On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:30 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Hi Paolo! > > On 9/19/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > > > > > > If the point was to save money, then let's require government to not > > > use electricity anymore, and stick with gas powered lanterns, pencils > > > and paper. ;-) > > > > That's even more expensive a solution :-) > > > > Unless you recycle the paper, or really skimp on writing stuff down... :-D
That would mean a slower turn-around time... that makes the cost of labor (hiring more people to do the same things) more expensive :) > > This saves from the effort of buying the same stuff all over > > again for X government agency - instead this can be used to pay > > programmers to reuse the code and tailor it to X government agency. > > Hmmm... And you think it's cheaper to pay programmers to reuse the > code instead of buy the licenses? Yes. Because at any rate, when you procure licenses, you still pay programmers to customize the code to tailor it to the specific nuances that X government agency would have. > > Contrast this to the proprietary solution, wherein if you're X > > government agency - you buy software license for some stuff that Y > > government agency may be using, then hire programmers to customize said > > software. If that isn't saving money... > > > > How much will it cost government to hire a horde of (no intent to > degrade any people) VB programmers compared to lots of > PERL/Python/C/C++/PHP/Java/Ruby/<insert favorite programming language > here> programmers to just customize the FOSS that they will be using? Despite government apps being a vertical industry, it won't take the same amount of programmers that you'd need to do with proprietary software compared to how many programmers you'd need to do with FOSS. Reusing existing FOSS code would save time and money, and with more code being reused, you lessen the need for the hordes of programmers (in most cases). The savings become even more profound as the application built for X government agency can also be used by Y and Z government agencies, albeit with a little more tweaking (at the most). In the long run the freedom brought about by FOSS can translate to even more savings. > But then these are just the details, we don't want to look at that... > After all, everybody else but me wants to get the bill passed as law. > > > > > > > > > > what government needs is just Free as in Free Beer software, and not > > > > > Free as in Freedom. > > > > > > > > But why not get both when both are available already? > > > > > > > > FOSS saves money NOW. > > > > > > This depends really. You'll be paying third party VAS providers to > > > install the new FOSS on the old systems -- spend money on training the > > > people, support and maintenance, all that jazz. If you think > > > Government will put an IT department on every agency and expect it to > > > hire hordes of System Administrators, technicians, and whatnot, then > > > tell me again how that will make government save money NOW. > > > > > Even with proprietary software you'd still spend money on training > > people, doing support and maintenance, and all that jazz. > > True, to some extent... Unless you consider that the schools the > people go to already teach the non-FOSS technologies that government > is currently using: and that government doesn't really allot too much > money on training people on how to use Word or Excel, because they > most often than not already know how to use that. > > But then of course, everybody else wants to think that learning OO.o > is easy and that it's enough to replace MS Office 2003. The first steps aren't not always easy. The hard part is always the first step. > > What you save > > though is the monetary cost of licenses, which imho, doesn't exist in > > FOSS solutions. That saves money NOW. In the long run, you even save > > more money by doing away with the cost of licenses. > > > > Look at RedHat which sells the support licenses for RHEL at the same > price as the Windows licenses. The same goes for Novell/SuSE. I'm not > sure about Mandriva. Contrast this with your proprietary software company - you pay for software licenses, THEN you PAY for support licenses. Brilliant, ain't it? > > > > It also is generally better except in certain > > > > fields where proprietary software has a lead (a lead which can soon > > > > disappear). That's doesn't justify making excuses not to use FOSS now > > > > where it can be. > > > > > > > > > > I think we're looking at different aspects of FOSS here if you think > > > FOSS is generally better than proprietary software. FOSS just has a > > > different license -- and the license doesn't make the piece of > > > software "magical" or "waaaay better" than other solutions. > > > > It may not be "waaay better" for "some" corporations, but think of it on > > the side of government: you get FOSS software, you could tailor it to > > infinitity without procuring X more licenses. This is absent from > > proprietary software. That is the "magic" there. > > > > We keep forgetting that government isn't a software company. Majority > of the people in government are actually "rank and file" and you can't > expect _them_ to write patches to the FOSS. And even if you look at > the NCC even ASTI, you don't have _enough_ resources to maintain the > FOSS solutions that you _would want to tailor_ for the government's > needs. Then acquiring these resources or even dealing with third party > VAS providers will cost if not the same amount of money you were > trying to save then more! Maybe you're also forgetting that there is such a thing as "license transfer" for government-contracted software. While government isn't a software company, with FOSS government can have more rights than the mere "usage" license transfer. That can be a deal-breaker, as government isn't anymore a hostage to mere usage but can even bid the modifications to contractors. You can't do that much leeway with proprietary software. > > > > The statuis quo which you effectively promote is a leeching government > > > > coffers. It has to be addresses now, not later. Making excuses not to do > > > > so is needless. > > > > > > > > > > Remove the Pork Barrel. That should save the government money. > > > > This is irrelevant to the FOSS bill. > > > > I agree. But if the assertion was that the FOSS bill was out to save > money, then I think it's being made to look like the solution to the > money problem. I think my above proposition is the solution to the > money problem. It's not merely the solution. It's just part of it. Much as like austerity measures aren't the sole solution but merely part of it. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
