[drek]

Yeah, military drones using Linux, what a big win. The fact that the military uses Linux is a big negative for Linux in my eyes. If you support Linux, you're indirectly supporting the U.S. military and by extension murder, aggression and terrorism.

I wish more software licenses had a clause forbidding military use of the code.

[eupharis]

Exactly! And let's not stop there. The fact that the military uses steel is a big negative for steel in my eyes. If you work in steel production, you're indirectly supporting the U.S. military and by extension murder, aggression, and terrorism.

That's why I use flint knives and ride a bicycle made of bamboo.

[jff]

Bamboo? BAMBOO?! My grandfather was killed by punji sticks, you insensitive clod!

[drek]

Yeah, that's very witty, congrats.

If we were in the steel industry, the right thing to do would be to see that the military doesn't get steel. But we're not, we're mostly programmers here, so I'm saying we should exercise caution and be aware of how the stuff that we make gets used.

[eupharis]

I agree wholeheartedly we should exercise caution!

But thinking less of Linux because the military picked it up and said "Hey this is an awesome tool!" seems wrongheaded and counter-productive to me.

[mkr-hn]

By that logic, you're supporting the same things by participating in any aspect of civilization.

[drek]

Sort of, but the main difference is to what extent are you supporting killing and suffering and whether you have a choice.

The question of social responsibility of programmers (and other professionals) is not an easy one, and I think every programmer should think hard and often about the politics of their work.

Many programmers often dismiss such questions by saying that code in itself isn't moral or amoral, but what is done with it. But when you think more about it, it's just an easy excuse so that they can get on with their lives with a clear conscience.

[mkr-hn]

How do you participate in civilization without being indirectly responsible for its negatives? The only paths I see are to either opt out or accept the downsides while working to improve things.

[drek]

The second is the most sensible option. I'm not saying people should stop using Linux, I'm just saying that programmers should be more aware of the politics of their work (professional work is almost never apolitical) and strive to actually use their skills and talent to make the world a better place.

There's also a big difference between buying some gum and having the tax you paid on it go to the military vs. actively developing military drones. I'd say that contributing to Linux would fall somewhere in between these two.

[derpmeister]

So let's purposely write bugs in FLOSS because all of it can be used for evil. For well written comments of the sort you write they can't be any more insulting. This deserves an explanation so let me put it this way: I appreciate that you're voicing your concern but these kind of ideas are detrimental to progress and the prose by which you convey them is orthogonal to my comfort zone. For instance: the guy whose job is to design a military-grade drone is arguably making the world a safer place then the guy whose job is to implement new features in Linux, depending on how they're used. Yet somehow you're biased to assume the worst, which strikes me as a bit naive. Programmers shouldn't be more aware of anything, especially not politics. That's just distracting and unproductive. You choose not to contribute, fine. But it doesn't make you morally superior either way. The constraints you've set for yourself are entirely arbitrary, much like theists construe their own set of restrictions for religious reasons.

[gouranga]

It doesn't make the point wrong though.

[mkr-hn]

It's hard to follow to the natural conclusion. Should we stop using SELinux because the NSA is part of the same government? Should we stop buying servers and other hardware because the fuel bought to deliver it supports violent oil-supplying regimes?

We have to function to have any hope of improving the situation. That does mean supporting at some level the thing we hope to fix.

[gouranga]

Yes we should, but we don't because we're immoral, greedy and self-serving as a race (myself included).

[Cyranix]

Do you pay US taxes?

[drek]

No, I pay EU taxes (which also go to a lot of amoral causes) but I don't have a choice in the matter, really.

[derleth]

> I don't have a choice in the matter

Yes, you do. Thoreau certainly made the choice; but, then, he was a hated American.

[officemonkey]

Which operating system should we use? Windows? Mac OS X? I've seen DOD computers running both.

[gouranga]

None of them. The killing machines should not exist.

I used to design guidance systems for which I'm totally fucking ashamed of myself for but at the end of the day unless you observe the process you can't change it.

[derpmeister]

Yes, let's set the clock for technology back to prehistoric levels. That'll fix all our problems. If you can't find the flaw in this kind of reasoning, go see a doctor to get your head straightened.

[gouranga]

Two words: fuck you.

The issue is not the technology, but how we choose to use it.

[derpmeister]

Now you're making sense.

[gouranga]

You're still an asshat ;-)