On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 11:41 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > 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 provisions aren't repealed by this proposed bill.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.
Huh? The current law doesn't even recognize FOSS to a degree, as it has problems with "license transfers". I suggest you review the laws on procurement again, then get back here. > > > > > > 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". This is getting truly idiotic... what I'm referring too is the "do it once, do it well" mantra. It simply DOES NOT WORK in the real world (if you're living in this same planet as we all do). > 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. So you really don't care what happens... oh well. > > > > > > 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... I used that to counter your example, imho, that it's merely enough to use XML. It's not merely enough that you use an open standard such as XML if it's just for the purpose of lip service. What I've shown is how you "corrupt" the spirit of an open standard. > > > 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! Exactly! Now you get my drift :) OpenXML is an application of XML, which is an open standard. But OpenXML itself is NOT an open standard, since it refers to other technologies that CANNOT be implemented by anyone else. > > > > > > > > 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? Idiotic response. The real reason (if you bothered reviewing networking history) was that the DOD DID NOT WANT TO BE LOCKED BY A SINGLE VENDOR. This is the same DOD back then that didn't even allow the use of COTS, and had their own standards of programming (ADA), which they only relaxed during the later years of the 20th century. > 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. We have the same position here. However, I've already given my rationale why I choose the extreme route - as this bill is sure to be watered down. Call it stupid, but it's how things do happen. You're free to lead your own revolution though to oust X government official(s) if you want more drastic, across the board changes. -- 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
