FEB
5
2003

KDE in Iran

An informal group called LIGLUG (LinuxIran Gnu/Linux User Group) yesterday finished its work on a customized live CD based on
KNOPPIX. GNU/Linux and KDE being widely unknown in Iran, this live CD, which is called "Shabdix", will be used to promote GNU/Linux and FarsiKDE in Iran. It will be released to the public as Shabdix 0.7.

Shabdix has, compared to KNOPPIX, made some major changes, such as upgrading KDE to KDE 3.1, and removing non-free packages and OpenOffice.org (since it is not possible yet to type Farsi in OpenOffice.org). The default KDE language and keyboard are set to Farsi. And some changes regarding fonts (like the use of anti aliasing, and Xft) have been made.

Due to bandwidth and space limitations the .iso image is not being made available to the public through the Internet. Arrangements are being made to possibly distribute the CD through computer magazines. The group hopes to be able to distribute the CD in schools, universities and governmental organizations as well.

Comments

Stalingrad certainly was a victory, though I doubt either side "enjoyed" it. Perhaps if Stalin hadn't gotten into bed with Hitler at the start of the war battles such as this might never have been fought in the first place.

It should also be noted that the victory of the Soviet troops in this battle was largely due to Hitler directing a large segment of his forces west due to concerns over an allied assault. Prior to the troop movement away from the eastern front, darn near half of Russia was German property.

Almost too bad that Germany didn't manage to get itself to further extend into Soviet territory. It might have avoided leaving the Eastern European states under the fist of the Soviet Empire for 40 years. Just a fun little "what-if" of history.


By Metrol at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Well yes, seems that Metrol has a deeper view of all this.

Roosevelt was under high pressure to join WWII, his puppet peers (Stalin, Daladier, Churchill) told him that the war supplies that he was secretly sending to help USSR were not enough, but the american public opinion was against USA entering WWII.

So, Roosevelt infiltrated Japan's army and set up the Pearl Harbor bombing to have a "real" reason to enter World War II.

Yes people, Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, and he was responsible for the people who died that day, he needed it in order to go and fight Germany and to ease the way for the communists to rule half of Europe.

The German soldiers couldn't believe their eyes when they saw russian soldiers with american tanks and weapons.

And General Patton was considered lunatic when he saw that all of his efforts to fight Germany, were to later give Europe away to the USSR.

Hitler's war was against bolchevique USSR, not Europe. USA fought Germany defending not it's own interests, but Israel's interests (Yes, I know that Israel not existed yet as a country, but I refer them as a people).

And this keeps happening today. Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden and friends hate American Values like freedom, and democracy? It's a cheap joke that Mr. Bush invented but not even he believes it.

Osama fights back America because America fights Israel's wars. The US Army is really the Israel's Army, don't you see?


By gonz at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

The Soviet union did not collapse in the second world war, because it received on a loan basis large amounts of American tanks and guns, even before the US entered the war officially. So even if the Soviet union did stop the Germans, without US help it might have had a much harder time.


By Moritz Moeller-... at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

I concur that no one is indebted to agree with America for all time for what it did "way back in Dubya Dubya Two." However, I'm disappointed to hear the typical European response. How can you say America was "late" for WWI--or either war, for that matter--when it wasn't wrapped up in the tangled alliances like everyone else and was separated by the Atlantic? How can you really buy into the idea that men who died trying to liberate Europe--an ocean away--weren't worthy of as much respect as those with more experience? Have you ever heard of Lend-Lease, which Winston Churchill called "the most unsordid act in the history of any nation," which helped keep the British and Russians supplied--cost-free--a whole year before America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, despite already existing and very sizable European debts from the first Great War, and still in the midst of a depression? If someone saves your life you don't trivialize it--you remember it forever as it was, a great sacrifice that can never be repaid. It's a fact that the Germans could have won either war were it not for America's help, and the same goes for Great Britain's efforts, and the Russians, French, Australians, Canadians, and everyone else that stood together against tyranny. I think that a lot of both Americans and Europeans have forgotten that it was the collective effort of all nations that made the difference between the world as we know it and a world ruled by truly evil dictators. The loss of mutual respect following those great triumphs is why real discussions between nations are tainted by self-serving egos and bigotry.

As for Hollywood, it's common knowledge that "U-571" was a corruption of real UK heroes, unfortunate as it is. Try viewing "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" instead to see a more realistic portrayal "by most accounts" of how Americans travelled thousands of miles to put their arses on the line, same as everyone else.


By matt at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Well I'm happy the americans liberated europe, but this war doesn't make sense to me. There are other countries where people are treated worse by there government, countries that do have more dangerous weapons that Iraq, countries that are in war and have been in more wars in the last ten years...

> How short your memories are.
I can't justify myself for what other people did. But I can take responsibility for my own actions.


By Norbert at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Well, if you think the war is right, take a gun and walk over there and fight.
If you don't want to do that, don't ask other people to fight instead of you, which means don't support the war.


By Peter at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Absolutely well said!! You're my idol! :))


By Vajsravana at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Ahh, yes .. the famous 'War'

Well, the original version is by
"Edwin Starr"

The Springsteen-version is better-known, though ...

:-)


By GingerBreadMan at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

W. Bush is a lose cannon, he acts on gut feeling and does not listen to his advisors. There have been a lot of work from the administration trying to fix his hot tempered mistakes. I feel sorry for the world.


By Fredrik C at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Well, Bush used to say that Iran belongs to the "Axis of Evil" with Iraq, Kuba, North Korea, Libya, etc.

But hey, the kde.org website is hosted in Germany, and Rumsfeld just told us that Germany is like Kuba and Libya, since it is in opposition to the Iraq war. So we won't have any chance escaping this rhethoric anyway...


By falonaj at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Ah, I was waiting for someone to mention Rumsfeld.

During the mid 80's, Iraq was "Our Friend" and Iran was "Our Enemy". BTW, I use "our" to mean the US and the UK, because both were involved in this. Because of this the US and the UK supplied Iraq with the means to manufacture and use chemical weapons (amongst other stuff), which they subsequently did, both against Iran (which must have been OK, since they were "Our Enemies") and his own Kurdish people. I expects that was OK as well becuase the first nation to use chemical weapons against the Kurds was the UK in the 30's.

Now, one could argue that supplying stuff like this in the 80's was, in retrospect, a terrible mistake, and that now we need to go to war to rectify this. This argument might be plausible in the UK, since the people in government have changed since, then. But, in the 80's, one of the top people involved in this supply was a certain Mr. D. Rumsfeld.

My personal view is that (a) it was a terrible mistake in retrospect and (b) it was an appalling thing to do at the time, whatever the view of "friends" and "enemies". I am horrified that we now have a US adminstration where the same person holds a top position. The best I can say of him is that his judgement is seriously flawed, his morals are non-existant, and that he is a hypocrite.

The argument about this being a war to liberating the Iraqi people is pretty dubious as well. It might have this side effect, though personally I have my doubts, but this is not the reason the war is being pushed. It is simply a continuatation of the war in Afghanistan. The first question you have to ask is "Were the Taliban nice people on, say, 11th Sept 2000?". The answer (certainly from the West's perspective) is a resounding No. So, the follow up question is, "Why did the US and the west in general wait until they did before going to war in Afghanistan?". This time, the answer is that 9/11 intervened - the war started *because* of that event.

So, lets be clear about this. The war in Afghanistan, and the likely war in Iraq *may* benefit the people in those countries, but the immediate reason they are being fought is because the West in general and the US in particular messed up big time (BTW: remember that it was the US and the CIA who trained and supported the Muhajadeen (sp?) and in consequence the Taliban). And these wars are being significantly promulgated by the same people who made those appalling and amoral judgements 15 years ago.

Not in my name!
Mike


By mike ta at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Well said. I was just seeing Rambo 2 some time ago and he was chatting with Talebans, because the Soviet Union was the "enemy" of the time.

Why "enemy"? Well, besides Stalin who was really a mad man, I think that this is just the case of the popular dict (popular here at Brasil at least) "where one don't want, two don't fight", and the hate that was in people's minds for each other just made their enemies, not anything real IMHO.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."1

"So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."2

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."1

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."3

Crazy Dubya talking again? Try the every loving, every caring Bubba Clinton. It's funny how not a single one of you leftist people rasied a voice when Clinton was launching crusie missles into Iraq or blowing up an asprine factory in Afganistan. But now that Bush is in office, everyone is against removing Saddam.

So how does this work? If a socialist US president says that we should attack Iraq, that is just fine and dandy with you people and the rest of the world, but when a conservative president says the same thing it's suddenly totally wrong. This is just amazing.

The quotes by Clinton are exactly correct, and they are just as correct when Bush is saying them.

1 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
2 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-19.html
3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/policy0...

here's another one for you people:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm


By More Dubya Instanity at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

I just feel annoyed when someone says 'When it's you gov. you don't say nothing'. That it's just flame war, the worst kind.
First, what about you opposing your own gov.
Or, you enterely agree with everything? Bush is like God, he doesn't do any mistakes.
Second, it's not the same talking than doing.
Third, many, many critics where done to Clinton.
Yes, there was no so many multitudes. But, remember, there was no the same unemployment rate, there was fiscal superavit, and war was something that US was talking about, not doing.
And, last but no least, many of your excerpts could be applied to justify inspections or war.


By MAV at Mon, 2003/02/10 - 6:00am

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."1

"So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."2

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."1

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."3

Crazy Dubya talking again? Try the every loving, every caring Bubba Clinton. It's funny how not a single one of you leftist people rasied a voice when Clinton was launching crusie missles into Iraq or blowing up an asprine factory in Afganistan. But now that Bush is in office, everyone is against removing Saddam.

So how does this work? If a socialist US president says that we should attack Iraq, that is just fine and dandy with you people and the rest of the world, but when a conservative president says the same thing it's suddenly totally wrong. This is just amazing.

The quotes by Clinton are exactly correct, and they are just as correct when Bush is saying them.

1 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
2 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-19.html
3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/policy0...

here's another one for you people:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm


By More Dubya Insanity at Sun, 2003/02/09 - 6:00am

bush is evil.silly Bush can't understand anything.
i'm not iraning,but i'm living in iran for 2 years. here best place in World.


By Joker at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

well i think all about you're talking about is that american peaple are thinking themself as hero freeing world from evils like hitler , iraq nad iran and ...
as matter of fact america after the war have done also a very evil activity in the parts of the world ,first the coup d'tat in Iran .iranian peaple havent forgave america since that time .that event make iran live in dictator regiems for about 50 years first in shah regiem than in mollah regiem .and the reasone was oil.the next one was chily and all american latin countries. the last one was in venezuela that an elected goverment was about to change by military activity supported by america.and another thing is america have profited very much since the ww2 it posses the right to sell it's products such as films and .. unlimitedly in the freed land this was very profitable especialy for america .


By Ali Yazdi at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Yes, never forget USA helped implementing ditactorial governments all over latin america!
So when most of us here hear about Bush saying we should depose Saddam because he's a ditactor, well, I don't know if I laught or get mad on those lies.

Don't belive me? Get the opened CIA's documents (I think Clinton is a great guy, just because of this law) that talk about, and read the former CIA chief book, he was about to send a submarine to Rio de Janeiro coast to depose our DEMOCRATIC govern.

The lesson is: don't trust everthing your govern say, go ahead and search for facts.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

*LOL*

Probably - But maybe also because G.W.B will put the "old europe" into the axe of the evil soon...


By notrelevant at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml
Maybe KDE should form their own axis


By Anonymous at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Surely, you mean "aksis of evil"


By Göran Jartin at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

I got sometimes the impression, that many people believe everything
they hear and read in the mass media.
And even if most of the people in i. "are evil" they are still
the ohters (LigLug for instance).


By manBehindAtree at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

i bet you come from th us.... i'm from the "old" europe and we have another point of view of the "problem".... You should believe everything what Mr. Bush says, make your own opinion....

the "old"-european
matze


By matze at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

it must mean: You should NOT... otherwise.... ;-)))


By matze at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Well, for some ignorants even Brazil is part of this "axe" :-/

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020807-85262452.htm


By Marcos Tolentino at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

And here in Argentina we are the most anti-american of all... we are BAAAAADDD


By andrea at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Maybe we brazilians and argentinians should put our diferences aside and form the terrible mercosur-axis-of-evil? heheheheh


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

NO! NO! NO!
NAO! NUNCA! NEVER!

kill both of them! kill the americans _AND_ kill te argentinians... kill "los hermanos" and "los gringos" ;-)

;-P

hehehe, just kidding ;-) (or not ;-P )

ok, ok.. this is the most concentrate trollish, i know.. but is fun, btw :-D


By Jedi at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

But it's for the sake of humankind!

hehehehe, keeping the joke.

For those who don't get it, I'll explain:
People who live near brasil-Argentina border simply hate each argentinians (and vice-versa). This feelings go a long way and was incentivated by England to keep domain over Latin America.
Mostly here at Rio Grande do Sul (southest brasilian state, where free software is largely used in government, even on bank terminals) there is a strong dislike by argentinians.
This was mostly due to argentinians invading and stealing this territory when it was yet not fully populated.
Most of brazilian army's QGs are here for this reason, Brasil and Argentina are like rival, even on football (I don't say soccer, sorry, go the americans call that thing of them something else).

In resume: they say they are the europeans of Latin America and that brazilians are monkeys, we are happy with theis financial catrastof, and live goes on...

It's nothing like we'll kill each other, the tensions are MUCH low those days, mostly because we keep seeing that those feelings only help to bring us problems and make us weaks, serving alien interests.

I'm hoping Lula's speeach saying instead economic integration only with Argentina we'll see more cultural integration. Buenos Aires (NEVER say to a brazilian that Buenos Aires is Brasil's capital) is a great cultural city, beatifull with theaters and cafes. My mother traveled to there and said it's wonderfull, just sad it's starting to show poor people as here.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

I agree, Buenos Aires is (or better, was) a wonderful city: so beautiful buildings, very large streets.. in some points it remember me NY ("The City"). My early post was a joke, of course :-) i know the "argentinos" (hermanos) have a reciprocal (re)sentiment for us ;-)

And there a statement here which says "I am you tomorrow".. this is true for both - Brazil and Argentina. Almost always, what happens here in Brazil, son or later happens in Argentina. Well.. for some thing this statement is not true, thanks God, like "Malvinas War" (Argentina vs England) and this terrible economical situation in there.

But here, in my state (Rio Grande Do Sul, the southiest state of Brasil), we call ourselfs "Gauchos" (even Charles Darwin was here, and have a very very acurate description of us). And people from Uruguai, north of Argentina and south of Paraguai are called the same way.. "Gauchos".

Maybe because this we have this "reciprocal-hate-and-love"... like twins.. some fight, some fall in love :-)

btw, i prefer fight ;-P (hey! peace, this is a joke ;-)


By Jedi at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

hehehehe...i was reading your point of view about Argentina,im argentinean from La Pampa provindce(at center of Argentina),and i have a different perception of south brazilian people,maybe because i like travel,and i discovered crossing the border with Uruguay and Brazil that we are one big nation living in three states.I feel not cultural differences with a gaucho from RGS,Sta Catarina or Uruguay...if you see we(gauchos from everywhere) have good education,high-medium standards of living,pretty woman(the best in the world),we drink mate,temperate weather and we call che-tche each other.Indeed,i feel more common things with an RGS Brazooka than with a northwestern argentinean.Well,i think differences and hates between our people was made by our political class.Argentinean economic disaster is a disaster for Uruguay(Punta del Este) and south Brazil too...specially because travel services fall and commerce.The only reason to hate Brazil is the futbol...hehehehe,the other reasons must be in history books.


By Federico Wandelow at Mon, 2003/11/17 - 6:00am

True! I am brazilian, and I just don't see why our kin hate so much argentins... and vice-versa. Actually, I DO get it: Because of soccer. The biggest proud in our country ( bigger even than our beloved amazon forest, I think ). I dislike soccer. So I think thats why I dont hate them. Its interesting that anyone if not Brazil or Argentina is talkinga bout that. Oh, you're right: Brazilians absolutely hate when someone thinks that our capital is Buenos Aires. But don't say we are a beautiful nation and such. You must see deeper than the tourists are allowed to see.


By Frenzy Ghoul (B... at Mon, 2005/06/20 - 5:00am

Well, the real roots of the hate where from colonial perid, as England - in tyhe time US wasn't the ruler of the world as now - didn't wanted the south american countries to unite as (Simon?) Bolivar tryied by force once. So basically it just started trowing each country against other in small things to make sure a big southern power could rise.

But this was long time ago, now I agree with you, soccer raises our emotins a lot, heheheh :)


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Tue, 2005/06/21 - 5:00am

lets kill all the brazilians!!


By diebrazilians at Mon, 2006/10/23 - 5:00am

Cool! Can I declare war agains USA? Kill some americans maybe?
After all they implemented the ditatorial regim here in 64.

(just joking, but that's more or less what Bush is doing).

Anyway, can someone tell me how calling countries evil will make them start collaborating with you? Even microsoft tatics make more sense then that...


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Anyway, it's nice to see how people publish bullshit.
Our presidnt party (yes, he got elected even with that kind of electorial terrorism from some americans) was always contrary to army and wars, mostly because it's a leftist party that fought (both by weapons and words) army when there was a ditatorial regim (financed by USA), and most of the army is guess what, rightist.

So I don't see leftists giving money and weapons to rightists so easily.

You know, on those moments taking a good history book is a GOOD THING.

That's why I don't start saying that Chine should be a democracy, or that americans are mad, some things have historical reasons that should be understood.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Hey, have you got an your opinion? The real "axe of evil" is the White House and only itself.
The "old" Europe is wise, it acts only for peace. People at the White House are so ignorant they can't understand it (ok, I know, it's wellknown most of Americans are "cultureless" :-)).
USA have shown its weakness, their destiny is to lose. Now it's the time of the Union, the great European Union.ù

A proud European citizen from Italia.

P.S. European Union rules!!! ;-)


By Citizen of the ... at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Well, as an american I agree with you that the White House is the pivot for the axis of evil. This is a county being run by corporate lunatics. It's apalling, and you should be thankful that you don't have to live here. As a muslim in this preposterous country, I can't agree more.

But, please, don't blame americans. We didn't actually vote for bush. Most of us don't agree with what he's doing. And, most of us aren't "cultureless" at all.

I've known a fair number of europeans ( college, work, travel, etc) and all of them, seriously, all of them, once they spend a little while in the states lighten up on their hard-line "americans have no culture and are essentially worthless compared to us great europeans" stance.

We're all just people, living in a stupid world. Be kind.


By Shamyl Zakariya at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

One more thing -- remember that the vast majority of Americans are first or second generation Europeans, South Americans, Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Africans, etc etc etc. What you mistake for being cultureless is in reality dozens and dozens of cultures mixing and competing.

The idea of Americans as fat german-descended farmers living in iowa is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Though, we're still pretty fat once you get out of the cities and into the mega suburbs; fortunately, I keep to the city ;)


By Shamyl Zakariya at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Sorry, I didn't want to be "not-kind".
What I meant is that most americans in the USA are child of consumerism. It's a country run by corporates, the only laws are market ones. It's not true it's a democratic country.
I respect and like all cultures. South Americans, Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Africans, etc etc etc are all great peoples with a great past and a great culture.
But americans in the USA have lost their origins. There are few "real-americans" in the US. All people living there are from elsewhere. The USA are only a replaced of Europe, their culture is european too (even the language is an european one!!).
What I meant is not that the European Union and european culture are superior then other countries or cultures. I meant the E.U. is superior then the U.S.. Most of countries all over the world are superior then the U.S., even if they're more poor.


By Citizen of the ... at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

> European Union

European Community would be a more fitting/better name


By Mandrake at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

> European Community would be a more fitting/better name

No, European Union (E.U.) it's the right name. The European Community has ended 10 years ago. Now there is the European Union (don't you know the EURO €?? now it's the strongest currency in the world, stronger then US DOLLAR $). The E.U. an union of 15 european States, next year they will be 25 or 27. It's a federation of european states, one big country for Europe.

for more informations about the Union: http://europa.eu.int/

Ciao ciao
from Italia, E.U.


By Citizen of the ... at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

The old Europe only acts for peace?? Did somebody sleep through 2 world wars?

Also, you may want to check out some of the things Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been saying. Apparently he didn't get the "old Europe" memo on what to think...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06235459
http://www.agenziaitalia.it/english/news.pl?doc=200302062058-0233-RT1-PO...

What I'm really scratching my head over here is how France, Germany, and Russia suddenly became ALL of Europe. Did someone vote Britain out of the club? How about Spain or Italy? Portugal, Hungary, and Denmark must not count either. All of these other nations support that dumb, ignorant, imperialistic White House. Go figure.


By Michael Collette at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Don't forget Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia and Poland.

Oh, yeah...and Turkey.


By Just another Am... at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

>The old Europe only acts for peace?? Did somebody sleep through 2 world wars?

So no one can learn from mistakes?
PS: I live in Brasil, no wars here since... well I think it was the war agains Paraguay (bad war, just for crushing them because they where starting with ideas of liberating Latin America from England influence) in 1820 more or less, meanwhile we learned to be good neighborhoods here.


By Iuri Fiedoruk at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

One of the great things about KDE being both great software and free software is that it can empower and excite people around the world. Even better it unites people in a common cause that transcends geographic, governmental and ideological boundries. It's great to have software one can actually get excited about using.

I look forward to corresponding with new friends in Iran.


By Eric Laffoon at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Yeah, I'm surprised to see this article used as a platform for so much hostility. It's a pleasure to work with so many smart, enthusiastic people from all over the world, a pleasure to see KDE support South African languages that Microsoft and Apple don't bother with, a pleasure when Arabic, Hebrew and Farsi speakers put aside their differences and unite to flame TrollTech when they break bidirectional text support.

Like Eric, I look forward to hearing a lot more from Iran.

Remember our common enemy -- GNOME.


By Otter at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Hmm, don't like the word "enemy" these days :-/
Gnome is a competitor - congrats to there 2.2 - it looks nice. KDE of course _is_ nice ;-)

Bye

Thorsten

--
also an old european


By Thorsten Schnebeck at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

Ha! ...and here I was thinking that it was Micro$oft.


By Alan at Thu, 2003/02/06 - 6:00am

I fully agree with you.
To be honest I have been tempted to join in and (b)flame too!!!
But let's not forget that Free software and open source are a good chance and one of the last places where we can just cooperate, without being asked, where we come from and what our nationality is.
Let's keep the question of nationality for the moment when we want to wonder about each other and not for the moment we want to blame.
Blame goes to the governments and we should be smarter than that! We choose open source, right!


By Arash Zeini at Fri, 2003/02/07 - 6:00am

Pages