Hi Paolo,
On 9/23/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> 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provisions aren't repealed by this proposed bill.
This only supports the situation where inferior FOSS will be used just
because it's FOSS, compared to competent non-FOSS when the bill does
get passed into law in its current incarnation.
>
> 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.
So opposing the FOSS bill is corrupt? Now you're equating FOSS with
good governance and seeing FOSS as the silver bullet or "the one ring
in the darkness bind them".
Real world politics aside, I don't care. I oppose the mandatory FOSS
only provision because I feel it's wrong and extremist. I don't care
if it's going to be watered down in congress, because the proposition
is still the same and that is what I'm against.
>
> XML is not an open standard? Hmmm...
Hmmmm... you really don't get it, don't you?
What, how XML works?
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're talking about a non-open standard file format, which is what
the bill is against!
You're using an example, where youre using an open standard technology
to render data into a non-open standard format, which is what the open
standards bill is against! Read your own example, and see what you've
missed man...
> 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.
OpenXML is not an open standard format!
> >
> > 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!
What's incredibly stupid, that it's not the software's fault it didn't
use open standards? Or that they should work together if they're all
talking the same language?
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.
TCP/IP is an open standard protocol. IBM back then already created
their own network implementation, and if your machines talked the same
language that IBM implemented, your solution should work with the IBM
solution. But the IBM protocol isn't an open standard protocol right?
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...
Because it's better for them? It's a business decision? They want to
play with the DOD?
You're arguing that it's not just a matter of talking the same
language, while I say that it should be an open standard protocol and
that solutions should talk that same language in order for them to
interoperate. What I said was: It's not FOSS' or non-FOSS' fault if
they didn't choose to work with open standards because that's an
implementation detail. As far as interoperability is concerned, as
long as they communicate with the same language, then only bad design
and bad software engineering will stop it from working with each
other.
Granted that you have FOSS which talked open standards and non-FOSS
with source available and modifiable which also didn't talk open
standards, it should be alright for government to change that and make
it work with open standards if it even gets through the open standards
requirements of government.
>
> 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.
I sneeze with me eyes open... ;-)
>
> 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.
Biased for FOSS is evident, and it's preferrential more than
objective. That's the part I have problems about, because I don't see
it being in line with the objectives without having to stretch for it
and looking through rose-tainted glasses from an ivory tower.
--
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
