I'm not a US citizen so I might have missed something here. Why would Remedy 7.5 not be allowed at government clients? Because it contains open source? It still is a closed-source product, but it just has some components that use open source software. In the 7.5 version this is pretty visible: it's the Eclipse-based Developer Studio. But for quite some time Remedy has included Open Source components; they always shipped the product with a copy of the different (Apache- and Gnu-) licenses. Since 7.1 the default java servlet engine switched to Tomcat, which is open source. I believe the ICU unicode component is present since version 6 and the Xerces and Xalan components - all open source - even longer. So my point is, if the US Government is not allowed to use product that contain open source software components, Remedy shouldn't have been allowed for years.
The statement William makes on being able to call something in the middle of the night is not valid in my opinion; if you have a support contract you can call BMC any time of day (or business hours only - depending on your support contract.. ;-) ) if you have any problems with the BMC product. It does not matter if the problem is with the open- or the closed source component, the very same service levels apply. In The Netherlands the situation is 100% different; a law has passed to support Open Source software. In the public sector, Open Source software should be used if possible. If your organisation wants to use closed source, you have to prove that you need certain features that are not present in an open source product before you can spend tax payer's money on expensive solutions... See also this publication on the subject: http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf Kind regards, -- Michiel Beijen Software Consultant +31 6 - 457 42 418 Bee Free IT + http://beefreeit.nl On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:49, Will Du Chene <arsl...@rowofpines.net> wrote: > ** > > John, that was good.. I laughed out loud here. > > But you're right on track: government is dang skittish when it comes to > open source products. There seems to be this mindset that, so long as they > buy their products from a 'company' per se, that the world will turn, > classical music will play and daisies will sprout from the backsides of > their users. > > After all of these years, the only thing that I can track that mindset to > is that they want a security blanket. They want their warm fuzzies and their > favorite, nibbled-on-the-corner and > been-through-the-washer-a-bazillion-times blanket. They want to be able to > have someone to call at 4am and cry to when their application dies. The same > is true of hiring time. They want to be able to hire someone who already has > managed a particular application, or suite of applications. > > We've all heard the 'total cost of ownership' and 'supportability' > lectures, right? This is the way that the industry wants it. Independent > thought, and God forbid, action, is almost heresy. > > Is this the right approach? Well, I suppose it depends on your perspective. > > To that end, any software application, be it vastly superior in terms of > design, will always face an up hill battle__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions > ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
