On 9 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote: >In advocating for a law that OUTLAWS proprietary software, we do not >compete solely on merit.
Are they OUTLAW'ing proprietary software? I am not aware they are doing that. I thought they were requiring all government purchased software to be compliant with free software licenses. >I totally agree here. They should spend it on "good software". >Unfortunately Open Source Software and Free Software is not always >technically superior. We shouldn't make it law and force them to use >technically inferior software. That is not "free choice". I don't think government people are that stupid. I don't think these people are forcing the government to buy software that doesn't work. And who is to decide whether a software application is superior or inferior? Perhaps we should debate on the specific legislation on a case by case basis. If those advocates are actually doing what you say they are doing, then I agree with you 100 percent. >What areas are OSS sorely lacking? >* Configuration Interfaces - lets face it, people don't like to edit >text files. >* Well integrated desktop interface >* Easy software installation (not just stuff made available in some >package or auto-installed tarball, that is way too hard) >* Management Tools - Don't tell me with a straight face that we have >anything better than Microsoft SQL Enterprise Manager. (Although I >suspect TOra comes close, I haven't had a chance to use it much.) >* Overall learning curve. It is harder to learn most of our stuff. >* Documentation - on the average our documentation stinks. >* probably a lot more... You must think all these things grow on trees. No one is fixing these areas because no one is paying for it. Government purchases are done with contracts. It is these contract dollars that will get these things done. The government, just like any business, want solutions, not products. When the government buys a contract, the contractor will provide these things. Also, you probably don't know this, since you are still in college, but in the real world business people don't read documentation. They don't install their own software. They don't manage their own computers and networks. They don't educate themselves on the use of the software. Most businesses have IT departments or IT people to do these things for them. This is why people like Brian, Scott, and Ho'ala, are able to make a living. To the government, the list above means nothing. I bet most of the IT people working for the government would prefer to work with Free Software. But they don't, because it is the politicians that make the decisions. But luckily for us, we can affect that decision. >I myself BELIEVE in Open Source and Free Software. I use it whenever >possible even though I know it would be easier to do a certain job using >some proprietary software, even if I own that proprietary software. I'm glad to hear that. Though I don't see how this applies to the government purchased software. >However, we cannot convince people on purely idealism. Technical merit >and price are the only things that will convince people to stop using >proprietary software. As Ron said in an earlier post, people don't choose software on merit, they choose software out of fear. The only way people will learn to use any new software is if the software is placed in front of them. Perhaps if you let Scott Belford demonstrate his POS terminal like we planned, some people might have seen that a simple ANSI display is as easy to use as any GUI. I have heard Brian's view point, and I have heard Scott's view point, and I have read tales from Ron. I have also read Bruce Peren's and Tim O'Reilly's opinions. I'll give you one guess who I'll believe... --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]