Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
[...] My original sentiment still stands -- if you have the money, but don't have the skills, and don't need it yesterday, it might be better in the long-term to fund an extension of a good OSS project than to take the easy way out and buy a COTS package. Absolutely. It appears that Open Source is the next level in the evolution of business models[1]. It is not a revolution because there is nothing to go back to. Slowly a sentiment is growing in the suits that business with software must be different to business with hardware due to their inherent difference[2]. We are pushing this process forward with every line of code that we produce, with every aspect of the foundation that we create and we can nudge it a bit further by using terminology appropriate to this process. So watch out for the words we use. COTS translates into commercial off the shelf and I wonder why this term should be restricted to proprietary packages. The times when one had to manually compile a PostGIS, MapServer, GeoServer, gvSIG, Quantum GIS and so on, before one could use them are over. You can - and that is an extra advantage - but you don't have to. So my suggestion is to put COTS on the shelf of terminology that is compatible with Open Source. Best regards, Arnulf. [1] http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/article_show?article=osjb2007-01-02-freyermuth.pdf [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Software -- Arnulf Christl http://www.wheregroup.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
Interestingly enough, in our efforts with Open Technology Development and the Department of Defense (US), the Navy made that determination that OSS was COTS - and therefore needed to be considered on an equal footing with proprietary solutions for Navy acquisitions. Mark On Apr 27, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: [...] My original sentiment still stands -- if you have the money, but don't have the skills, and don't need it yesterday, it might be better in the long-term to fund an extension of a good OSS project than to take the easy way out and buy a COTS package. Absolutely. It appears that Open Source is the next level in the evolution of business models[1]. It is not a revolution because there is nothing to go back to. Slowly a sentiment is growing in the suits that business with software must be different to business with hardware due to their inherent difference[2]. We are pushing this process forward with every line of code that we produce, with every aspect of the foundation that we create and we can nudge it a bit further by using terminology appropriate to this process. So watch out for the words we use. COTS translates into commercial off the shelf and I wonder why this term should be restricted to proprietary packages. The times when one had to manually compile a PostGIS, MapServer, GeoServer, gvSIG, Quantum GIS and so on, before one could use them are over. You can - and that is an extra advantage - but you don't have to. So my suggestion is to put COTS on the shelf of terminology that is compatible with Open Source. Best regards, Arnulf. [1] http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/article_show?article=osjb2007-01-02-freyermuth.pdf [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Software -- Arnulf Christl http://www.wheregroup.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
On 4/27/08, Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] My original sentiment still stands -- if you have the money, but don't have the skills, and don't need it yesterday, it might be better in the long-term to fund an extension of a good OSS project than to take the easy way out and buy a COTS package. Absolutely. It appears that Open Source is the next level in the evolution of business models[1]. .. Arnulf, is there an English version of that article available? I don't have a reverse compiler for German, but would love to read it. ;-) If not, could you give a summary that is more than Open Source is the next level in the evolution of business models and less than onerous for you to summarize. Many thanks. COTS translates into commercial off the shelf and I wonder why this term should be restricted to proprietary packages. The times when one had to manually compile a PostGIS, MapServer, GeoServer, gvSIG, Quantum GIS and so on, before one could use them are over. You can - and that is an extra advantage - but you don't have to. So my suggestion is to put COTS on the shelf of terminology that is compatible with Open Source. Very good point. Obviously, I meant proprietary, and frankly, I want to see proprietary also co-exist with open source, though my preference leans toward the latter. Nevertheless, yes, COTS could very well be open source, and held to the same standards and expectation as other COTS but proprietary solutions. Best regards, Arnulf. [1] http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/article_show?article=osjb2007-01-02-freyermuth.pdf [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Software -- Arnulf Christl http://www.wheregroup.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
P Kishor wrote: On 4/27/08, Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] My original sentiment still stands -- if you have the money, but don't have the skills, and don't need it yesterday, it might be better in the long-term to fund an extension of a good OSS project than to take the easy way out and buy a COTS package. Absolutely. It appears that Open Source is the next level in the evolution of business models[1]. .. Arnulf, is there an English version of that article available? I don't have a reverse compiler for German, but would love to read it. ;-) Google tool works pretty well for such purposes: http://www.google.com/language_tools Greetings -- Mateusz Loskot http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
2008/4/27 Mark Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interestingly enough, in our efforts with Open Technology Development and the Department of Defense (US), the Navy made that determination that OSS was COTS - and therefore needed to be considered on an equal footing with proprietary solutions for Navy acquisitions. IIRC, the Navy has always been very cautious, maybe conservative with regards to software. Also, their tendency to look at the security side of stuff is a nice plus to their understanding that FLOSS is indeed COTS. Nice. -- Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
I think that is probably another aspect us proprietary experienced people do not remember, theres a ton of stuff I dont need in ArcView that Im paying for What I do need from it unfortunately comes from the whole spectrum of its modules / levels and extensions, which is simply put, not remotely affordable. In no way did I wish to imply that OS needs to be more like proprietary, just that cost of entry is time consuming. Which in my current state Im rather hard pressed for would pay for training though!!! André Grobler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE: OS and proprietary
On 4/26/08, Andre Grobler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is probably another aspect us proprietary experienced people do not remember, there's a ton of stuff I don't need in ArcView that I'm paying for… What I do need from it unfortunately comes from the whole spectrum of its modules / levels and extensions, which is simply put, not remotely affordable. In no way did I wish to imply that OS needs to be more like proprietary, just that cost of entry is time consuming. Which in my current state I'm rather hard pressed for… would pay for training though!!! Unclear to me from the above statement if you have more money than time or more time than money (although the two, in many situations, are interchangeable). To paraphrase the popular saying, There are 10 kinds of people in this world -- those who see open source lacking what they need and choose a proprietary software instead and those who see open source lacking what they need and choose to make it better. If you have the money that you would spend on proprietary software anyway, consider hiring an open source developer to develop what you want, and then put that functionality back into the open source community. André Grobler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
