On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- the thing i like with my linux pc is that i can sum up my complaints in 5 items _________________________________________________ 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
