Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Jesux, Hoax Confirmed 120

[Dilbert] was the first of many to send us over to the self-evident reality that Jesux was a hoax. Check out the story we did about it for more details. *sigh* I'm glad this whole thing is done with. Note from Roblimo: Thanks to Alert Slashdot Reader Suraj Peiris, we know the true identity of the Jesux perpetrator, but as a courtesy, we're not publishing it - or his real e-mail address or the password he uses on his anonymous e-mail accounts. (Pudge, if you're reading this, you'd better change that password RAW!)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jesux, Hoax Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • by Weezul ( 52464 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @08:19AM (#1648292)
    May I ask, since when dose /. cover a joke site (and a pretty funny one), call it a hoax, and harass the authoer of the site? The two refrences to this wsite on /.'s homepage have been quite agressive. I assume this is all because someone with the power to aprove articles got his christian panties in a wad, but this is highly inapropreate and just down right rude. Now, I don't mind harassing some guy who really is making a distro under BSD, since that would violate the GPl, but it was clear that this was a joke.. so the only explination for the hostility in the articles is that someone was offended by this page. Ok, that's fine.. but you shouldn't raise it to the level of making script kiddy threats on /.'s home page.

    I just hope the guy who runs this site has some way to cash in on the hits he is recieving now.

  • Looks like the research is ongoing:
    Sm@rt Reseller spoke to several developers, who wish to remain anonymous because of what they see as the anti-Christian hysteria Jesux caused in some circles, who claim they plan on implementing many of Jesux's ideas. So, the idea of a 'Christianized' Linux lives on.
  • I think I agree entirely.
    If folks think that Christianity is in some way related to having t-shirts that are more provocative than Christian in nature (whatever makes a Christian t-shirt I have no idea), they're seriously wrong. And the general effect can be to cheapen the real thing.

    It's those who can't distinguish the attempt at a joke and think *everything* has to be serious that get to me...
  • by drwiii ( 434 )
    Jesux was a joke.

    It only became a "hoax" when the clueless media picked up on it and indirectly gave it credibility.

  • My husband did the initial website for the Washington National Cathedral [] (which has since changed a bit). The graphics person in his office spent days drawing cute pictures of gargoyles to illustrate different sections of the website (a teacher gargoyle for the Teacher Section, a gargoyle in a Dorothy from Wizard of Oz getup for Home, etc.) We all thought they were very cute. If you look today, there is only 1 gargoyle drawing remaining, but you can get the general idea.

    As soon as the site launched, the webmaster started getting complaints about how it wasn't appropriate for there to be demons depicted on a religious site, and demanding that the offending pictures be taken down at once.


  • Look at the mish-mash of theologies; it was clearly a joke.

    Start at the beginning, with the pronunciation--the latun pronunciation of "Jesu" with an "x" sound at the end. Heavy Catholic overtones.

    Then look at the theologians for the quotes: C.S. Lewis is one of them. Lewis was one of the "anglo-Catholics" of the Oxford movement. As I recall, he never converted to Catholocism, instead holding out for a Canterbury-Rome reconcilliation, but he--and his theology--were the very last step before outright Catholicsm. As high-church as you can get (for crying out loud, the High King in the Narnia books is named "Peter").

    Then read further down the page. Most of the rest is very low-church (e.g., only the KJV), some to positions generally only held by groups that maintain that all Catholics will go to Hell.

    It doesn't match. Not that wacko groups are consistant, but the mish-mash shows mutually exclusive groups setting the agenda.

    The one thing they did blow is the CPSL--the list of disclaimers should have referred, in the list of potential losses, one's immortal soul and eternal damnation.
  • Perpetrator? Hoax? Jeez, get out of your ivory-tower once in a while and you'll see the humor in this. Jesux was and is funny, what's funnier is how a simple joke can make the author sound like a malicious virus writer.

    Posting his handle and p/w is just childish and in bad taste. If anything was done wrong it was rob's inability to separate reality and humor.

    Vindictively posting his private info makes Slashdot the 'bad guys.' Enjoy it guys, you've earned it.

  • -The saddest part about this whole mess is that there really are people who find it "daemons", xbill and the like offensive.

    I don't find any of them offensive, although "daemons" can be inconvenient when you have to explain them to a non-computer user. For instance, I was babysitting, and I brought along "The Complete FreeBSD" to read after the kids went to bed (after that chore, even learning unix can seem easy :)

    However, I ended up spending 15 minutes trying to explain to a 5 year old why there was a picture of the devil (the FreeBSD logo) on my book. Luckily, his mother had enough experience with me to realize that I wasn't a devil worshiper (it was a very Christian family), so she didn't ask me to explain it to her.

    Oh well, the chances of daemons changing names are about the same as the chances of everyone on Slashdot running Windows...

    For those of you keeping score, I ended up explaining daemons by telling the kid that computer daemons were kind of like computer mice. Just like there is no fuzzy animal attached to your computer, there is no actual daemon on the computer; they're just nicknames.

  • Amphigory (patrick at extremehope dot organization) took this opportunity to not only
    provide us with a quote that basicaly states atheists are ignorant but continues to post a rationalization of his faith in a reply to his own thread.

    Pat, thanks for again providing the non-religious more ammo for our 'the overly-religous take almost ANY opportunity to proselytize' argument.

    In the future please stick to the topic and if you want to criticise something you don't approve of feel free to use your own words, it's a bit more convincing.


  • A useful statement of Occam's razor:
    "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

    As for me, I find that in this context, it useful to remember Occam's Razor in a more literal fashion:

    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."
    Or alternatively:
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
    The second seems particularly apt: can anyone say, "Code fork?" ;-)
  • From what we here in Europe have heard about the so-called Christian Coalition active in the States (demanding that Donald Duck only be shown wearing trousers - duh?), I wouldn't be surprised if they had come up with the idea for Jesux themselves... they do sound to me, like all fundamentalists (or rather, fascists?), to be more dangerous to society than Redmond-Willy or Saddam Hussein... Jesux was a joke, a rather good one, I thought, but the better joke was /. and ZDNet walking into that trap!
  • That's true, problem is, the Church and the Christian Coalition and their fundamentalist relatives don't love them... I doubt they ever understood the Bible...
  • slashdot -did- run the story... as soon as zdnet did.

    The story was mentioned [] on NTK [] on the 24th. I know that CmdrTaco reads NTK [], probably Roblimo does too. Then the ZDNet story [] ran on the 27th. The Slashdot article [] was published on the 28th, and Roblimo said that loads of people had been submitting it. I think that was the reason why it was featured - lots of people suggesting it - rather than any idea of 'keeping up with the zdnets'.

    Let me just repeat that - Slashdot keeping up with ZDNet? Surely it hasn't sunk that low!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 1999 @08:25AM (#1648315)
    I was not planning to make a post on this, but roblimo's thinly veiled threat added as a note to the posted article provoked me into doing so.

    A previous poster noted roblimo's e-mails to the Jesux perpetrator as proof that slashdot tries to confirm stories, and using this as basis for a claim that they are better than zdnet in this regard.

    That's absurd. slashdot -did- run the story... as soon as zdnet did. This proves that when it comes down to a choice between journalistic integrity and keeping up with the zdnets, slashdot chooses the latter.

    Aside from the hypocritical game of catch-up played with zdnet, the e-mails reveal how rude and arrogant slashdot editors are.

    The first letter begins innocently enough, and yet the flaws in roblimo's journalism are apparent immediately. Instead of objectively asking for facts, roblimo makes the immediate assumption that the project is a hoax, and demands proof that it is not. He also shows a complete lack of respect for anything anonymous, despite the fact that many slashdot submissions are anonymous, and this site has always upheld the right of its users and contributors to remain anonymous. (Given the backlash of random hate against Jesux, would -you- have revealed your identity, even if it were real?) He also assumes that an unknown voice giving an unknown name and assurance of the validity of the project will prove that it is for real. It wouldn't have; a phone call saying 'yes, it is real' is no more assuring than an e-mail saying 'yes, it is real.' So why did roblimo want it? He didn't; what he really wanted was contact information. Fortunately, the author wasn't playing his game.

    The next letter is even more insulting in its blatant and unreasonable bias towards believing that the project is a hoax. He also hints at something that is expressed more clearly in his final letter.

    roblimo closes the communication by inferring for a third time that the project is a hoax. He then proceeds to tell the author that, real or not, he would get nowhere without slashdot's help, and finally breaks down and outright insults him. His reference to 'the worldly attention our site would offer' is hysterical; I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that more people read zdnet than slashdot. With regard to his closing words ('Real Christians are proud of themselves and do not hide, Satanlike, behind lies'), I do not feel I need to add anything. The incredibly unprofessional and unnecessary insult stands on its own.

    And then we have this article. Roblimo tells the world that he -has- dredged up contact information for the author, and that 'as a courtesy,' they are not posting it. 'As a courtesy'? What is 'Your Rights Online' and the continuing existance of Anonymous Cowards all about? So that we can be told that our privacy is a 'courtesy' that will be withdrawn when we don't respond the way a slashdot editor would like?

    roblimo's thinly veiled threat to expose the author's contact information and personal passwords is nothing short of disgusting, especially coming on the heels of his insulting e-mails to said author. I don't think that anybody with his outrageous and inexcusable attitude should be the editor of a high school newspaper, much less a high-profile site such as slashdot.

    I eagerly await the -1 moderation of roblimo's pals.

  • That's a fascinating solution, except that generally, the media only reports on successful hoaxes - once before it is clear that it is a hoax, and once to inform the people who read the first report to stop repeating it to their friends.

    Indeed, many organizations see fit to report on hoaxes they never reported in the first place, for the benefit of the people it was repeated to.

    So is your solution that nothing should ever be reported, because, well, it might be a hoax, and the media shouldn't report hoaxes? Or to immediately stop reporting something as soon as it is discovered to be a hoax, thus increasing the number of people left believing it?
  • At first glance I thought the topic was "Jesus, Hoax Confirmed". A double-take revealed my mistake, but I still laughed my ass off! Especially once I read that it was "self-evident" that Jesus is a Hoax.
  • Real shooters don't take the shot unless they know they are going to hit the mark.

    However in any linux distro if you type in the wrong PID when you "kill" you might stop the wrong process.

  • What about the magic virtual bullet? It can take out 3 completely unrelated processes at once...
  • Notice I AM NOT posting this anonymously....
    I'm afraid I have to agree with this post, I hope roblimo's "Real Christians... etsee" was a joke. If not, roblimo seems to have the whole thing too seriously.. hell i've seen arrticles from segfault posted as news....
  • There was a cartoon in a religious satire magazine called the Door that had a cartoon showing a guy who had overturned some tables of "Jesus junk" (a.k.a Christianized trinkets of various sorts) at a Christian bookstore. The caption read (paraphrase), "Well, I asked myself, what would Jesus do?" There are a lot of little baubles and T-shirts that seem fairly artless, and although they are generally well-intentioned, they often come off as crass rather than worshipful.
  • So is your solution that nothing should ever be reported, because, well, it might be a hoax, and the media shouldn't report hoaxes? Or to immediately stop reporting something as soon as it is discovered to be a hoax, thus increasing the number of people left believing it?

    I think that items which are obviously hoaxes should not be reported on. (The word "obviously" is left to interpretation.. obviously.)

    However, if a hoax is already huge, then I think it's okay to report on the phenomenon, and to inform people that it's a hoax, certainly.
    But in this case, I don't believe this was a huge hoax at all.

    As I already said, I think this Jesux case was fuzzier than most. I was mainly thinking of the multitude of blatant vaporware projects out there that are actually hoaxes.
  • It's interesting that ZDnet folks are now coming out of the woodwork to throw punches. Whether roblimo's comments and actions were inproper is beside the point (and if you're asking my opinion they were). The fact of the matter here is that there would be no news at all had the ZDnet editor in question bothered to check his sources (and himself) before writing the article.

    The article is clearly taken right from the website with no effort made to confirm anything. Stating as fact, and hinting that the information came as part of an interview. Since when do journalists start writing everything down as fact that they find on websites? The fact that the article itself appeared as "news" isn't testemony to the skill of the hoaxer, but rather to the fact that the editor was too lazy or incompetent to follow up. This goes back to Journalism 101 people.

  • Speaking of basic fact-checking ... the domain doesn't appear to have any relationship to the Jesux page on _geocities_.


  • Yes, this is probably off topic, but there are tons of religious linux themes possible:
    Atheix -- for the non-beleivers.
    Catholix -- the choice of the pope.
    Baptix -- for all the PWT south of the mason-dixon
    Islamix -- middle eastern distro.
    Buddhix -- what is the sound of one hand booting?

    Actually, those are not Linux distributions - they are characters from Asterix The Gaul

  • Lame site, dude.
    Not funny, not insightful. Nothing partucularly clever about it, really.

  • IMHO it just cheapens the whole Christian religion in general.

    I concur. I hope and pray that there is a particularly warm spot in hell for televangelists, and their ilk.

    It actually bugs the hell out of me(pardon the pun)when I see a little Jesus fish on a business sign/card, as though their christian identity is now just another marketing ploy.

    These asswipes make it harder for the rest of us to explain that not every christian is a slope-browed, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, fundamentalist, and that being a christian is more than aping some bible-thumping, self-righteous, money-grubbing preacher. Some of us even swear (I never read in the bible anything about not swearing)

  • Well, as an atheist, I find many of those who 'want to convert' to not be so receptive when the tables are turned. Now, I dont go about preaching what I believe, but I will return the favor when someone else starts it. They quickly get defensive and angry (not all, most).

    So, if you want to preach, preach as much as you want, but dont be surprised when your religon is questioned just as much as you question others.
  • Mark my words: THIS one turned out to be a joke... but don't count on the next one to be the same!

    And so what if it is?

    Just because a distribution exists, nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to use it. Not even Microsoft does that.

    Where is it written that, just because something disagrees with your worldview, it has no right to exist and should be banned? I see this entirely too often, especially here on /., and it sickens me. It really does.

    In fact, I must concur with the previous poster who said, in essence, that it's the Open Source nature of Linux - the very heart and soul of this community - that permits something like Jesux to possibly be a reality; but the instant somebody decides to create it? "Oh, you can't do that, it's restrictive!" "Oh, that's no good, it violates my beliefs!" And so on.

    Linuxers, you want to blame somebody for this? Try looking in the mirror.

    YOU created the Open Source license.

    YOU made the system open to everybody.

    YOU decided that people should be allowed to redistribute the kernel in any way they saw fit, provided the source code was also made available so the next guy could do the same thing.

    Jesux, had it been for real, would have been nothing more than an alternative - let me put that in italics AND boldface, an alternative - distribution, no different than any other except in the ideaology behind it. You can't change the rules now. This guy, or anyone else, is perfectly within his rights to release something like this; you can't say that it cannot exist, and to say that it should not is entirely opinion.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Slashdotter.

    The only issue I had with the whole thing, as somebody else pointed out, was trying to release it under a "BSD-style" license, which does violate the GPL that Linux is distributed under. But, I don't want to get into the holy war that divides the BSD and GNU camps, so I'll just mention it.

    If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.

  • Lawyers? For what?? Jeez. Yes, Roblimo did seem a bit ... nasty. But certainly not as bad as your average flame. As to the password ... there apparently is a password posted on the Jesux site. It's still there, too, I believe.
  • Well, Jesux sounded like a fun idea. Implementation as it was described smelled like hoax, but one idea, the biblical quotes in the fortune files sounded like a nice one.

    There aren't too much bible quotes in the fortune files (the greatest one having to do with binary communication =), which is a shame since the Bible does have something I would call pure wisdom. (Feel free to disagree. =) Where I'm going to find Eccelesiastes now as a fortune file, mind if I ask? I'm infortunately too lazy to do that myself, and I'm fairly confident someone has done the conversion already...

  • This is patently false. The Greek New Testament we have today has more reliability as authentic than any ancient other writing, period. The second best is the Iliad, with 1000 years between its writing and our copies of it, and several hundred copies in existence. The Greek NT has just a couple hundred years of difference (with fragments separated by less than one hundred years), and several thousand copies in existence.

    And when a new translation comes out (like the NASB, RSV, etc.) it is translated directly from this work, which all historians and paleographers and textual critics know to be very reliable.

    There really is no solid footing to say what you've said.

    You don't have to believe the Bible. But it is simply wrong to state that our copies of today are not reliable copies of the original text. Feel free to do some research on the subject. Metzger, Bruce M., "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration", Oxford (1991) is an excellent book on the subject.
  • > If you are sickened by the latter but not the former then can you really get to the core of why you are sickened?

    Because some people have an objection to having someone else's religion shoved down their throat?

    If I saw someone with a Jesus t-shirt i would assume that they were some sort of mad happy-clappy and cross the street to avoid them, probably making omnian holy-horn gestures just to safe.

    dave "*gesture*"

  • Yet another reason for the old axiom of "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."
  • Assuming that Christianity is true, and following the logic of your argument leads to the conclusion that not only should you tell me, but you should do everything in your power to convince me. After all no matter what annoyance or harm you cause me now, what awaits me if I am not saved is worse. It is this logic that justifies the Inquisition, early forced missionary work etc.

    I don't find well-intentioned sufficient. Nor do I see any logical reason to stop this line of reasoning at polite conversation. The extreme conclusions are required by the extreme assumptions.

    Perhaps more relevant to usual discussions here. Anyone who is convinced he is RIGHT and has a duty to show others the error of their ways is a danger to the freedom of others. Censorship, abortion many other issues stem from just this. "I believe that it is sinful to look at porn, therefore I am trying to help you by not letting you see it. I believe that sex for purposes other than reproduction is sinful, so I'm helping you by not allowing contraceptives. etc etc"

    This isn't intended as a flame, just an explanation of why I don't think the well-intentioned, just trying to help you argument stands. Besides I've been informed of this many times in my life, I can, or could, I'm out of practice, hold my own in religious debates, and I still don't agree. I don't need to be told again.

  • Thats scary enough to make me want to go back to M$ At least I know who i'm dealing with :)
  • by Denor ( 89982 ) <> on Thursday September 30, 1999 @06:33AM (#1648346) Homepage
    There's a typo in the link, it should lead to: 990929/10/jesux-hoax []

  • I really want an opposite of Jesux I can run as a hack-this-box challenge; invite only religious types to try it. chmod 666 * That FreeBSD demon/daemon would have nothing on Satanix :)
  • I assumed it was a hoax, myself - well, more like a joke than a hoax. A joke authored by someone who thought it was funny. So weird to find out it's something that someone thinks is a good idea, if only they were smart enough to hack a kernel.

    Maybe the part about it being a good idea is a hoax, too.
  • I think that in general, the media should refrain from reporting on hoaxes, because attention is precisely what these people want.

    Baseball, for instance, has a policy of never pointing cameras and people who run on to the field. It cut that out really quickly.

    Now, before you tell me to cool off, if this guy openly admitted it was a joke, then I would've been perfectly fine with /. reporting on it as a humor topic. As it was, however, it was attempting to be deceptive and trying to get attention throuhg gullibility.
  • Ahem.

    Hey ignorant loser!

    There is nothing about relicensing linux on that site, anywhere. See those funny little symbols on the page? They are called "letters." They are used to make up "words."
  • by fireproof ( 6438 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @06:41AM (#1648351) Homepage
    The saddest part about this whole mess is that there really are people who find it "daemons", xbill and the like offensive.

    I'm personally sickened by the trend in Christianity of taking a perfectly good logo/product/etc. and "Christianizing" it. Several good examples:

    1. The Coca-Cola logo changed to "Jesus Christ" on t-shirts.
    2. "Testamints" -- nothing more than imitation Altoids.
    3. "Bible Beanies" -- I think you can figure out what this is an imitation of.
    I can actually see somebody creating a "Christian" Linux distro. After all, even the author seems to think that there is a need for it.


  • by heh2k ( 84254 )
    i can't believe so many people thought the jesux thing was legit. it was very obvious that it was a joke. i'm not surprised that the media fell for it, though.
  • by mpk ( 10222 ) <> on Thursday September 30, 1999 @06:49AM (#1648353) Homepage
    It isn't, on the whole, terribly surprising that the whole Jesux thing has turned out to be a hoax after all. It was obviously a hoax the first time I saw it, but yet, it's still managed to convince a few folks who'll believe anything that it wasn't.
    This seems to say a few things about debate in general, which probably apply to a lot of discussions other than the one this article concerns:
    • Occam is usually right. If the obvious answer is "it's a hoax", it's most likely it is.
    • Conspiracy theories, however, are far more interesting than the simple explanations.
    • Slashdot readers have an almost infinite capacity for discussing the same thing over and over again, especially if it might involve one of the Evil Conspiratorial Groups (Microsoft, the Religious Right, the US Government, etc) and how they're Doing Something
      Evil Again.
    • Don't let your judgement be clouded by your likes and/or dislikes for one camp or another in a debate. Facts, on the whole, are much more interesting than opinions.

    It would certainly increase the S/N if people did engage the brain a little before posting. Then maybe we wouldn't have had all this kerfluffle over one innocent, and rather obviously satirical, web page.
  • I'm sure most people here have seen it, but here's a neat story [] about "third-party" misinterpretation of McKusick's BSD daemon logo.
  • this guy thinks he can release linux under a BSD style license which is bullshit. BSD is completely incompatible with the GPL and code cannot be relicensed as such.
  • I dunno...
    I don't think it's a "trend", as the excessively-"spiritual" folks lacking in humour have been with us for years; chances are they'll never go away either.

    The way to deal with it all, I think, is to see the funny side of it if you can, or ignore it if you can't.
  • Augh. Surely off-topic, but I'm just so sick of this.

    A useful statement of Occam's razor:
    "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

    I cannot imagine the predictions made by "This is a hoax." and "This is real." to be very similar.

    Stronger statements are often made and attributed to being Occam's razor, but they just aren't. It is CERTAINLY not the case that the simplest theory, given an arbitrarily limited amount of data, is likely to be correct. It is MORE likely to be correct than any OTHER given theory, but not as likely to be correct as the set of all theories. If I see a black side of a sheep in Scotland, it's more likely that all sheep in Scotland are black than that for every two black sheep in Scotland there are three white sheep and a Turk. However, I'm not taking 1:1 odds on all sheep in Scotland being black.
  • for us Mad Cows...
    mOOO()o0()0oO0()()()oO0Ooo0O0()()000()()0OO()o00 oo00()0O00()Oo()00oo0()()O0()Ooo
  • I don't think it's a "trend", as the excessively-"spiritual" folks lacking in humour have been with us for years; chances are they'll never go away either.

    Yes, but we can always hope, can't we?

    Seriously, the reason I call it a trend is that it seems that I see more and more of this crap every year. I figure sooner or later the it will reach excess (if it hasn't already) and the whole thing will start to wane.

    IMHO it just cheapens the whole Christian religion in general.

    The way to deal with it all, I think, is to see the funny side of it if you can, or ignore it if you can't.

    Yeah, I suppose it's pretty amusing that people who are willing to go out of their way to collect an entire wardrobe of "Christian" t-shirts seem to think that they are making some amazing theological statement.

  • Thanks to Alert Slashdot Reader Suraj Peiris, we know the true identity of the Jesux perpetrator

    Please tell me Roblimo's crusade is just another lame joke.
  • Scroll down the email responses [] to the site, and you'll see Robin's correspondence with the hoax guy. It's nice to know that slashdot puts in more time to investigate and verify stories than other sites who fell for it *coughzdnetcoughcough*.

    That aside, I find this whole thing to be a big embarassment to Christians like myself. C'mon... Christians have much more important concerns than nitpicking the words "kill" and "daemon" out of a Linux distro.
  • by Enoch Root ( 57473 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @07:08AM (#1648363)
    Jesux was never a hoax... It was a joke. I find it sad that reporters would pick up these stories from the web, then run with them in full gear without corroborating their stories. Then, when the time comes and people find out that they screwed up, the joker is the one blamed for the whole mess.

    When I first read the Jesux homepage, the word joke was written in big, shiny letters all over it. But as soon as a journalist jumps on it and gets screwed for not doing his or her homework, then it becomes a hoax and we're supposed to believe all the guillible parties were fooled, while in fact they fooled themselves.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • When the page states: We have been getting lots of requests about whether or not this site is a hoax. We understand the reasons why, but it saddens us. and is subsequently called a hoax, I don't have much pity. I don't think anyone would have called it a hoax if they didn't bring it up themselves.
  • A useful statement of Occam's razor:
    "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

    I cannot imagine the predictions made by "This is a hoax." and "This is real." to be very similar.

    I think a more accurate depiction of the scenario which DOES fit Occam's razor would be:

    "Someone is making a hoax, thus resulting in this webpage." and
    "Someone is working on Jesux for real, thus resulting in this webpage."

    The conclusions seem much more similar now, don't they? I mean, we're really discussing "why this page exists". That the page already exists is the already extant conclusion. Much like how the world exists is already known, but whether it came about through God or not is the topic of discussion.
  • I know that everyone is saying, "Yeah, not surprised it was a hoax..." but, as the author said, there could possibly be a real distro like this. What I find surprising is that in an open source community that people are so unwilling to believe or encourage an effort like this. People are almost religious about their distro, so why not have a distro about a religion? Makes sense to me. What really surprised me was roblimo's email - and his 'update' on this story. Come on Robin, I thought you were supposed to be a respectable journalist -- and you have to be with such a huge following. He was very quick to 'crucify' this 'distro' and he had his reasons - I respect him for that. But to say "I have his real name, passwords, etc, neener neener..." is just childish and irresponsible of him, IMHO. Not saying I would use it, and I did think that some things were over-the-top, but a couple of things would be cool add-ons. Like the fortune files and the hierarchical user structure (like everyone else has said, I know). But I really don't think that posting the story and then posting up an 'I told you so' is the right way to go. I think that Hemos' post was sufficient. So I think a lot of you are going over the top, IMHO. And 'I told you so's' aren't going to make any difference.
  • by jflynn ( 61543 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @09:16AM (#1648367)
    Well, it also used to be considered very impolite to use the term "leg" in polite company, hence the euphemism "drumstick." Given that there are still individuals who feel this way somewhere should we all avoid discussing le... er limbs?

    Besides, though the flame wars do not come to a conclusion, and never will, they still serve a useful purpose -- reminding both sides that the other still exists. When you avoid all uncomfortable or inflammatory issues people start believing that everyone agrees with them.

    For example, I found the evolution in Kansas thread quite informative. Creationism has advanced significantly since I last encountered it, and was much better represented on slashdot than I ever could have imagined. I find this to be valuable information, even though I was shocked.

    If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the thread. :)
  • Actually, I thought Rob was just trying to make the Jesux people mad so they would give him what he wanted. You know, the old bad cop routine. "You call yourself a gansta? You couldn't even hold a gun, let alone shoot one!" "Naw, man, I capped the sucka!"
  • Personally, I think it ("Christianizing" a popular logo) is pretty cool. They're a great way of striking up conversation, same as saying, "Hey that's a cool Tommy Hilfiger shirt." (Of course, the response in this case would be, "Actually if you look again, it's not a Tommy Hilfiger shirt." "Oh? Oh hey, that's nifty. Where'd you get it?" Etc etc.)

    Besides, American culture is so steeped in commercialism, that you can get people to pay you for the privilege of wearing your logo! I don't feel like giving free advertising to a company I know nothing and care nothing about. I'd rather wear something that makes the kind of statement I want to. If I can do it in a way that attracts notice, hey, that's great.

    As far as "Jesux" becoming a reality, I think it's somewhat absurd. We don't need the fragmentation.


  • Well, let me say that oppression of homosexual people pisses me off. But you can't reasonably ask Christians to not think homosexuality is a sin. It is right there in the Bible. I am not here to debate the issue; I ask that Christians be tolerant of homosexuals (and bisexuals), and that people who vehemently disagree with the views of Christians be tolerant of them. What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

    I know you, and others, probably lash out because of the mistreatment you've received. Life sucks sometimes. I guess there is no answer. I'll make you a deal: if you are going to bomb my house, just give me enough warning so I can fire my bombs at you before yours hit.
  • I find it sad that reporters would pick up these stories from the web, then run with them in full gear without corroborating their stories.

    Exactly. I saw the article on the mainstream site at about the same time it appeared here on /., and there was some question as to whether or not it was real.

    Going to WHOIS showed the domain registered to "Satan's Minions". Pretty obviously a joke.

    Shame on these so-called "reporters" who can't even be bothered to do the most basic fact-checking.

  • > Jesus still loves him! Except gays, lesbians, those of other religions, abortionists, liberals, filmmakers, and anti-gun lobbyists. If you don't believe me, read the bible.
  • Yes, this is probably off topic, but there are tons of religious linux themes possible:
    Atheix -- for the non-beleivers.
    Catholix -- the choice of the pope.
    Baptix -- for all the PWT south of the mason-dixon
    Islamix -- middle eastern distro.
    Buddhix -- what is the sound of one hand booting?
  • I see that you read the Door. You're a good man!
  • Star Trek is Satanic too y'know.

    Get the Real Truth [](tm)., it's a Tripod [] page, so they'll want to cookie you...
  • It's not so much the changing of the logos that I dislike as the commercialization of Christianity that disturbs me. I know of some Christians (one lives in the dorm I'm in) who will only buy Christian shirts, etc., etc., etc.

    There's nothing (that I can see) that is inherently wrong with buying a shirt at the mall. In the same sense, I don't see anything inherently wrong with buying (or using) Red Hat, Debian, Caldera, etc. that would neccesitate a "Christian" Linux distribution. Nor can I grasp why someone would be offended by "kill" or "daemon" in reference to an operating system.

    I suppose I'll never be able to understand everybody though. But, for some odd reason, I usually try.

  • Just a couple html problems one the url in the pop-up window leads to a dead link and secondly no one can read the sspl document that explains liscencing terms to anyone, and the background image cuts off the haloed daemon on the bottom. Although it looks interesting.
  • ... that there are still some intelligent people out there. I agree. He needs to read the new testament.

    The bible said that homosexuality was an abomination, but it never said that God hated homosexuals. (I wonder how the filmmakers and gun lobbyists came in?) Oh yeah, Remember the verse that said, "I sayeth unto you, the filmmakers and gun lobbyists are evil, and I hate them, thus sayeth the Lord." (Denote sarcasm...)

    Thanks for knowing your facts. We need more people like you around.
  • Uuuhh, I've read the Bible... plenty of it in fact... and I don't believe you. Quite the opposite is true in fact.

    Jesus spent most of His time on earth amidst sinners, cheaters (tax collectors), adulterers, unreligious people, and general nincompoops. And He *loved* them!
  • I liked the site. Its too bad the guy was hunted
    down like that. I mean Come on people...
    if you don't like the joke then shake your
    head in disgust and move on.

    Noone was forcing anyone to read it.
    if it doesn't suit YOUR sense of humor
    then fine. Don't read it.
  • Brings a new meaning to that old Doobie Brothers song Jesux Is Just Alright By Me
  • by cje ( 33931 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @07:17AM (#1648386) Homepage
    It's a Linux distribution put together by L. Ron Hubbard.

    Looks and works like any other distro, but first you have to give it all of your money.
  • It was a piece of self-depracating humor which as you may have noticed in the thread, Christians found funny.

    What is not so funny was that journalists took it seriously.
  • by DonkPunch ( 30957 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @07:23AM (#1648388) Homepage Journal
    Well, I'm still working on my own project -- The Blue Steel Distribution. It is a relicensed distribution of FreeBSD targeted at gun owners.

    Some features:
    root user can set the "safety" mode. This disables rm and a few other commands famous for borking up files.

    Contains support for 15-processor SMP. Due to federal restrictions, though, civilians can only get 10-processor support.

    "kill" had been replaced by "shoot". You always "shoot" to "kill".

    "Revolver" login mode. If you don't get your password right after 6 tries, you have to reboot.

    Mouse pointer replaced by crosshairs.

    Once you order the Blue Steel Distribution, you must pass a background check and wait five days before you can install it.

    Blue Steel Distribution may not be available in all states. You may need a license to carry a laptop loaded with the Blue Steel Distribution.

    Note: this post is neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I don't care if I get flamed, because I had fun writing it. So there. :)
  • by Amphigory ( 2375 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @07:26AM (#1648389) Homepage
    The author of this (horrible) joke said it best:
    As the author says, "I don't think there is any reason (apart from this text, perhaps) to assume Jesux is a hoax. Perhaps

    you've all not been around the Christian community as much as I. This could very well be real.

    I'm serious guys -- a lot of people check their brains at the door as soon as the topic of God comes up. It was not (to me, as a serious Bible student training for ministry and someone who spends way too much time at his church) self-evident that this was a hoax. I know many people who believe this -- and stranger still.

    Which brings up another question. A lot of the beliefs expressed behind this hoaxical distro were wrong. That's right. Wrong. For example, there is no cause to not use sendmail just because Eric Allman happens to be gay Biblically speaking. Which just goes to show that you can't believe everything that calls itself Christianity.

    As with many areas in life, there is no substitute for careful, independent research and careful, independent thought. You can't just pick what you heard some televangelist say on Sunday morning, mix it in with something you vaguely remember from Sunday School when you were five, and label it as Christianity -- you've gotta do the research and decide for yourself.

    One of my favorite quotes is from Victorian Christian apologist George MacDonald:

    The kind of God that many atheists believe in is not worth believing in. Their notion of God is so confused that it is hardly worthy of consideration.

  • hey ignorant twit with a cracked password - See those letters ? They spell CSPL - the christian source license which is basically a BSD license. See what that means ? It means it was *planned* to be redistributed as such.
  • Anti-Christian? Get real? OK, I will. I'm not anti-Christian. In fact, I am a Christian, and I don't mind saying so. Specifically, I'm Southern Baptist and I'm currently studying at a seminary in Wake Forest. There's no "anti-Christian" here.
  • > There is nothing about relicensing linux on that site

    The author also doesn't retreat on his idea for a Christian Software Public License (CSPL). He says, "This is not different in any way to the BSD licenses, except for the text of the message. It is perfectly in line with all of the principles of the Open Source Definition."

    This, I believe, was what the prior poster was referring to. And he's right, you can't take GPL'ed software and slap on a BSD-like license.

  • "Attempting to be deceptive and trying to get attention through gullibility".

    Sounds like a joke to me.

  • Some of these will only be understood by people interested in firearms, but I couldn't help myself.

    Instead of Run Levels Blue Steel should have "Conditions"

    Condition 3 Boots to XDM for an Xwindows log in.
    Condition 2 Boots in multi user text only mode
    Condition 1 Single user text only mode.
    Condition FIRE Rebbots the system.

    You must be fingerprinted, photographed and pay a $250 per year license "Fee" to be able to put it on a computer that is capable of fully automaticly booting itself (certain types of APM)

    Restrictions on RISC based computers running Blue Steel as destructive devices (like street sweepers and strykers) which only serve the purpose enabling people to "Out Compute" the FBI and police.

    Laws which limit the amount of ram allowed into a system running Blue Steel Distro because "High Capacity" DIMMS allow you more room to run processes to "shoot".

    Charles Schumer and Bill Bradley introduce legislation making it a federal felony to give access to a desktop computer running the Blue Steel Distro to anyone under 18, or 21 on a laptop.

    Addition of /dev/magazine which acts as a queue where processes wait before they actually get shot in the event of a multiple process "shoting".

    Addition os /sbin/reload which is a script that stops all services and then restarts them.

    Development of a Network Report Analysis program (NRA), which is similar to SATAN but points out the security flaws in other distros.

    I have to get back to work or I'd keep this up all day.

  • I love all the people saying how "obvious" that it was that this was a hoax. This statement makes it crystal clear which /. readers are not familiar with the thought-process of fundamental Christians.

    An analogy: Back when Einstein was first publishing his theories, many MANY people thought that he was clearly wrong. It was "obvious" to those people that space could not warp and that time was relative. If Einstein was proven wrong, they would have been trumpeting "How could anybody believe that? Clearly it was all a big joke?"

    The only reason it was "obvious" to those people is because they were ignorant in that particular field of study. It was far from obvious to those who were familiar with it.

    That's essentially what is happening here. Those of us who HAVE had considerable exposure to the thought process of fundamental Christians didn't think it was even remotely obvious that it was a hoax. This could very EASILY been real!

    Now I'll admit that I was a bit skeptical when I read the part about renaming kill and the like... but everything else about it was stuff that I've heard before many many times.

    Mark my words: THIS one turned out to be a joke... but don't count on the next one to be the same!
  • OK, so you cannot read, so I will spell it out. It says all NEW code would be licensed under the CSPL. The explanation page even emphasized this. Code that was already licensed under another license would not be changed. Of course, the thing doesn't exist and never would ... but come on, just get a clue, please. If not for your sake, then think of the children!

    And what cracked password?
  • In cases such as the "Magic Bullet" made famous after the JFK assination, could a "shot" thread through many processes, or take up several timeslices before finally killing said process?

    Wouldn't such a situation introduce instability into BSD? Do we need to call in Oliver Stone?
  • Me too. Been reading too much of The Onion, I think.


    Cthulu in 2000. Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?
  • Speaking of basic fact-checking ... the domain doesn't appear to have any relationship to the Jesux page on _geocities_.
  • I hope that as the Age of Enlightenment continues, people will begin to realize that their personal beliefs (or lack thereof) are exactly that .. personal.
    You know... Has it ever occurred to you that Christianity might be /true/? Not what certain televangelists spout on 4:30AM TV shows, but the basic facts? That there is a God, and that he loved you so much that he died on a cross to save you from the punishment you deserved?

    Stipulate it for argument. Are you then suggesting that I should not tell you, as often as I can, that it is true? That I should not save you from eternal misery and seperation from God?

    Even if you think I'm an irrational fool, I'm at least well-intentioned. How many in this "age of enlightenment" can claim (honestly) that their intentions are anything better than stuffing their pockets and building up their egos? Before you say that proclaiming christ is my way of building up my ego: have you considered how much crap I take for it? How much hate mail I get? How, every time I post on this topic, script kiddies try to take out my server at home?

    The only explanation is that I've learned to love my fellow man enough that I want him (you) to be happy.

    And that I don't get any thanks for it? Do you realize that, literally, noone outside of slashdot (i.e. no one who knows me or that can do anything for me) knows that I spend this much time trying to inject some truth into this forum?

    *sigh* I guess I'll go clamp down on the old inetd.

  • The simple fact of the matter is that religion is not at all a polite topic for general conversation

    I disagree. I would say instead that religion is not a topic for those who cannot converse politely. But when topics such as evolution and religion have appeared on /., I have seen not only the requisite flames, but also quite a bit of intelligent, informative, and thought-provoking conversation. And with the moderation, the flames are rarely seen unless you read *everything*, and the good stuff usually rises to the top quickly. The good stuff is more than worth having the occasional ignorant flamebait post.

    you know damn well that you're going to spark a series of spirited posts

    "Spirited posts" are usually the most interesting. Passion is one of the things that is fundamental to human nature, whether it be passion about religion, politics, Linux, or any of a million other topics. If you take away any topic that stimulates passionate responses in people, you will have nothing left. I could use your very argument to say that Slashdot shouldn't bring up the topic of operating systems, because it will inevitably spark a series of spirited posts from the Linux advocates, and those will spark posts from *BSD folks, etc etc. The whole point of having discussion threads is to allow the community to carry on spirited discussions about things they have an interest in.

    And while I agree with you that one's religious beliefs are a very personal thing, I do not believe that this in any way implies that we cannot (or should not) discuss them. It is not necessary for the brain to cease functioning the moment the topic of religion comes up (and while it happens in some cases, in many it does not). If nothing else the discussion might help some people gain a broader understanding of other people's beliefs, which is no bad thing :-) And (oh the horror!) it might make people start to think about their own beliefs and why they believe what they do. I see this as A Good Thing (tm).

    Or maybe I'm just not cynical enough to believe that there is no point to discussing controversial topics. I don't know. I just feel that a Slashdot without real discussion would be a Slashdot that isn't worth visiting.

  • Very unprofessional of Slashdot... I'm sure if any zdnet reporters behaved like roblimo they'd surely be fired.
  • Of course you can't. And nowhere on the page is there any hint that that would happen.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    You don't hand out much on the christian newsgroups I'm guessing. There are people on the newsgroups who act exactly like the characature the Jesux site protrayed. Yes, my first impression was that it was a hoax, but after thinking about it a bit more and looking at some of the things included in the distro such as "the KJV (because it is the only Word of God)" I began to doubt my early assumption. "KJV only" people are real, and there are christians who exist on the newsgroups that post similar things that were on the Jesux site. If you are familar with some of the christians on the newsgroups you would no so easily dismiss Jesux as a hoax.
  • yep, it was a piece of humor. not that funny, but not too bad, I sure had a laugh reading their site. I don't know why anyone would *sigh* and be "so glad" that this thing is over.. it's not as if this was anything to be seriously worried about! if it had come out to be true, i'd have chuckled at just how amazingly misguided some people can be. nothing to worry about either way.
  • Thank You!!! I've been shaking my head over this for days. The only reason it's being called a hoax is because some mainstream media fell for it. I mean c''s like saying that The Onion is a hoax.
  • by greenfly ( 40953 ) on Thursday September 30, 1999 @08:15AM (#1648409)
    The only thing that sickens me about "Christianized" merchandise is the excessive price tag. Testamints modelling after Velamints, or whatever else is done, could fall under satire or parody if you wanted to think of it that way, or as a lack of originality or "cashing in" if you wanted to think of it another way. To me at least, it's not much different than all the "alternative" T-shirts where they replace a puma logo with "pimp" or anything else you might find at Hot Topic. Heck, skateboard merchandise has been doing the same thing for years. I guess someone could argue the same thing about the linux icthus for the back of your car. Fact is, if an idea sells, you will have people following up trying to cash in, and people who just want to parody it. To say that this is something only Christian companies do is a bit off.
  • If you "shoot" a process, does the virtual bullet always connect? And if you miss, might you hit another process?

    Implementation could get tricky ...



What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.