On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 08:10 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > 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.
Take note that I'm not emphasizing on language - see that I've done X language with Y technology, and X language with Z technology. What I mean here is that any company or developer can adjust to what their customer specifies - in this case, the customer being the government, and the specification to be FOSS. At any rate, quality is subjective. Any government can arrive to a specification of quality provided they SPECIFY it. I don't see anything wrong there. > 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? DUH? You get it all wrong dude. To impose a standard isn't really that wrong - it's done all the time. Governments impose standards for procurement. You don't suppose government should kowtow to specifications by companies rather than the other way around, don't you? > 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? Well, as long as it can be cheaper in the long run, and will not force money out of the Philippines, why not? > 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 conflict with left-wing and right-wing politics when it comes to FOSS. > > > > 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. The mere fact that software companies exist and there are multitudes of applications being deployed for government is already proof that software infrastructure CAN be done. It's only a matter of adjustment for companies to deploy FOSS technology. It may not come as easily as expected, given familiarity, but when there's a standard for procurement, you can always either adhere to the standard, or don't play the game at all. > 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. The status quo favors money going out of the Philippines. You call that alright? You gotta be kidding me! > 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". We don't need a revolution everyday. > 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? Same as why government dictates standards. Because it's needed, and because in the long run, it serves the interests of the citizens of our country better. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________ 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
