I do continue to be troubled by this
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Alcibiades Nov 12, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
Yes, do continue to be troubled. And expect to be still more troubled when the inevitable Muslim edition appears. How much better it would be if, instead of trying to control the whole distribution, there was simply an add on resource pack. Its something to do with separatism. I don't think it helps to have specifically Christian branded clothes, soaps, pens...operating systems. We are in the real world with our fellow man; what should distinguish is conduct, and it should distinguish, not separate. |
| jimf Nov 12, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
I'm sure that having different 'editions' will cause a lot of people to have fits. When the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Atheist 'editions' come out, each and every one will cause someone to get bent out of shape. The truth is that all of these groups have the absolute right to create their own Distro, and whether one calls it a 'Distro', or a 'package' is just senseless FUD and political spin. People need to grow up. |
| dcparris Nov 12, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
The goal of the two Christian-targeted OSes is to provide a pre-installed, and as far as possible, pre-configured set of tools that Christians already use anyway. It simplifies the process for the largely non-technical audience that is found in so many churches. Look, if you have a typical Windows system, or even a typical 'regular' GNU/Linux OS, the Christian has to add the additional Bible study applications. That may or may not be a big deal, depending on your technical prowess. Still, I had to compile Bible Time for SUSE 10.0 last year. That isn't something a non-technical user will want to do. This way, they don't have to worry about how to follow my tutorial - it's already there - and just works. I don't know how to make the message of providing a "works out of the box" distro more clear. How would you like to be able to hand your pastor a Linux distro that the church can "install-n-run", almost literally, out of the box? What is so wrong with providing something that reduces the cost of a migration, and the re-learning, even more than it already is? imagine a couple of distros called "Mechanix" for auto shops, and Beautix for beauty shops. Everything is there for them. Wow! |
| jimf Nov 12, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
I also have to point out that, if you don't want them, you are in no way 'required' to use them. just don't get the ISO. It's about choice remember :) |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 12, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
Guys, Alcibiades isn't throubled by the religion but by the technology (as far as I read it). Why fork a whole distribution when you maintain only a patch tree? It's not hard and a number of Ubuntu spin-offs are already doing just that. They pull in the Ubuntu CD, make changes, burn the ISO and upload it to the web, make a diff of the CD's and put that diff in a debian repositry. The spin-off then uses the official Ubuntu repositories + the patch repro for package updates. Upsides: Less work (no porting of updates) and faster updates for users. Downsides: none. |
| jimf Nov 12, 2006 10:45 AM EDT |
sander, Since when has any distro been concerned with that :D |
| Alcibiades Nov 12, 2006 10:30 PM EDT |
Yes, sander's point is what I meant, on the technology. As for people doing what they want, and you don't have to get the isos, of course. Of course. That doesn't stop you pausing to think about where these individual choices are all going, though. Do understand Don's point, that it needs to be made easy, and maybe you guys are right, there are specifically multimedia distributions, when you could argue that technically a patch tree would be cleaner. To be clear, what I'm feeling is unease, not outright hostility. How popular is it proving? |
| incinerator Nov 13, 2006 12:24 AM EDT |
"pre-configured set of tools that Christians already use anyway." Aye, like software to censor their childrens' internet experience. Seems Christian parents do not accompany their children on their ventures into cyberspace. Rely on unreliable censoring software instead? I don't mind folks setting up religiously branded GNU/Linux distros. Using some dodgy "parental internet control" software as a selling point looks a wee bit silly to me, though. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2006 12:33 AM EDT |
>Using some dodgy "parental internet control" software as a selling point looks a wee bit silly to me, though. It's tough, though. I can understand the desire for a software solution. My kids, for example, are encouraged by their teachers at school to use the internet as a research tool for homework. The internet being the internet, they don't have an internet-connected computer in their rooms -- and they won't. Sharing a space with us is not always the ideal way to do homework, but...the internet is the internet and it's not a place for kids. |
| jdixon Nov 13, 2006 5:46 AM EDT |
> Rely on unreliable censoring software instead? Well, as usual, the Free Software solution seems to be better than the commercial versions. See http://dansguardian.org/ for the details. |
| incinerator Nov 13, 2006 6:28 AM EDT |
I wasn't criticising the software but the purpose it was used for. "Christians censor their children's internet." Now, that's a nice stupid stereotype, isn't it? Unfortunately, UCE advocates such things. |
| dcparris Nov 13, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
Well, I don't believe that software is a good substitute for parents, but that's a generalized statement. I know some parents that could learn a thing or two from such software. ;-) So I agree with your position, but only to a point. I was in contact for a while with a major Christian technology ministry that sponsors computer labs across the nation. They were looking for something simpler than squid, etc. to give single parents. Single parents frequently work 1.5-2 jobs, leaving the kids to fend for themselves. A software solution is often the only way they can keep their kids from viewing pornography while they're at work. It's a very serious issue in low-income families - the very ones who need the most protection. At any rate, the question raised above, how popular is it proving to be, hasn't been answered as yet. It's probably not that big a deal at the moment, though. It'll take time to catch on. |
| jdixon Nov 13, 2006 8:49 AM EDT |
> Christians censor their children's internet. Well, would you want porn popping up when your child mistypes a URL? A lot of people probably install blocking software, not because they don't trust their kids, but because they don't trust the Internet. |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
Why shouldn't parents get helpful tools? I think people who are against Internet filters don't have kids. I don't have kids, and sheesh, there are days I think of installing Dan's Guardian just for me. The Internet is the Wild Wild West, full of scary and scammy and evil things, and we should be helpful to parents instead of critical. I know all the flaws inherent in content and URL filtering- they're not very reliable and they're trying to hit constantly moving targets. The answer is better technology for end users. The alternative is government controls or some other form of central control, and that's the last thing any rational person wants. |
| jimf Nov 13, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
The Internet is a wonderful source of information, entertainment, etc, etc... But, there are things out there that are inappropriate even for an adult, and regardless of any religion. An adult can and is expected to navigate through all the crud, but, children require serious guidance. Just as you don't let your kid jump in the car and drive into the sunset. Internet computing is best a supervised and monitored activity. As Don says, many parents simply don't have the time, or the knowledge, even if they do have the intent. Blocking software is simply an attempt to fill in the gaps, and supply a certain measure of safety. To really work, it still requires parental involvment. Of course I have thought at times that children shouldn't be allowed to use computers until the're at least 18... Now that would resolve the issue :D |
| dcparris Nov 13, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
My former boss called me in a panic when his step-son was looking for information about those wrinkly-faced dogs (can't spell it right now), and the search results yielded "doggy-style" porno links and never-ending pop-ups. The kid had no idea his search would lead to that mess. Oh well! |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
All - I see we have a pretty bright group of people with thoughtful concern for the welfare of children. I don't have anything to add, it's just nice to see in a world where the real problems of raising good kids safely often take a back seat to umpteen political imperatives. |
| Alcibiades Nov 13, 2006 9:29 PM EDT |
Problem for my generation is how the world has changed. Yvor Winters wrote about Emerson to the effect that when Emerson preached yielding to impulse, he meant the impulses conditioned by 200 years of Puritan conscience. When Hart Crane listened and yielded to his impulses, Puritanism had died, and they turned out to be of a quite different sort. When I was growing up, free access to sexually explicit material meant information and the target was crippling sexual ignorance. Ignorance of what bodies looked like or how they worked. Ignorance about what was normal. Ignorance about disease. We grew up in a world in which Lady Chatterly was banned and prosecuted. Attitudes had not changed much since the prosecution of Marie Stopes. So we have instinctive reactions to the screening of sexually explicit materials which come from this world. My own parents, unusually for their time and class, had books on all kinds of subjects on the shelves and we were allowed to read everything. But 'everything' did not mean much by today's standards. The trouble is that the attitudes which were correct when what was being screened out was information are probably not right any more when what parents, Christian or not, feel they need to screen their children from is entrapment by adults pretending to be children, and images of violent pornography. Its what you come on when exploring. In our day the worst you came on was high minded texts about how to be sexually fulfilled in marriage. Now explorations are likely to plunge you into images of violent porn right away. I don't believe that software can really be the answer. But it also cannot be prudent to allow the internet connected PC to sit in the bedroom with the door closed. And if you are a single parent working 1.5 jobs, yes, just what are you supposed to do? |
| incinerator Nov 14, 2006 8:20 AM EDT |
People doing things out of necessity doesn't mean I have to like it. Children being actively assisted by their parents when surfing the internet is the best way of educating them about it. Single parents having 1.5-2 jobs can't do that, right. However, a country where single parents are forced to have full-time employment just to survice has a severely broken social security system. I live in the UK, there's quite a many single mothers out here, many of them are very young. One of my neighbours got pregnant the second time before she was eighteen. If she had to work for a living the children would not be able to survive. Not everyone has parents who can take care of their children during working hours. If she had to work society would punish her children for the "mistakes" she had made, bravo. Instead of handing out these UCE cds that Christian ministry of yours should rather try to provide cheap or free daycare facilities for single parents. Penguins have been doing that forever, humans still can't get it right. |
| SFN Nov 14, 2006 8:31 AM EDT |
I'd add in that single parents that need multiple jobs just to allow themselves and their children to survive probably shouldn't be paying for internet service. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2006 8:34 AM EDT |
> However, a country where single parents are forced to have full-time employment just to survice has a severely broken social security system. That's a political matter, and outside the bounds of LXer's TOS. Suffice it to say that reasonable people can disagree about the proper role of the state in providing for its citizens. The US and the UK make different decisions, for different reasons. We should probably leave it at that. > If she had to work society would punish her children for the "mistakes" she had made, bravo. Allowing people not to suffer the effects of their bad decisions means they never learn from them. Again, this is political, and we should probably drop the subject. > Instead of handing out these UCE cds that Christian ministry of yours should rather try to provide cheap or free daycare facilities for single parents. Linux CD's are cheap, easily provided by a single volunteer, and unregulated. Child care is expensive, requires multiple people, and is regulated in most areas. The two can't easily be compared. > Penguins have been doing that forever, humans still can't get it right. Do you have any idea what the relative fatality rate is for penguin chicks vs. human children? I wouldn't be so quick to make comparisons without checking the facts first. |
| SFN Nov 14, 2006 8:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:this is political, and we should probably drop the subject That's a good idea. That will start getting applied to all political discussions, right? Not just the ones that appear to attack Christian-based distros? |
| tuxchick Nov 14, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
Isn't user control a fundamental tenet of Free Software? Anyone who says "oh parents just need to spend more time with their kids and monitor their activities" is someone who has never had children, or ever cared for any. It sounds so easy, doesn't it. You don't have to be a single parent working 1.5 jobs to realize how ignorant this is- if you're a two-parent family with one stay-at-home it's still a hugely demanding job, and believe it or not sometimes mommy and daddy want to have a minute here and there to do something other than watch their kids Web-surf, standing ready to defeat Wrong Clicks. People want to control what comes into their homes, which seems most reasonable to me, and better than other options, like some form of central control. When I was an adorable little runt we had all kinds of semi-supervised time- running around playing with the neighbor kids, getting bucked off the crazy bored Thoroughbred across the street, working in our little gardens, burning junk in the burn barrel, digging "wells", making wood things with actual saws and hammers- I can't imagine having some kind of full-time warden hovering over every activity. Our protections were a friendly neighborhood where strangers were obvious, and everyone keeping half an eye on everyone. We didn't need full-time wardens. The Internet is definitely not a friendly neighborhood- the more tools for users to protect themselves the better. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2006 9:31 AM EDT |
> If she had to work society would punish her children for the "mistakes" she had made, bravo. Hopefully anything that doesn't directly apply to FOSS. There are places where FOSS and politics interact, and I'd think those would be appropriate for LXer. I'll do my best to hold up my end (as previous threads have shown, I sometimes have difficulty holding my tongue). The technical argument that the goals of UCE can be better accomplished with a special repository and installation scripts is a legitimate one, IMO. It's also one the UCE people are free to ignore if they want. |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
> Instead of handing out these UCE cds that Christian ministry of yours should rather try to provide cheap or free daycare facilities for single parents. I can't let such a cheap shot go. I belong to a church that feeds 500 homeless people every day, supports halfway houses for addicts and prison parolees, and a battered women's shelter. One special focus of our pastor is single parents and their children. We are reminded to invite them to our church to our homes, and, for the children especially, on special outings. None of that means we can't distribute a few CDs. |
| dcparris Nov 14, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
Look, I think the point is that some feel it would be better to just offer a repository than to offer a whole distro. Such thinking makes sense and is welcomed. I think we're probably better off letting go of whether single parents can or should spend more time with their kids. Frankly, I wish this were a perfect world too. There certainly isn't any point in letting this conversation dwindle into the kind of discussion we just brought an end to. So let's just agree to disagree on hte parenting issue, and leave it at that. Mind your 'tongues', folks. Life is short. And no, I really don't care who started it. |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2006 11:24 AM EDT |
>And no, I really don't care who started it. Yes sir. (whimper) |
| tuxchick Nov 14, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
I'm pointing, but I'm not saying who. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2006 12:35 PM EDT |
> And no, I really don't care who started it. I do! I do! Not that my caring matters any. :) |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2006 12:37 PM EDT |
> I can't let such a cheap shot go. And at least I'm not the only one who has trouble holding their tongue. :) |
| dinotrac Nov 14, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
>And at least I'm not the only one who has trouble holding their tongue. :) It's all wet and gooshy and keeps slipping out from my fingers. |
| dcparris Nov 14, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
Thanks guys! I knew I could count on y'all! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!