Hi Sir Ian Dexter,
On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, Dean:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Like?
That's what's governance is for. Or else,
anarchy would ensue. Imagine every layer of bureaucracy playing by its
own rules.
And you suppose that every layer of bureaucracy shouldn't have the
right to set its own rules?
The FOSS bill, which I maintain has been ill-named as such, provides
directions and policies that government should follow.
But it doesn't address the problem with the software procurement
policies/guidelines/rules being undertaken by government agencies. The
bill doesn't even touch that problem which it so touts to want to
solve by making it mandatory to use FOSS.
>
> 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.)
Toeing the FUD line? So you think making the use of FOSS mandatory in
government is fair? How has making something mandatory been fair?
It is in the government's interest to create policies advantageous to
it, and not to kowtow to monopolistic dictates and such.
So fixing the software procurement rules is kowtowing to monopolistic
dictates and such? Please...
>
> 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.
My FUD line? Hmmm... Read section 6 about the mandatory use of FOSS
only except when there is no FOSS suitable for the purpose.
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char * argv[]) { std::cout << "Hello, world!" <<
std::endl; };
licensed under the GPL can be turned into anything you can imagine.
That locks out any other non-FOSS alternative because of the darned
FOSS bill.
>
> 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.
NO. What's fair is not favoring ANY type of software, and deciding on
a case to case basis.
"Monopolistic ties that bind the government" can be solved by opening
up the procurement rules, allowing the decision makers to choose the
more cost-effective alternatives, and doing a concerted effort to stay
away from the monopoly. You don't need a darned law to do that.
> > 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.
Am I? Think about it -- just because software is priced on a per-use
basis doesn't mean it's bad or inherently wrong.
--
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
