Slashdot Log In
Will Linux Win the Next Presidential Election?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:52 AM
from the vote-for-their-os-since-everything-else-is-depressing dept.
from the vote-for-their-os-since-everything-else-is-depressing dept.
i_like_spam writes "Douglas Karr has posted an interesting breakdown, complete with bar charts, of the operating systems and server software used by the websites for 23 declared and undeclared presidential candidates. The breakdown shows that there is nearly an equal split between Linux and Windows servers among the whole candidate pool. More interesting, all of the Democratic candidates except for Hillary favor Linux or FreeBSD. 69% of the Republican candidates, in contrast, prefer Windows. Is this preference for OSS or Microsoft a true reflection of differing political philosophies? And, more importantly, will Linux win the next election?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading ... Please wait.

Even More Shocking (Score:4, Funny)
Makes you think, doesn't it?
And don't even get me started on Hillary, there's solid proof that her servers resolve to the IP address 66.66.66.66 and that good packets go in but only packets with the evil flag flipped to '1' come out.
I suppose that's politicians for you, though. 'Does not compute' with them, can't pretend we're living in a society where everyone feels equally represented without them.
Intelligent Design? Or Evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
These stories of a Finnish student designing Linux must be garbage. We all know that Linux is too complex to have evolved over time to its current state. It could only have been created by an Intelligent 'designer'
Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I checked, I didn't have the ability to replicate myself without human intervention either
Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution? (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's not what ID says; you're thinking of young-earth creationism. ID'ers accept that evolution happened, but stipulate that certain complex structures could not have arisen through the processes of mutation and natural selection; the designer (by which, of course, they always mean God, even if they don't admit it) had to give things a little nudge in the right direction from time to time.
All creationism is bunk, but if you're going to criticize specific flavors of it, it's a good idea to know what you're criticizing; otherwise it weakens your argument and makes it easier to dismiss.
Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even More Shocking (Score:5, Funny)
Let there be Source... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Parent was funny, not insightful! :( (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there is [christianubuntu.com]. It looks to basically be Ubuntu with some free Bible and other related software included. The link that the grandparent posted was a mock site.
Re:Even More Shocking (Score:4, Informative)
Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds significant to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
And this still doesn't touch the individual candidates position, it could very well be some staffer telling them to vote this way or what ever. But it would still be interesting to see what these candidates would say if confronted with the question of open source verses closed and what makes the best tool for the job.
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps your bias is showing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's generational -- with the staffers. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not. This is because 90+% of all staffers in most political campaigns are either current students or recent college graduates. When I volunteered in the 2006 election for a gubernatorial candidate that had been in office in the legislature for 20 years, we had a pretty solid YouTube presence. This is because every single staffer was internet savvy. I was the only volunteer for the campaign that didn't have a Facebook or Myspace account as far as I'm aware.
Social networking was primarily tapped by Democrats in 2004 thanks to the Dean campaign, but 2006 and on has shown that both sides are about equally savvy in this respect.
As long as politicians are mired in old thinking and do not understand current technology we will continue to have problems with the way technology is regulated and how it is being incentivised (or not).
Side note: This will ALWAYS be a problem because politicians don't really start getting into senior positions to affect things until they're in their 40's or later. Most of the cutting edge of technology is driven by people in their 20's. This generation gap does not look like it's going to change any time in the future.
Re:Doubt it (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, we're only at a competitive disadvantage if the politicians and lawyers leading other countries are more tech savvy than ours. I highly doubt that is the case, but please provide counterexamples if you know any.
Second, while our leaders may not be tech savvy themselves, they are intelligent enough to at least know the right people to ask for help. If you want to learn a lot about a topic, read the expert testimony at a congressional hearing about it. For example, here is the guest list for a senate hearing a few months ago on net neutrality:
Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
President and CEO, United States Telecom Association
Chairman and CEO, Vonage
President and CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
President and CEO, CompTel
Senior Fellow and Director of the federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Professor of Law, Standford Law School
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Vice President for External Affairs, Internet2
A pretty impressive list, if you ask me. It would be pretty difficult to walk away from a meeting with that group and not have all the information you need to make a good decision on net neutrality.
If it helps you feel better, you can go on believing that politicians make decisions you disagree with out of ignorance. The truth is, the vast majority of them are highly intelligent, highly educated, and just happen to either have a different point of view than you, or hold the same opinion but allow themselves to succumb to the corrupting influence of money and power.
What About Independents, Libertarians, socialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What About Independents, Libertarians, socialis (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting omission (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What About Independents, Libertarians, socialis (Score:4, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the party but the supporters (Score:5, Interesting)
Democrats generally have a younger following then the republicans. More younger people know how to use Linux and know enough about it to use it properly. So Democrats will typically use Linux.
Republicans tend to have an older following and they will use what they know. If they don't know then they will use what most people seem to use. So that will be windows.
Also Open Source People tend to bereave in a more socialistic view that is more compatible with the democrats views so Linux and OSS People will be more likely to support Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is a more of a moderate candidate so bulk of the Linux supporters (who are typically more liberal) will not be as much encouraged to help her, while the general moderate population will be more willing to support her, so they will use what they know and the general population knows windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The campaign manager found a website project manager to construct and maintain the site. The campaign manager wanted x, y, and z to work like so
Here's one for Hillary (Score:3, Funny)
Given Diebold... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, people won't care about these crappy machines until either (1) some bat-shit-fucking insane neocon with a hard-on for starting WWIII is elected, or (2) Cowboy Neal is being sworn in.
Wait, one option already failed. Slashdotters, you know what you must do.
Re:Given Diebold... (Score:5, Funny)
That's exactly the kind of uncertainty that Diebold's backers hope to eliminate.
The candidates don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Good to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you meant the people who hate us and want to blow us up? Well, in the grand scheme of things (AIDS, cancer, automobile accidents, floods, tornadoes) I suppose there may be a small percentage of deaths attributed to such actions, and they also serve to scare portions of the population.
Yeah, there is terrorism out there, but mostly it's a smokescreen for larger, more expensive governmental oversight of the people who are unlikely to ever kill large numbers of people with the intent to scare a community or a nation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, the holocaust beats terrorism by a few orders of magnitude.
Re:Good to know (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there."
9/11 wasn't ideological. It was an attack plain and simple. They don't have troops, they can't win a war, they can't get us out, these are the things that are their only recourse. We call it terrorism because "No one would want to attack us for the things we do" even though we've been meddling with their governments and lifestyles for over 50 years.
Giant douche runs Linux, Turd sandwich Windows. (Score:5, Funny)
Used rubber runs BSD.
Vote Giant douche.
There really is a strong correlation! (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this can be construed as a statement of American corporatism seeing as the fundamentals of a Republican viewpoint involve making sure there are plenty of jobs by making sure the corporations do well. This would mean that "buying American" is the way to go. The Democratic viewpoint however, encourages the little man to do well so saving money and being a savvy consumer on an individual level are preferred along with "giving the little guy a chance" so various flavors of linux and BSD come into play there.
Definitely an interesting find!
No and No (Score:5, Insightful)
No and No.
If you honestly believe that a candidate's webserver reflects their political leanings, you're sadly delusional.
If you're planning your vote based on the candidates choice of webserver OS, then you're really missing the bigger issues.
There is not a single thing done on any of the candidate sites that are platform specific. And I doubt any of them developed their sites "in-house" (within the campaign staff). I would bet that every single one of them found a developer and/or hosting company to design and build their site. And they probably went with whatever that developer/hosting provider recommended for a hosting plan.
While looking at the differences makes for an interesting exercise in alleviating boredom, it says nothing about the overall race or candidate's positions and abilities.
And I say this as a web developer who works on both Windows and *NIX servers and usually recommends Apache on Linux or FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No and No (Score:4, Funny)
Soko
Who gives a crap? Just vote for the right person! (Score:3, Insightful)
As a non-American, I don't get to vote for one of these people next year (heck, for that matter, neither do disenfranchised Americans) but that doesn't mean that this election doesn't effect me. In many ways (the "War on Terror", climate change, etc), those of us outside the US are just as effected by White House policy as Americans themselves.
So, I implore those of you that can vote to a) do so; b) encourage everybody you know to do so; and c) vote for the candidate that will do the most to repair the damage done in the last six years by the current incumbent.
Please, the last anybody needs is another head-in-the-sand US administration. We're not exactly at the last chance saloon just yet but four more years of politics ad absurdum isn't going to help make things better.
Re:Who gives a crap? Just vote for the right perso (Score:4, Insightful)
Ron Paul & Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
telnet www.ronpaul2008.com 80
Trying 74.205.85.10...
Connected to www.ronpaul2008.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:17:44 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Connection closed by foreign host.
Re:Ron Paul & Linux (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, Ron Paul is the right version of Kucinich. He stands about the same chance of winning the Republican nomination as Hillary does of winning a beauty pageant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's the Duopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
True, that. (Thanks for the figures. I didn't have them handy.) We don't have a Democratic and a Republican party, we have a single Politician Party. One monster, two heads, that call each other names in order to distract us.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Obama... and Edwards... and Gore...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It probably was the 12 y
Re:It *does* reflect thinking of the candidates (Score:4, Informative)
You should check the news stories, because you've got the donation patterns backwards. The GOP gets smaller, but more, donations, and the Democrats get larger and fewer donations from Hollywood and George Soros types.
Re:It *does* reflect thinking of the candidates (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?c
For the under $200 donations, here's the breakdown:
Dems: 34,705
Reps: 27,710
From the graphs it looks like some other candidates get a larger portion of http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N00
So please, don't trot out the usual suspects (Hollywood and George Soros) before doing some research.
Re:It *does* reflect thinking of the candidates (Score:4, Informative)
Your OpenSecrets link is misleading and inaccurate, because politicians are not required to report the number of sub $200 donations. When you look at the $5 and $10 donations, etc, and do the math correctly, the GOP comes out way ahead of the Democrats right now.
Campaign Finance Reform helped the GOP, too. [newsmax.com] From that article: The Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress.