Hello, Dean:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Very laughable argument. Government *does* mandate policies for which
there are no other choices. That's what's governance is for. Or else,
anarchy would ensue. Imagine every layer of bureaucracy playing by its
own rules.
The FOSS bill, which I maintain has been ill-named as such, provides
directions and policies that government should follow.
> 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.
The bill aims to make FOSS the default. I know that sounds simplistic,
but that's the gist. As for nitpicking on how this bill (should it
become law) be implemented, there will always be an accompanying IRR.
Your point of contention that FOSS is being given *undue* advantage
over non-FOSS is, sorry to say, toeing the FUD line of the proprietary
software "industry" and its cohorts. (See how they've managed to get
media attention, through paid hacks, of course.)
It is in the government's interest to create policies advantageous to
it, and not to kowtow to monopolistic dictates and such.
> 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.
Reread the bill, please. You're obfuscating the provisions to fit your
FUD line.
The proposition being made is arbitrary, prejudicial, and *unfair*
because it gives FOSS a unique advantage _we all believe it doesn't
need_.
What's fair? The status quo of proprietary software (along with
expensive and, as Paolo said, artificial costs that entails)? Okay,
that may be veering towards the economics aspects of the bill's
intent, but as specifically mentioned in the bill, it has a political
(and I should add, ideological) dimension as well: that of breaking
the monopolistic ties that bind government.
> 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?!
Oh, man, you're killing me.
--
Ian Dexter R. Marquez
http://iandexter.net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (XMPP)
_________________________________________________
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
