On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Please stop arguing for argument's sake. I could enumerate government
mandates, but that would put us off-tangent to the topic at hand.
> 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.
That would be for the IRR. The bill is a statement of principles and
policies that will guide rules for government's software procurement.
Toeing the FUD line? So you think making the use of FOSS mandatory in
government is fair? How has making something mandatory been fair?
Government does it all the time. So do private institutions and
individuals. As JM and Paolo have said, you want to participate in
government software bids, change your software. If you can't abide by
the government's requirements, don't bid. Your choice.
> 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...
Okay, I don't know how you put that together. Please run that by me again.
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.
And that's bad because? I'm not a developer but would the non-FOSS
alternative to the above snippet, for example, be any better,
functionally and cost-wise?
NO. What's fair is not favoring ANY type of software, and deciding on
a case to case basis.
On whose terms, by what guidelines? Granted, the executive branch can
declare it the government's policy to adopt FOSS, but how do we
enforce it, if not by law?
Think about it -- just because software is priced on a per-use
basis doesn't mean it's bad or inherently wrong.
Again, 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
