn't. Gates' stroke of genius was to rip off the Apple and Atari GUIs (poorly in fact), use customers as paying beta testers, and launch pre-emptive strikes against truly original and innovative companies by crushing them and usurping and implementing their advances (poorly, once again). A model for some, to be sure.

Bill Gates is not a thief. Did he "steal" the idea for the desktop metaphore? Certainly. Was it copywrite? No - which makes stealing it rather difficult. What Bill Gates did was make a user friendly (if moronic and annoying) interface to allow common people access to higher order computer functions without having to learn lengthy commands or program in some of the more... estoric computer languages.

He's a brilliant mass marketer. And he's fiercely competitive. Which is why he crushed competition like Netscape (which was the dominant web browser for some time before it's decline - not a pre-emptive strike as you suggest). He plays for keeps. And because he's a frigging evil genius, he just keeps winning.

It's too bad he built his empire on DOS instead of something that was designed for more than a handful of programmers.

mr said:

Linux baby. People around the world are seeing through the Micro$oft hype, just as they are seeing through American foreign policy. Same smokescreen. Different colours of smoke.

Microsoft is not about hype. Microsoft is about convienence. The comparison is invalid, the analogy unanalogous. People use Microsoft because it's easy to use, and they don't really care if their computer crashes again and again and again and.... well... you get the idea. Honestly - I like Linux. But would I expect my parents to sit down and start to try and learn the OS? No. Windows will do for them.

American forigen policy, on the other hand, is something completely different and not within the scope of this discussion - though if we're talking about Iraq in particular - well, the last time I checked, niether Linux nor Windoze have killed many people. Niether are capable of developing WMD's (have I mentioned that they've found a large cache of chemicals in Iraq? No clear proof yet that they are WMD's or something as mundane as chemical fertilizer, but an interesting development. Or dare you suggest that the US planted them - yet another brick in your conspiracy wall). So the battle between Linux and Windows (which really isn't a battle at all) is not the appropriate comparison at all.

mr said:

TNG wears a RedHat, TNG wears a RedHat...(or some variant)!

RH 8.0 atm. It's what the school provides (so I don't have to do something like download it from their overcrowded servers) - though at different points in the past I have run Caldera and Corel (ugh!).

Later

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

People use Microsoft because they have, until recently, had no choice. Countries get invaded by the US because they still have no choice.

Microsoft is hype backed by money. US foreign policy is terrorism backed by money.

An OS that crashes regularly is not convenient. Being invaded by the US is not convenient. Unless, in either case, you're the one making a profit from the inconvenience.

The truth is neither new or old. It is.

[spozzy]

mr said:

People see what they want to see. Especially those in a position of power.

What evidence do you have of this?

Chomsky isn't anti-war (just as there are no anti-war posters in this forum). He's anti-stupidity.

Chomsky is very anti-war, very anti-capitalism, very pro-yachts and expensive cars, very hypocritical. And Chomsky today is all about leading the feeble-minded. His political rants, like the one posted above, have no substance at all. Those who actually are familiar with Chomsky's work--and are of sound mind--know he really ought to stick to linguistics.

[spozzy]

mr said:

Countries get invaded by the US because they still have no choice.

What are you saying? Saddam didn't have a choice to leave the Iraq and avoid war? Saddam didn't have over a decade to comply with UN resolutions? Be serious...

[The New Guy]

mr said:

People use Microsoft because they have, until recently, had no choice. Countries get invaded by the US because they still have no choice.

Really? Funny that - because I'm sure I read about UNIX (the precursor to Linux) being invented sometime in the early seventies. Now granted that UNIX was expensive to the point of lunacy (so were computers at the time). MINIX was poorly designed, but availible (source code too). Linus pioneered Linux is 1991 - well over ten years ago. And before such awful legacy OS's like Win 95 and Win 98.

This is totally ignoring the Mac side of things

mr said:

Microsoft is hype backed by money. US foreign policy is terrorism backed by money.

M$oft is, once again, not about hype. It's about ease of use and bargaining from a position of power. US forigen policy, on the other hand, is based on centuries old policies, recent modification on said policy, 9/11, economics, popular opinion etc. You're oversimplifying.

mr said:

An OS that crashes regularly is not convenient. Being invaded by the US is not convenient. Unless, in either case, you're the one making a profit from the inconvenience.

If you don't overload the RAM on your system, Windows is less prone to crashing. Or if you run less than one program at a time. The real problem with Windows is the fact that there are about a million security holes in Windows. That's because it's poorly designed (based on DOS) and programmed en masse (by hundreds of programmers rather than the two that built the basis of UNIX or the one that built the basis of Linux).

mr said:

The truth is neither new or old. It is.

Maybe you missed where I said the truth was subjective. Unless you happen to be the holder of universal truth.

Later

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

TNG: the computer history is old news to me, though it's good to see that they're teaching it (or you've been reading up on it). I was doing computer graphics on the Apple II+ in 1980 and bought my first PC in 1985 (an Atari 520ST).

As you say, Windows is just fine "if you run less than one program at a time". Security holes are just some of the *features* you get with Windows.

The truth is neither new, old or subjective. It is.

[spozzy]

The_New_Guy said:

Bill Gates is not a thief. Did he "steal" the idea for the desktop metaphore? Certainly. Was it copywrite? No - which makes stealing it rather difficult.

Bill Gates certainly is a thief. It's irrelevant whether stealing makes ones legally criminal. Gates stole an idea for Windows 20 years ago..and now he steals ideas for .NET.

It's too bad he built his empire on DOS instead of something that was designed for more than a handful of programmers.

My biggest beef with MS has been their nerve to release very buggy software. And then release new buggy software (and charging an arm and a leg for it) w/o fixing their old software. Mind you, I was very impressed with IE5 and Windows 2000...finally.

RH 8.0 atm. It's what the school provides (so I don't have to do something like download it from their overcrowded servers) - though at different points in the past I have run Caldera and Corel (ugh!).

It took me 14 hours to download RH 8.0 and then I find out it's unstable on my AMD k2-6 400 MHz spare computer.

[The New Guy]

mr said:

TNG: the computer history is old news to me, though it's good to see that they're teaching it (or you've been reading up on it). I was doing computer graphics on the Apple II+ in 1980 and bought my first PC in 1985 (an Atari 520ST).

Ack! An old computer geek! Next thing you know you'll be telling me what kind of paper stock they used in the early seventies for punch cards!

mr said:

As you say, Windows is just fine "if you run less than one program at a time". Security holes are just some of the *features* you get with Windows.

No one disputes this do they? Except maybe Bill, but that's just... you know... attempting to sound believable.

Most software has bugs built in. Look at send mail on UNIX. Windows just has... you know... alot.

The truth is neither new, old or subjective. It is.

Your views on can be new, old and most certainly are subjective. Or, once again, are you the holder of universal truth?

[The New Guy]

spozzy said:

Bill Gates certainly is a thief. It's irrelevant whether stealing makes ones legally criminal. Gates stole an idea for Windows 20 years ago..and now he steals ideas for .NET.

It is. Because IP lawsare kinda fuzzy in a lot of these areas, how can one rightly saw he stole the idea for the Desktop GUI. Did Linux therefore also steal the idea? Do those companies who now use air bags steal the idea from the company that first put them in (GM I think)?

Or is it simply the integrating of good ideas into other good ideas - or rather - supposed good ideas into other supposed good ideas?

spozzy said:

My biggest beef with MS has been their nerve to release buggy software. And then release new buggy software (and charging an arm and a leg for it) w/o fixing their old software. Mind you, I was very impressed with IE5 and Windows 2000...finally.

To be fair - all software is released buggy. Problem with MS software is based on MS-DOS, which... well... wasn't designed to be used as widely as it was. It's kind of comparable to the early years of mathematics. Yeah sure, Roman numerals sucks when it comes to math (compared to the arabic system), but since everything was written in Latin and used this awful system, it slowed the progress of matematics for centuries. Right now, large parts of the world revolve around what was in MS-DOS. And since MS-DOS is inherently bad... well, what happens when you build a house on mud?

spozzy said:

It took me 14 hours to download RH 8.0 and then I find out it's unstable on my AMD k2-6 400 MHz spare computer.

Go to your local institution of higher learning. Most universities have, if not Linux User support groups, then a distribution centre with at least two flavours of Linux and some nice little apps.

Later

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

He's a brilliant mass marketer. And he's fiercely competitive. Which is why he crushed competition like Netscape (which was the dominant web browser for some time before it's decline - not a pre-emptive strike as you suggest).

Actually, the web browser market is relatively meaningless, the danger to MS wasn't there, it was that with more and more web-enabled devices coming online, the web browser would essentialyl replace the desktop. Why bother having windows when just about any unix/linux/apple/anything could host a browser too ? And losing Windows would kill MS.... the profit margin in Windows is along the lines of 80%, and it's that cash that keeps the rest of MS operating.

All that to say that crushing Netscape was very much a pre-emptive strike, not because of Iraq, oops, I mean, Netscape's actual position, but of what they feared it could become.

[spozzy]

The_New_Guy said:

It is. Because IP lawsare kinda fuzzy in a lot of these areas, how can one rightly saw he stole the idea for the Desktop GUI. Did Linux therefore also steal the idea? Do those companies who now use air bags steal the idea from the company that first put them in (GM I think)?

That's true, that's true. But there's something innately wrong about destroying another company with it's own ideas..isn't there?

To be fair - all software is released buggy.

Yes...I corrected my post a little while ago (replacing buggy with very buggy). Most software released is buggy...certainly when it's for the PC. Hardly ever will you come across a problem with console software.

Problem with MS software is based on MS-DOS, which... well... wasn't designed to be used as widely as it was. It's kind of comparable to the early years of mathematics. Yeah sure, Roman numerals sucks when it comes to math (compared to the arabic system), but since everything was written in Latin and used this awful system, it slowed the progress of matematics for centuries. Right now, large parts of the world revolve around what was in MS-DOS. And since MS-DOS is inherently bad... well, what happens when you build a house on mud?

What was the purpose of Windows Millenium? My dad actually came home one day with that junk! I was like..."You just threw a few hundred bucks in the crapper pa." The next day he bought 2000 for himself. The Windows Me CD? Never installed. Gates is a liar and... thief.

Go to your local institution of higher learning. Most universities have, if not Linux User support groups, then a distribution centre with at least two flavours of Linux and some nice little apps.

I think it's probably just a system incompatibility (a lot of people with my system reported similar problems). Last fall I brought over SuSE 8 CD's from Europe (I was working overseas on my final co-op term...time of my life). It's installer was just this ridiculous:

Installing SuSE Linux:
Error: File D not found.
Continuing installation.
Error: File G not found.
Continuing installation.
Error: File I not found.
Installation completed successfuly with errors.

[Cranky]

What happened?

I throw out a name like Gates and the next thing you guys do is clamp your jaws on it and tug on it like a rubber pizza.

Okay, here are a few more:

The Beatles

Used condoms

Vulture eggs

Monica Lewinsky

George Dabyya Bush

Bah, let's see you link all of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(Hello Doctor Povlov, the experiment is working, the have become WMD's. (Weapons of Mass Debate))

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The_New_Guy said:

Ack! An old computer geek! Next thing you know you'll be telling me what kind of paper stock they used in the early seventies for punch cards!

No one disputes this do they? Except maybe Bill, but that's just... you know... attempting to sound believable.

Most software has bugs built in. Look at send mail on UNIX. Windows just has... you know... alot.

Your views on can be new, old and most certainly are subjective. Or, once again, are you the holder of universal truth?

Well, I do remember programming graphics in Apple BASIC to exploit the full capacity of the outrageously huge 64Kb of memory, storing my data on cassette (floppies not yet being in mass market use), and printing hard copy on thermal paper.

Truth is indeed universal. No one "holds" it. Any one may discover it. Example: Relativity always existed; Einstein came along and posited a theory which exposed it to us.

There is nothing new under the sun. There are merely truths which, depending on one's personal development, are either discovered or not. Cosmic archaeology is the name of the game.

Windows is extremely prone to crashes. US foreign policy is extremely prone to crashes.

Microsoft too often leaves one without support after having depleted one's resources. Ditto US foreign policy.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

spozzy said:

That's true, that's true. But there's something innately wrong about destroying another company with it's own ideas..isn't there?


Yes...I corrected my post a little while ago (replacing buggy with very buggy). Most software released is buggy...certainly when it's for the PC. Hardly ever will you come across a problem with console software.


What was the purpose of Windows Millenium? My dad actually came home one day with that junk! I was like..."You just threw a few hundred bucks in the crapper pa." The next day he bought 2000 for himself. The Windows Me CD? Never installed. Gates is a liar and... thief.


I think it's probably just a system incompatibility (a lot of people with my system reported similar problems). Last fall I brought over SuSE 8 CD's from Europe (I was working overseas on my final co-op term...time of my life). It's installer was just this ridiculous:

Installing SuSE Linux:
Error: File D not found.
Continuing installation.
Error: File G not found.
Continuing installation.
Error: File I not found.
Installation completed successfuly with errors.

Hmmm...I DLed RedHat 8 no problem, though it did take a while (not surprising for roughly a gigabyte's worth of transfer). I proceeded to create a dual boot box with Win2k (to my mind still the most stable of the Windows flavours), and have been a happy camper since. Btw, I'm chugging along on a Pentium II 233mHz processor.

Mandrake also makes a very user-friendly Linux package (I used it before switching over to RedHat).

***

Most software is in more or less perpetual development. The major advantages of open source over Microsoft:

1) it's either free or damn well close to it.
2) bugs are fixed yesterday, i.e. as soon as they are discovered; you do not pay for upgrades.
3) support is readily available, quite often from the developers themselves, and is free.
4) security issues are orders of magnitude less.

Open source software is more and more the choice for mission-critical services employed by government, corporate and academic institutions, due to its stability, level of security, and, not least, (especially in the developing world) cost-effectiveness.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

[The New Guy]

It's all in the wiggle Mr. B... it's all in the wiggle...