"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?!
Because unlike electricity, water, rice, etc., software is *intangible*. It does not degrade, is infinitely copiable, etc. The cost of producing another kilo of rice, or pumping another gallon of water, or generating another kilowatt of electricity is there -- not with software. Does it cost more to copy software on to another machine? No. Software IS NOT a material resource that degrades or has a cost in being reproduced. The initial costs are fixed and sunk. The reproduction costs are zero -- it is infinitely reproducible. I'll pose you a thought experiment: if you had a machine that could produce chairs without having to put in wood for every other chair after the first (you'd have to put in wood to create the first chair, of course), how much would you charge per chair? Would your chair cost be equitable? Would it be 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? Cars (and gasoline) are material, and degrade and can be consumed. *SOFTWARE* is not. -- JM Ibanez Senior Software Engineer Orange & Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://software.orangeandbronze.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
