On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 10:28 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Hi Paolo! > > On 9/21/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 22:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and > > > "exception to the rule"? > > > > There is. > > > > Wording? > > > The former refers to ruling out a particular class regardless of > > circumstance. The latter rules out a particular class EXCEPT in some > > circumstances. > > > > Googling [define: bias] :: > > # influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours" > # a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation > > Now, bias doesn't necessitate ruling out a particular class, but > rather an unfair favoring of one over others.
Given the strictest sense of the word, everything has bias, man. > In the case of Inferior FOSS vs. Competent non-FOSS : the government > will use FOSS if this bill becomes law!!! And that's what you say is > clearly more advantageous to government? For crying out loud... you don't need the FOSS bill to consider that if a particular FOSS solution would be clearly not satisfying the technical and functional requirements - it won't even be considered! Isn't that what bidding and qualification all about? Sheesh... > [snipped Rage's and my comments] > > > > This is why there is a provision in the bill that doesn't only mandate > > FOSS but open standards as well. Without setting the requirement of open > > standards, you could create virtually 'proprietary' applications even in > > FOSS as it doesn't conform to agreed-upon mechanisms of > > interoperability. While the code being FOSS reduces the risk of lock in, > > this adds more burden to systems that expect a standard mechanism for > > interoperability. > > > > Then make a bill about open standards. Don't equate the advantage of > open standards to FOSS, because it's not just FOSS that can work with > open standards. Don't you get it? This bill would be watered down for sure (unless fire and brimstone rain from the heavens and annihilate all the corrupt people in government). If you compromise your proposal WAY before the arguments start, the end result won't be amounting to anything! > > > You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by citing the > > > administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved by just > > > using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the bill is a > > > panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and other people > > > want to paint when only FOSS is used in government. > > > > > > Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using just > > > Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing really new > > > to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument that the > > > proprietary software people will use to push an agenda. > > > > Patently wrong. One of the intent of the bill is eliminate the single > > point of failure called VENDOR DEPENDENCE. Who could legally implement > > Microsoft's protocols and proprietary formats? Are there anyone else > > that can offer the same level of interoperability with their protocols > > and formats? > > > > I was saying that the arguments used to defend FOSS in government is > the same one being used to defend the use of Microsoft products. If > you're using Windows on all the computers, and are using the .NET > framework in all your applications, and that you're using XML to > communicate between and among components using *open standard > protocols*, and serializing the information in XML, then you pretty > much have a cohesive working system without the help of FOSS. Duh. Even if its XML, if you encumber it with proprietary blob, it's still NOT open standard. If you aren't even ALLOWED to implement it freely without hitting patents, what's the point of using that format? LIP SERVICE? > You are OTOH arguing on a different line citing the vendor > independence rationale for the bill. Vendor independence is only one of the rationale why the bill was drafted. It was YOU who gave the example on MS bastardized form of _interoperability_. Read the bill, check HOW they defined interoperability, then we talk. > > > Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and foremost by > > > the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any objectives is a > > > poor way of planning and running government. > > > > Duh. The objectives are clearly stated if you even bothered to read the > > rationale. One of them is to avoid vendor lockin, another is to foster > > the local IT industry, etc. > > > > Which is precisly my point: if these were the objectives, then how > does making FOSS mandatory achieve these goals again? Government can > choose to use only RHEL or SuSE on all the systems -- and they're > again locked into a single vendor. Using FOSS only in government will > not directly translate to fostering the local IT industry. Hardly lockin. Migrating would be expensive, but consider that with the code being FOSS, the option to migrate to another platform that would be open is, and will always be open. Contrast this to using proprietary code on proprietary platforms - you don't even have that choice! Anyway, the specifics of the bill itself does not have to say how will FOSS achieve the goals - that's what the rationale section is for. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ 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
