Hi Paolo,
On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe that it's alright for government to make a choice -- but
> making a choice for everyone else in government? That's like saying
> only congress needs to vote for Chacha to get in -- it doesn't make
> sense, and it certainly is way against the "play fair" notion that
> government *should* be promoting.
I don't see why government should not make a choice for everyone else in
government.
Look at it in this perspective: Because this is exactly how the
Communist government works. The dictator at the helm will say what
every agency will use, and enact laws/edicts/decrees that will favor
one particular choice _ALWAYS FOR EVERYONE IN GOVERNMENT_. This is not
how I want my country's government to be run.
If it's more advantageous to government's interests, why
not?
Because it takes away the individual government agencies choice --
much like taking the powers of the Judiciary away from choosing what
their systems will use or how the Judiciary works by enacting a law
affecting their operations.
As far as being advantageous is concerned, what *real* and not
*perceived* advantages are there to having only FOSS in government?
Granted that government is not a software development company, I don't
see what advantage FOSS has over non-FOSS in terms of providing the
required services. If FOSS proves to be cheaper, then let it get in on
that merit, not through a handout via a bill.
On the basis of fair play, it forces every player in the government
software sphere to be equal. If these software companies don't want to
play according to the rules, they shouldn't play the game.
What is this?! You mean to say it's alright for government to say
"Only MEN should be considered for any supervisory post in
government." or "All government employees will only use White Shirts
when working in government offices." ? So if you're a woman you can't
be considered for any supervisory post in government, or if don't wear
white shirts, you're in violation of the law? Because this is
definitely what it's sounding like if the "only FOSS shall be used in
Government computers will be used except yadda yadda yadda" provision
gets through.
The proposition being made is arbitrary, prejudicial, and *unfair*
because it gives FOSS a unique advantage _we all believe it doesn't
need_.
I want to see FOSS get into government systems, but I don't want it to
get in this way: this is tantamount to cheating, and any sort of
victory in this manner is hollow and undignified. It's like winning
the world cup without a fair fight.
They'd still
be paid for the services and labor they incurred, which are real costs
by the way - so why should government pay for artificial costs like
onerous per-seat, per-user and per-CPU licenses?
What the hell is wrong with per-seat/per-user/per-CPU license
acquisition costs? You pay for the water service on a per-liter/gallon
rate, you pay for electricity on a per-kilowatt-hour per connection
rate, and you pay for rice on a per-kilogram rate. So what if
acquiring a license to use the software is rated differently? What
makes that onerous?!
I suppose you'd like to pay for your car on a per-KM basis too, but
since there are not manufacturers in the right mind who will sell you
a car and just earn on your usage, does that mean their way of pricing
cars is onerous too?
> Let the choice stay open -- and let government choose on a case to
> case basis. It's not the lack of a FOSS policy that's making
> government make bad choices all the time in terms of software
> procurement: it's the procurement rules.
>
> Pushing this FOSS policy is like entertaining a solution that's
> looking for a problem, instead of actually solving the problems that
> make the government software procurement practices disgusting.
Personally, I'd like to see a fair procurement setup be enacted before
the other provisions of the FOSS bill take into effect. Maybe the
authors of the FOSS bill can review current procurement laws and take
that into consideration?
I agree with this. I suggest that the authors scrap the darned bill
and call it a failed experiment, and address the problems head on
instead of through "sensational popularity zealot enticing"
approaches.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
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
