On 7/15/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is precisly why I think making a bill that will require
> government to use only open source software is a big hindrance to
> _measurable_ productivity and progress.
Wrong. There are many projects going on that are progressing at a
rapid pace thanks to the use of free software.
Which projects are these, Bayanihan Linux? Who are the users? Are they
being more productive and more progressive than those using Microsoft
Windows and proprietary licensed software (like the LTO, LTFRB, BIR)?
I am not talking about project progress -- I'm talking about progress
in the service offerings of the government and its primary purpose of
providing the constituency the basic and necessary services that
_everyone_ requires effectively.
> I still believe that the Philippine government cannot afford to be
> choosy of the solutions that work, since we still have problems with
> delivering basic services to the constituency. If it comes from
> Microsoft and costs lots of money but works and does the job, then why
> should we stop that solution from being used because of a
> _philosophical difference_?
The Philippine government can no longer afford to be not choosy. The
services provided by the government are dependent on how effectively
resources are applied. In the area of cost, the savings alone from the
use of free software will enable government to allocate more resources
to much needed basic services.
Savings? You do see that using FOSS will require support which the
government still has to pay for -- just the same as acquiring and
using proprietary software. I for one would not want to run a
government that tried to do everything by itself and not outsource the
non-core services to local, qualified, and accountable third party
providers.
Policy is about philosophy not profit. Or convenience. Do I even need
to explain vendor-independence or lock-in? In your pragmatic world,
throwing money at every problem is the solution.
Vendor independence is not as important as providing core services --
and policy should be geared towards the agenda which benefits the
constituency, not personal philosophy. In my pragmatic world where the
solution is to pay for a service, I don't need to be hypocritical
about philosophy but instead do the simplest thing that can possibly
work. If there happens to be a cheaper solution that does the job,
then being pragmatic will say that the chap solution should be the one
chosen for a myriad of different reasons.
Can you honestly say that there's a bidder here in the Philippines
that will develop open source software for the government _and support
it_ for free? If throwing money at every problem is not the solution
for government's problems, then how do you expect things to get done
while serving the interest of the constituency? Even communism is
about money.
> Don't get me wrong, I love open source software,
Ah-huh.
It's just that I don't think _our_ government should push for it --
because I believe pushing religious, philosophical, nor ideological
paradigms, practices, beliefs is its core function.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C/C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs
http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
Mobile: +639287291459
Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
