Hi Paolo!
On 9/14/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 08:10 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> 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.
Any company or developer can adjust, so what? If the specification
states technical requirements, that's an objective specification.
However, when the specification states a
political/religious/qualitative property (such as licensing) and
REQUIRES it FOR ALL CASES, then you are eliminating choices that
otherwise technically fulfill the requirements.
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.
Actually, quality can be made objective. There's is an associated
index for technical requirements and performance characteristics
(should be multi-threaded, fault-tolerant, redundant, scalable, etc.).
The statement of requiring ONLY FOSS is similar to requiring all
government owned vehicles be only BMW's.
> 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?
Setting a standard is different from requiring something to be of a
certain type. Requiring only FOSS be used in government agencies is
simliar to requiring that all government employees wear only white
shirts.
> 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?
You missed the point. The point is that you removed choice -- and
that's the last thing that you want to take away (unless you subscribe
to the dictatorial way of governance).
> 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.
Oh yes there is when it comes to this bill. The fascist way of
promoting FOSS is embodied by the statement: "only FOSS will be used
by government" as compared to liberal "the government prefers FOSS
over proprietary closed-source software".
>
> 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.
I am not contesting the plausibility nor possibility of it being 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.
This has nothing to do with supplying FOSS -- it has something to do
with independent choices that vendors have to make _just to be able to
provide what the government needs_. I'm suggesting that even without
the bill, let these companies bid: it shouldn't matter if there's a
bill or otherwise.
As for the procurement standards, let it be set on a case to case
basis. We don't need a law to set that standard for all government
agencies -- and even prescribe and require that only a certain type of
software license be granted.
Let's make FOSS worthy of government use without having government
require that all software to be used is FOSS.
>
> 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!
When you buy rice, you're most probably buying rice that's bought from
neighboring countries. We can't stop importing rice, because we can't
fill the demand. Same thing goes for chicken, pork, and beef. Even
Milk is imported. Your spices are imported too.
Since government is currently functional (not to the point where we
probably want it), then it's alright. It's pragmatism over ideallistic
thinking -- otherwise we'll all starve being ideologically dogmatic
about things.
The status quo allows the Philippine government CHOICE. Now if the
people in the government continue making bad choices, then they are
the problem -- not the lack of an open source policy.
> 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.
Not everyday, but we desperately need a revolution NOW. We need to
change bigger things before any of the little things make sense. And
unless we start making systemic changes, I maintain
We have more important things to worry about in government than using
FOSS in all agencies. That battle front has yet to come, and it's not
even a battle worth fighting anyway.
> 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.
Don't give me that bull pare... Government sets standards, but it does
not limit choice. In the case of obtaining software, what's important
to specify are the technical specifications and even some
non-technical specifications (avilability, scalability, etc.) but
software license should NOT be limited to only FOSS. Discriminating
technically sound software that fills the requirements is like
refusing to hire someone because that person is a Muslim.
It's the FOSS' burden to prove that it fills the government's needs
and go through the same process that any other piece of software goes
through when being considered for use by the government. It should
_not_ get preferential treatment just because it's FOSS.
--
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
