Hi Paolo,
On 9/14/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 02:12 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The proposition is, that we should *NOT* worry about FOSS in the
> government _yet_ (or promoting it further via legislation) because as
> I've already stated, it's needless. We should prove to ourselves first
> that we can come up with quality software first before even thinking
> about making the government use the software "touted to be more
> stable, reliable, and more robust the current commercial software
> solutions".
Hmmm... if software developers CAN code in X language with Y technology,
it can be possible that they CAN code in X language with Z technology.
That has been done BEFORE (think old Unix systems in the past, old DOS
systems in the past). And that can be done AGAIN. Like virtually any
custom software, any company who'd like to participate HAS to CONFORM to
the standards set by the specifications of the contracting party, in
this case, governments.
I don't see how the choice of programming languages and the target
systems is tied to FOSS especially since the only thing different
between proprietary commercial software and FOSS is the license. I was
talking about creating quality software in general first, before
trying to worry about licensing the software to be produced for the
government.
Making government *impose* anything is a draconian way of running
governments. It's like requiring everyone to wear white shirts *only*
when in government offices -- the policy is not only silly, it is
needless. If this imposition flies, then what if suddenly you can't
make remarks against the president, and will be considered a terrorist
or rebel if you do so (it's happened before) because it will be
imposed that any derogatory remarks against the president will be
treated an act of terrorism and rebellion?
What if it's imposed that government agencies should only used black
ball-point pens that weren't manufactured in China -- and using any
other ball-point pen is deemed illegal in any government agency?
These types of legislation are just needless not to mention draconian.
This FOSS bill, sounds along that line. Almost "communistic" in its
approach.
> > There's no reason why BOTH cannot be
> > pursued concurrently.
>
> Of course. We can talk the talk, and keep talking the talk and not
> walk the walk. We advocate the use of FOSS in government and let's
> require government to use it -- but are we ourselves _producing_ the
> "quality FOSS" that government requires?
Like what I've said above, when there's a requirement, any company who'd
like to participate would have to conform to the standard if they want
to participate. Else, you could always choose not to participate, and
spare your company of having to deal with under-the-table red tape.
Not really.
It's a chicken and egg problem: if government starts requiring that
all software to be used is FOSS *only* and there is practically no
vendor currenly able or willing to fill that requirement, what do you
do? If you're suggesting we "artifically create demand" which is a
very ivory-towerish approach, do you really think it will create the
supply?
I'm suggesting the other way around: let's prove that we can build the
supply first, before we artificially hike up the demand.
Speculation only leads to bad things: making it seem like the demand
is higher than it currently is not only stupid, it's dangerous.
> If the idea was to save on cost, then FOSS is not the answer. There
> are more effective means of cutting down on cost and increasing
> revenue to cover for expenses -- and belt tightening is one of them.
> Removing the pork barrel is another, but I digress.
So maintaining the status quo would save on cost? If change is necessary
then change must be done.
There is a necessary change, but this is not the right change for the
moment. Status quo is alright: government is still working (I think),
and it still functions *with or without FOSS being required*. The
change that needs to be done is systemic and drastic: and this FOSS
bill is the right solution to the wrong problem.
> I maintain, that unless the people who draft the bill have an idea as
> to what FOSS is about and that the Philippines can develop the
> software that its own government needs, worrying about using FOSS or
> Commercially Obtained Proprietary Software is a needless headache.
At its current form, the draft bill is still very weak (got this info
from Stallman about a few days ago, and I agree with him).
I don't like Stallman. There, I said it. I think he doesn't like me
too, but I don't care.
However, this bill IMO is needless and we can do without this bill --
save for maybe the amendments being proposed to the IP law: that might
fly by itself barring any serious lobbying against it from the
multinational puppet front.
If we're going to want to change the way government does things, we
change the people that do it, and we change the system *first*. Any
sort of changes introduced at this moment are "remedial" and even
"myopic". Let's look at the bigger picture and see how the Congressman
from Bayan Muna can tackle more important issues than "FOSS only in
Government".
Look: If we can already develop software that's good enough for
Government's use and is licensed under a FOSS license and already bid
for government projects, then why the hell should we need this bill in
the first place?
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co.
web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mobile: +63 928 7291459
phone: +63 2 8943415
other: +1 408 4049532
blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.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
