ahem. Intermission.
It seems we are all mostly concerned with the bill's _mandatory_
nature to promote FOSS by directly restricting the freedom of choice
of platform/OS/etc IMHO its more proper to call it "OSS Bill" rather
than FOSS bill because the _F_redom was taken away then i think we
wouldn't be beating our heads :)
Anyway, let me take it a bit further down the root, what's the root
of FOSS.
For a moment let's not think too complicated and assume:
Product = Process + Raw Material
Then for arguments of complex products a simple derivative definition:
Product = Process + Product
Product^ = Product
Lets our Product be FOSS Bill which is a complex product so that:
FOSS Bill = Process + FOSS
then lets assume just not to complicate that FOSS products are:
FOSS = Technology + Raw Material, (or you might prefer free Technology
in this case)
So what's Raw Material? lets assume simply Money, Time and People.
Time and Money are radical factors, they vary from case to case so
lets not put them into the equation which will leave us with
FOSS = Technology + People.
So i just thought what if we invest on People rather than a complex
derived product such as FOSS Bill? If we have more FOSS skilled people
working in the govt ICT then it would follow that FOSS will be
_freely_ adopted rather than enforced. But remember we took out Time
and Money earlier so now its just a matter of how much Time are you
willing to invest/wait and how much Money does the govt want to invest
FOSS related training/school/education. That i think what the Bill
should also have, policy on how to allocate Time and Money to be
invested on developing FOSS adept People.
So how will this model fair with Proprietary system?
Proprietary = Process + Product
Proprietary = Technology + People + Proprietary License
and for rough model of what Proprietary License is, lets assume:
Proprietary License = Number of Bugs on MS * Age of Bill Gates
(bear with the humor)
Clearly Proprietary will cost more than FOSS even if we spend equal
Time and Money on both model!
Therefore, wouldn't we consider a FOSS Bill that contains the policy
on allocating more Time/Money/Preference on development of FOSS
skilled People rather than _mandating_ FOSS only govt IT systems that
may or may not be supported by our People?
Just my 2 cents worth.
On 9/23/06, *thad* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
This discussions are getting out of bounds! If you really wanna rant
with all of your brain out do your mind twisting allegories in the
hall of congress when the public hearing for this bill will be held.
We heard and read enough after all your lectures will be a great
learning experience for all congressmen who will hear yah. Better
obfuscate the congressmen.
Have good one.
thad
On 9/21/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Hi Rage,
>
> On 9/21/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > On 9/20/06, Dean Michael Berris < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > Hi Rage,
> > >
> > > I took my time before replying to this message of yours,
because I
> > > wanted to jump on your side or where you're coming from and
try to see
> > > it the way you're seeing it. I may have made the same
arguments a few
> > > years ago when I was deep in the "FOSS is the light" and
"FOSS is the
> > > right way" paradigm. Now business, money, and reality, make
a very
> > > good case for making pragmatic assessments at least in my
case --
> > > making me shed the "rose tainted glasses" that I know I once
wore.
> >
> > I don't wear glasses -- rose tainted or otherwise. I am as
pragmatic
> > as you claim to be.
> >
>
> Say as you wish. If "Government is using it's sovereign right to
> choose..." by "setting standards for all cases" isn't seeing the
bill
> with rose tainted spectacles, I don't think you understand what I
> meant.
>
> > > So with that, I continue presenting my opinions regarding
your responses.
> >
> > Good. Stick with that please.
> >
>
> Oh no, I was trying to make it evident that I would have made
the same
> arguments you are making now a few years back. However, I don't
think
> that sits well with you, so have it your way.
>
> > > Yes, but the act of Congress is arbitrarily defined by the
people who
> > > propose the bill. All the laws that congress enacts start
with an
> > > arbitrary rationale and objective from a partisan
representative. Of
> > > course, a member of a party will push his/her agenda because
that's
> > > what they do. And they do this arbitrarily.
> >
> > Perhaps, but don't deny the fact the although this bill as
drafted
> > "arbitrarily" so are other bills that are filed in Congress. But
> > you're only showing one side of this process. Getting the bill
drafted
> > is one thing. Getting it passed in Congress is another and
requires
> > the *consensus* of a majority of the people there.
> >
>
> All the bills filed in congress are all arbitrarily drafted. Getting
> consensus doesn't remove the fact that it was arbitrarily defined.
>
> > > I had been a junior board member of Laguna, and thank God I
saw how it
> > > worked: some representative pushes an agenda and writes a
bill to
> > > propose a course of action which is in line with his agenda.
The party
> > > will have to decide if the agenda is in line with the
party's internal
> > > politics or convictions and political positions.
> >
> > Eventually the party does not get to decide on its own what
becomes
> > law. Which is why the legislative approach is an ideal venue
to thresh
> > out any differences and come to a consensus. That is how it works.
> >
>
> Unless of course the party is holding the majority in a
democratic country, no?
>
> > > Yes, but saying government will make one choice for every
situation is
> > > tantamount to removing choice!
> >
> > Then of course the exemptions. Ask any lawyer and he will tell
you
> > that where the law makes a rule there is always an exemption
to that
> > rule.
> >
>
> Hmmm... Exemptions are an excuse for preferential arbitrary rules.
>
> You can't kill, but if you do it out of self defense then that's
> alright -- this might seem perfectly alright with some people,
but not
> for those that see killing as an unforgivable act.
>
> The government will only use FOSS unless there's no FOSS
available for
> the purpose -- this might seem perfectly alright with some
people, but
> not alright for me.
>
> > Using the *case-to-case" basis approach is only effective if
you have
> > a standard. This way you can evaluate whether or not something
applies
> > or is an exemption. The *case-to-case* analysis alone is like
saying
> > everything is an exception. For instance, why should we use a
> > classroom setting to teach students when clearly each person is
> > unique. By defining a rule, it is like saying the everyone may be
> > different but still have similarities.
> >
>
> I am alright with standards: I agree with using open standard
formats
> and protocols. However, preferring that the license be only FOSS is
> what I'm against: what if I write a license that allows government
> alone to modify the code and have third party
developers/entities see
> and modify it but not allow these third party
developers/entities the
> right to use the source code in their products/projects/operations?
> That's not a FOSS license, and what worries me is that software
> licensed under a similar scheme are exempted from government use
> regardless of whether it fulfills the functional/non-functional
> requirements.
>
> > On your second point. The license is critical because it
identifies
> > what you can and cannot do with the software. It is not like
gender,
> > race or religion so don't lump them together. Gender has no
affect on
> > how you use the software. Religion has no effect on how you
use the
> > software. Race has no effect on how you use the software.
> >
>
> Yes, it is critical but preferring or requiring only one kind of
> license (in this case FOSS licenses) is limiting and
> counter-productive.
>
> What I was saying is that government may not make decisions on
hiring
> personnel based on gender, religion, or any arbitrarily defined
> "standard". It's like saying "All Clerks to be hired will only we
> women, unless there are no other women available for the
position." Or
> even "Only Roman Catholic citizens will be hired unless there are no
> suitable Roman Catholic citizens for the aforementioned
position." --
> Draconian, Silly, and Needless.
>
> > > How I see it, making FOSS "the rule" is essentially problematic
> > > because without appropriate study for specific cases a
decision is
> > > already made. Making non-FOSS alternatives to the main
decision only
> > > because there is no FOSS equivalent is a big mistake
especially if
> > > you're taking into consideration real-life case to case
basis issues
> > > like cost, timeline, and objectives which are external to the
> > > technical requirements of the government on a case to case
basis.
> >
> > There is no meat in your pudding. The alternative-to-FOSS
approach
> > saves the government unnecessary waste of resources in terms
of both
> > time and money. See jan gestre's post on that.
> >
>
> Meat in my pudding? What are you talking about?
>
> It's not about alternative-to-FOSS. There are inifitely many ways of
> licensing your software and allow the end-user to use/modify the
> covered software without being considered a FOSS license, and
what I'm
> proposing is that government not discriminate based on whether some
> international agency said the license is a FOSS license or
otherwise,
> and instead determine the viability of the software based on
technical
> requirements first then the rights granted by the license second.
>
> >
> > > On the short term, you're dealing with migration issues,
compatibility
> > > issues, performance issues, adoption issues, and deployment
issues.
> > > You then need to build the required support infrastructure both
> > > in-house and through third party VAS providers, which will
take an
> > > enormous amount of effort and will strain the government's
operational
> > > capacity.
> >
> > These issues have to be dealt with and they do need a lot of
effort. A
> > case needs to be made on the cost vs. benefit of making that
move. But
> > none of it is insurmountable. Even if I do say so myself in my
ivory
> > tower.
> >
>
> I ask that the "case to be made" on a case to case basis, and the
> study made on a per-solution basis.
>
> > > On the long term, you're dealing with maintenance, support,
upgade,
> > > modification, among other issues which are things that you
cannot
> > > ignore. All these points above are at the mercy of an army of
> > > developers which are not even in the Philippine sovereign
territory
> > > especially if it's FOSS that you just pull down from the
Internet. If
> >
> > Same thing whether you use proprietary software. I can help
thinking
> > Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.
> >
>
> Which is precisely the point. These same issues are already being
> dealt with while using proprietary software, so what is then the
real
> advantage fiscal-wise and administrative-wise of the FOSS bill and
> requiring that just FOSS licensed software be used ?
>
> > > in case FOSS is made in the Philippines and used by the
Philippine
> > > government, maintaining software is not an easy task
especially if
> > > you've actually tried doing it (and especially if you're not
the one
> > > who wrote it). It costs lots of money because developer time
is not
> > > cheap, and the only way we're going to improve the IT
industry here in
> > > the Philippines is by paying the developers (_us_
developers) the
> > > right due -- otherwise, we'll just go to where people will
pay us more
> > > to do FOSS programming, because that's the pragmatic choice
to make.
> >
> > Which helps the local IT industry.
> >
>
> What helps the local IT industry, that the Philippines lose the
> developers to companies outside the country that pay for FOSS
> programming? Or that the Philippines actually start paying
developers
> their due (which I believe is another fiscal hit, if you do a survey
> on the actual rates of developer manpower in the private sector)?
>
> > > There are two types of requirements: functional and
non-functional
> > > requirements. Functional requirements involve the technical
operations
> > > of a solution, while non-functional requirements deal with
somewhat
> > > external factors that are not directly tied but intimately
related to
> > > the solution (issues of user interface and ouput designs,
scalability,
> > > reliability, stability, icon design, and the likes). The
software
> > > license, is neither a functional nor non-functional
requirement: it's
> > > merely an expression of the rights granted to the end-user
as can be
> > > upheld by existing international IP laws.
> >
> > Thanks for the lesson. The software license is crucial because it
> > defines what you can and cannot do with the software. It is so
crucial
> > that your functional/non-functional requirements do not matter
if in
> > the end you cannot use the software.
> >
>
> Well, then make certain "standards" regarding the contents of the
> softare licenses and not the type of license the software comes
in. It
> shouldn't matter that it's a FOSS license which the OSI
determines, or
> a license that simply allows the government to use the software and
> modify it so long as the government doesn't transfer the
> redistribution rights to the third party developers who will
modify it
> in the future.
>
> > > The license to the software is slapped on to the software
_by choice_
> > > much like how religion is chosen by people (and people have
the right
> > > to practice a religion of their choice). The State (in our
case, the
> > > government) should not discriminate on the basis of gender,
race,
> > > religion, height, weight, facial features, foot size, and in
the case
> > > of software the type of license in policies set by congress,
> > > especially the ones which affect all agencies.
> >
> > Again with the lumping. All the other things you mentioned has
nothing
> > to do with software. The State is not being discriminatory but is
> > merely exercising its sovereign right to choose. Software
developers
> > are still free to sell their wares to anyone under any license
they
> > choose.
> >
>
> Of course, everything else doesn't have anything to do with software
> (race, gender, religion, height) but much like how government should
> not discriminate the hiring of personnel and dealing with third
party
> VAS providers based on these grounds, it shouldn't discriminate
based
> on the type of software license that the solution being proposed for
> its use comes with.
>
> > > But unfortunately, some people seem to think that giving FOSS
> > > preferential treatment is a good thing: while I feel alone
in opposing
> > > it.
> >
> > Which makes me wonder...
> >
>
> Wonder about what? I believe some FOSS have made it big and are
very
> successful -- but that's not mainly because they're under a FOSS
> license, rather because they have quality developers working on the
> project. There are a lot of proprietary software companies that
> develop great software without having to put their software under a
> FOSS license.
>
> Think about it: just because it's FOSS means that people will start
> contributing to the project. And just because it's FOSS means that
> it's suddenly magical and will solve the government's problems.
>
> > > > > The policy then should read differently. It should not
require the
> > > > > license to be FOSS, but instead that source code is made
available to
> > > > > the government upon turnover -- regardless of whether
the license is
> > > > > under a FOSS license.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the source code must be made available to the
government
> > > > upon turnover.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then we agree to some extent.
> >
> > Naturally. When this bill is deliberated in Congress, people
will need
> > to agree to some extent too.
> >
>
> Naturally?
>
> They *may* agree to some extent, or not agree *at all*.
>
> > > So Free as in Freedom software will help establish an IT
industry here
> > > in the Philippines? I'm sorry, I don't see how it does.
> >
> > You've already proven it. There is a lot work on the way to
the local
> > IT industry if this bill pushes through.
> >
>
> Proven what? I've said that unless government pays the developers
> _enough_, then the developers will most probably and will most
usually
> go to where the grass is green and gates are shining.
>
> > > > > This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case...
> > > >
> > > > If the argument applies, it applies wherever you are in
the world.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but no. The argument applies only to places where the
> > > government operates under a democratic process: you can't
make the
> > > same case in North Korea, Syria, and Iran where the
conditions and
> > > principles of government are very different from what we
have. Even
> > > Peru's government is different from ours, and the arguments
that apply
> > > to our setting may not be the same for them -- and AFAICT, the
> > > arguments for their policy don't apply to our government.
> >
> > The argument is that government has objectives to meet in order to
> > fulfill its mandate. In a way, as the argument goes, FOSS and
open
> > standards helps it meet those objectives. Tell me, how does
that not
> > apply?
> >
>
> Hmmm... Government has objectives to meet in order to fulfill its
> mandate... So what is your government's mandate and what are its
> objectives? How does using only FOSS in government help it meet
these
> objectives?
>
> If your government's objectives and mandate are different from
another
> government, then how can FOSS help both objectives at the same
time?
>
> If A != B and C -> A, then it doesn't follow that C -> B as well.
>
> > > > > So you mean to say, even if the product was made
technically compliant
> > > > > to whatever technical requirements the government set,
then it
> > > > > wouldn't qualify for bidding even because of a license
issue? How fair
> > > > > does that sound to you? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong
person: you want
> > > > > government to use FOSS only.
> > > >
> > > > It won't qualify not because of the license issue but
because it is
> > > > not as advantageous to the government if it were freely (as in
> > > > freedom) licensed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh wait... Look at the quoted sections again above. It seems
that
> > > you're mis-construing the provisions set in the bill with
the concept
> > > of "advantageous to the government".
> >
> > > It clearly shows that any software that's not FOSS will not
qualify
> > > for bidding for government ICT projects because according to
section
> > > 6.2, only FOSS will be used for government ICT projects.
> >
> > With exemptions.
> >
>
> Hmmm... If that's the case, I can argue that:
>
> <start code>
> #include <iostream>
>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main (int argc, char * argv[]) {
> cout << "This program can be modified to suit any of the
Philippine
> Government's needs."
> << endl;
> return 0;
> };
> </end code>
>
> And when licensed under the GNU GPL can be made to do exactly
what it
> claims, then there will be no other non-FOSS licensed software that
> can be used by the Philippine government!
>
> > > >
> > > > Think. We're talking the same things here. The same
arguments do apply.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It's apples and oranges: Peru is
not the
> > > Philippines, and the Philippines is not Peru.
> >
> > I wasn't comparing the Philippines and Peru. I was merely
pointing out
> > the argument they made in favor of FOSS and nothing more.
> >
>
> Then the arguments that hold true for Peru does not make it true for
> the Philippines by virtue of just arguing.
>
> > >
> > > Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against
something" and
> > > "exception to the rule"?
> >
> > Paolo was very eloquent in answering this one.
> >
>
> I will argue with him instead then.
>
> > >
> > > But you've conveniently snipped out the section of your
comment I was
> > > referring to:
> > >
> > > " Much has also been said about whether or not it is even
necessary to
> > > have such a policy in place. I argue that it is necessary
for the
> > > reason I set forth above and in the following.
> > >
> > > Without a policy on the use of software in government we
are in danger
> > > of creating critical systems that do not integrate well as
a whole. We
> > > are at risk that state bodies may use software that is not
at par or
> > > compatible with what others are using. Without a policy in
place,
> > > government institutions who have already decided to migrate
to FOSS
> > > -based solutions are doing so on there on without any guidance
> > > whatsoever. Without policy, we cannot rationally set rules and
> > > procedures that need to be enforced when implementing FOSS.
Without
> > > policy, public data is at risk of being inaccessible and
impermanent.
> > > Without policy, basic services and the government
institutions that
> > > provide these are going to be crippled by the
"unsustainable cost of
> > > government".
> > > "
> >
> > I conveniently snipped it out because it was too long. I don't
> > particularly like long emails.
> >
>
> Do I sense sarcasm in your statement?
>
> > > You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by
citing the
> > > administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved
by just
> > > using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the
bill is a
> > > panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and
other people
> > > want to paint when only FOSS is used in government.
> >
> > You don't need to tell me what I'm saying. I know what I'm saying.
> > You're the one saying all those things above.
> >
>
> You're saying we need policy, and I agree but we differ on the
kind of
> policy: you support the FOSS bill for what it is, while I don't. And
> in its current incarnation, the FOSS bill says that FOSS should
be the
> only kind software to be used in government and I say it's
needless to
> legislate that.
>
> You're supporting your point by citing administrative and fiscal
> issues that you wish will be solved by using just FOSS in
government.
> Am I misinterpreting your assertion that using FOSS only in
government
> will solve these issues that you've raised?
>
> > > Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using
just
> > > Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing
really new
> > > to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument
that the
> > > proprietary software people will use to push an agenda.
> >
> > That's what you say. They can't make the same case because
that isn't
> > how they do business which brings us back to the bill.
> >
>
> That's what I say? That's evident in the argument.
>
> M$ Sales people will say the same things by asserting that if
you only
> used Microsoft products in all the government systems, and use
> Microsoft technology based solutions, and the solutions that
Microsoft
> certified partners provide, that you'll have little trouble with
> integration and making sure that the system is working.
>
> You're making the same points, only you're using FOSS as a
replacement
> for Microsoft's products.
>
> > > The same points you're using are the same points that make a
case for
> > > proprietary software, so there's nothing new in that.
> >
> > In what way?
> >
>
> See above.
>
> > >
> > > Clearly more advantageous for the government? I hardly think
"using
> > > only FOSS in government" is clearly more advantageous than
"using
> > > software solutions which fulfill functional and non-functional
> > > requirements, which allow for extensions and future
modifications, and
> > > which use open standard technologies for interoperating with
other
> > > solutions _regardless of the software license_".
> >
> > Extensions and future modifications are only allowed if the
software
> > license says its so. Therefore it cannot be *disregarded*.
> >
>
> It should be regardless of whether the software license is a FOSS
> license or just includes clauses for extensions and future
> modifications.
>
> > >
> > > The point is that there should be no bias for or against any
software
> > > based on the type license it comes with.
> >
> > That's your point. Its clear. You don't need to keep saying it.
> >
>
> Apparently, I need to keep saying it because some people keep
> insisting that there's no bias for FOSS in the case of this bill.
>
> > >
> > > And because it's a public forum and public discussion, we
should try
> > > to keep it on topic.
> >
> > When was I not on topic?
> >
>
> Let me quote:
>
> > Policy defines the objectives we want to meet. It provides
guidance on
> > how we can achieve these objectives. Without policy, there is
chaos.
>
> This is a sweeping naive generalization of the point of making
policy.
> That is not on topic.
>
> > >
> > > Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and
foremost by
> > > the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any
objectives is a
> > > poor way of planning and running government.
> >
> > The objectives are in the proposed legislation. Read it again.
> >
>
> Apparently, saying "non-reliance to any one vendor" is made to look
> like it will be solved by "using only FOSS in government ICT
> projects".
>
> The objective is different from what the policy conveys: the policy
> conveys usage of software licensed under one particular type of
> license (FOSS), while not solving the non-reliance to any one
vendor
> issue directly. Government may still avail of RHEL or SuSE support
> licenses, and still rely on one vendor!
>
> > > Roadmaps will come only when the objectives are clear and
policies consistent.
> >
> > Thank you for the lesson again. Here's one for you. The proposed
> > legislation may help make inconsistent policies (case-to-case
basis)
> > more consistent. The objectives are clearly stated in the bill.
> >
>
> Help make inconsistent policies more consistent? How, by making FOSS
> the first choice? How does that achieve the objectives directly?
>
> > >
> > > I speak for a lot of people when I say that we in the
Philippine Linux
> > > Users Group are Free/Open Source Software users and
advocates (some
> > > even contributors). That doesn't mean that we all sing just
one song,
> > > or for the matter believe in the same ways of promoting FOSS.
> >
> > Singing a song and singing out of tune are clearly different.
> >
>
> So you think we're all singing one song?
>
> > > What you have proven, is only that you can seem to argue and
seem to
> > > sound convincing. You have not proven that the policy is not
> > > discriminatory because of the quoted section 6 already makes it
> > > discriminatory.
> >
> > Personality attacks are cool but way off topic. The policy is not
> > discriminatory is my honest opinion. I simply have not proven
it to
> > your satisfaction.
> >
>
> So it's your honest opinion, while it's my opionion otherwise. And
> you're right, you haven't proven it (period).
>
> > > The government has the sovereign right to protect itself
from policies
> > > that limit choice -- like this FOSS bill -- and
unnecessarily favor
> > > anything based on partisan agenda. Maybe the president can
Veto this
> > > bill when it comes to the point of enactment, which gives me an
> > > idea...
> >
> > Now wouldn't that be draconian.
> >
>
> What's draconian, working within the current confines defined by
the
> government you keep insisting has the right to choose by making just
> one choice for all cases? The separation of powers is there as
granted
> by the same constitution that make the act of congress as legal
as the
> veto powers of the President of the Philippines.
>
> > >
> > > Sorry, but these two terms are objectively defined:
> >
> > Objectively defined by google but not objectively used by you.
> >
>
> Hmmm...
>
> > > zealot -- partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of
something
> >
> > We are all zealots then in our own way.
> >
>
> Which is beside the point.
>
> What I meant was that this bill is a zealotrous way of pushing an
> agenda. An Extremist approach.
>
> I believe in "do it once, do it well..." and if using the excuse of
> the bill will be watered down in the readings anyway sits well with
> some people, it doesn't sit well with me.
>
> > > fascist -- an adherent of fascism or other right-wing
authoritarian views
> >
> > Since when have Bayan Muna become right-wing and authoritarian.
> >
>
> I wasn't arguing that Bayan Muna is right-wing and
authoritarian: I am
> arguing that *the bill* is:
>
> "Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by
> strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often
maintains
> and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures.
> The term may also be used to describe the personality or management
> style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those
> within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building
> consensus." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
>
> I've used it objectively -- you just look at it through those
"FOSS is
> the only way"-rose-tainted glasses you're wearing.
>
> > > [gotten from googling "define: zealot" and "define: fascist"
respectively]
> > >
> > > Which is consistent with how I describe the bill supported
by the
> > > points that I've been raising.
> >
> > Just because you describe it as such doesn't mean it is.
> >
>
> Huh? If that's true, then just because you say you're Rage Callao
> doesn't mean you are -- which is pointless and preposterous.
>
> Using the "just because you said so isn't so" approach at
arguing will
> get you nowhere fast. Prove me wrong then.
>
> --
> Dean Michael C. Berris
> C++ Software Architect
> Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co.
> web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/
<http://software.orangeandbronze.com/>
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> (#PLUG
@ irc.free.net.ph <http://irc.free.net.ph>)
> Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
>
--
sometimes truth is stranger than fiction
-bad religion-
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/mailist
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (#PLUG @
irc.free.net.ph <http://irc.free.net.ph>)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
--
--
MSG GODIE <YOUR MESSAGE>
then send to 2948 for Globe/Sun and 3940 for Smart. Get yours FREE at
www.TxtDomain.com <http://www.TxtDomain.com>
--
Roger P. Filomeno
Mobile Specialist / R&D
Finger Apps Inc, http://fingerapps.com
Blog: http://corruptedpartition.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
