On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > > > In the case of Inferior FOSS vs. Competent non-FOSS : the government > > > will use FOSS if this bill becomes law!!! And that's what you say is > > > clearly more advantageous to government? > > > > For crying out loud... you don't need the FOSS bill to consider that if > > a particular FOSS solution would be clearly not satisfying the technical > > and functional requirements - it won't even be considered! Isn't that > > what bidding and qualification all about? Sheesh... > > > > Oh wait, but the FOSS bill doesn't even cover that part of the > equation on procurement and acquisition of third party service! And > even if there's bidding process, let's say inferior FOSS still gets > through and it's pit against competent non-FOSS, then with the bill > made law FOSS will prevail!
It's because it doesn't need to. There are other laws for that, whose provisions aren't repealed by this proposed bill. > > > > > > Then make a bill about open standards. Don't equate the advantage of > > > open standards to FOSS, because it's not just FOSS that can work with > > > open standards. > > > > Don't you get it? This bill would be watered down for sure (unless fire > > and brimstone rain from the heavens and annihilate all the corrupt > > people in government). If you compromise your proposal WAY before the > > arguments start, the end result won't be amounting to anything! > > > > Do it once, do it well. Making extremist bills is not excusable even > if it's going to be watered down. What I'm disagreeing to is the > initial "mandatory FOSS" proposition, regardless if it's going to be > watered down in congress. Unfortunately, that isn't the way politics happen in the real world. As much as everyone would like to go for open standards, even that would be contested during the deliberations. If you won't go extreme, 100% you'd get nowhere what you really want once the compromises would be included in the bill. But wait, when fire and brimstone can rain from the heavens and annihilate the corrupt, maybe that's the time that you don't need to do with extremist bills. > > > > > > I was saying that the arguments used to defend FOSS in government is > > > the same one being used to defend the use of Microsoft products. If > > > you're using Windows on all the computers, and are using the .NET > > > framework in all your applications, and that you're using XML to > > > communicate between and among components using *open standard > > > protocols*, and serializing the information in XML, then you pretty > > > much have a cohesive working system without the help of FOSS. > > > > Duh. Even if its XML, if you encumber it with proprietary blob, it's > > still NOT open standard. If you aren't even ALLOWED to implement it > > freely without hitting patents, what's the point of using that format? > > LIP SERVICE? > > > > XML is not an open standard? Hmmm... Hmmmm... you really don't get it, don't you? Take for example this situation: someone implements XML as a file format or protocol. But then the specifications of this file format/protocol refer heavily to a proprietary protocol/format that cannot be implemented by anyone. That's how you corrupt the use of XML - from a standard you reduce it to be mere lip service of "open standards" to further lock-in. > You can implement a SOAP server and a SOAP client freely without > hitting patents AFAIK, and you can serialize objects to and from XML > using a lot of technologies out there -- FOSS or otherwise. What's the > matter with that? There is no problem with that example. OTOH, my counter-example above is already existing in the real world: it's called MS OpenXML. > > > You are OTOH arguing on a different line citing the vendor > > > independence rationale for the bill. > > > > Vendor independence is only one of the rationale why the bill was > > drafted. It was YOU who gave the example on MS bastardized form of > > _interoperability_. Read the bill, check HOW they defined > > interoperability, then we talk. > > > > Bastardized form of interoperability? They should work together if > they're all talking the same language. Now it's not FOSS or non-FOSS' > fault if the solution didn't use an open standard, because _that's an > implementation detail_! That's... incredibly stupid! Tell that to the DOD who specified the use of TCP-IP instead of using IBM's own SNA for government networks! IBM back then created machines and networks that all talk the same language - provided its their own machines. It's not just a matter of talking the same language - if there's only one vendor or supplier that can provide then it still locks in government to that sole vendor! Mind you - IBM had very good standards when it came to building networks or computers (and if you recall your OS classes back then IBM only built "computers" - everyone else has to call theirs with other names). You better wonder why they chose to use an experimental, and unreliable form of networking that time that anyone can implement freely... > > > > > > Which is precisly my point: if these were the objectives, then how > > > does making FOSS mandatory achieve these goals again? Government can > > > choose to use only RHEL or SuSE on all the systems -- and they're > > > again locked into a single vendor. Using FOSS only in government will > > > not directly translate to fostering the local IT industry. > > > > Hardly lockin. Migrating would be expensive, but consider that with the > > code being FOSS, the option to migrate to another platform that would be > > open is, and will always be open. Contrast this to using proprietary > > code on proprietary platforms - you don't even have that choice! > > > > Lock-in in using FOSS is not impossible, and it can be self-induced. It is not impossible, but it's quite hard to do - like trying to sneeze with your eyes open. You may succeed, although it is painful. > > Anyway, the specifics of the bill itself does not have to say how will > > FOSS achieve the goals - that's what the rationale section is for. > > > > The specifics of the bill should be in line with the objectives, and > should be made more targeted as compared to blanket policy and more > objective than preferential and biased for FOSS. The specifics are in line with the objectives. How you interpret them though is another matter. -- 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
