Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 22:25, Jimen Ching wrote: or Openly Sourced. It would be an equal shame to see OpenSourceAdvocates fail to take their message to the free market and allow it to compete on its merits. Can either you or Warren explain how these legislation prevent Open Source or Free Software from competing on their merits? --jc By mandating the use of Open Source Software, one would be ignoring three important factors: 1) Open Source isn't always the best tool for the job. Are we going to force government to use an inferior tool? (Although some of these proposed legislations do allow for the use of proprietary software when there is little choice otherwise.) 2) By outright banning proprietary software, we didn't compete based on merit. Instead we used non-technical means to negate the competition process. I'd rather win fairly, and people choose our software sincerely. 3) Most societies aren't ready for the Open Source Software paradigm. The vast majority of IT service providers and developers have no clue what it is or how the community works. They will not transform overnight. I personally think that this attempt will fail in California and some countries, but other countries like Peru it may succeed mainly because of economics. They have large incentives to stop the constant exportation of IT cash to America, when it could be instead be used to stimulate their domestic economy. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the idea of everyone using Open Source Software. I just don't think this is a realistic way of reaching that goal at least in the USA. However... this is a good publicity stunt... and we will get a lot more attention because of it. Warren Togami [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Warren 100% on this one. It is silly to say that open source would be competing on its own merits if you force everyone to use it. That's a dictatorship of sorts. Its like saying Sadam Housein is a great leader because he is *the* leader of Iraq. Now I haven't looked at the proposed legislation, so everything I am about to say is protected by profound ignorance. It seems to me that the issue in requiring open source software has very little to do with techical merits, and everything to do with politics. This is the main source of dispute between the Open Source movement and the Free Software folks. A government has a responsiblity to provide information to its citizens, and this means at the least that such information cannot be tied up in proprietary formats. As well, a government must be able to ascertain the integrity of the data it uses, which again means that it should have access to the source code of the programs that process that data. It is not surprising that other countries are leary of being tied to proprietary software that may contain backdoors, spyware, etc., when they are not allowed to examine the code for themselves. Forcing the use of open source software in the interest of freedom is no different from requiring corporations to open their books and to be subject to audits: no doubt it would be more efficient to just trust them, but there is a public interest that overrides efficiency. I think we should prefer open source to closed code even if it is technically inferior, not that it is! -- **;~) * James (Andy) Stroble *Honolulu, HI * * http://www2.hawaii.edu/~stroble/ * c. 39 No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed nor shall we go against him or send against him unless by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. John, king of England 1199-1216 Magna Carta 1215
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 12:44, James A. Stroble wrote: tied up in proprietary formats. As well, a government must be able to ascertain the integrity of the data it uses, which again means that it should have access to the source code of the programs that process that data. It is not surprising that other countries are leary of being tied to proprietary software that may contain backdoors, spyware, etc., when they are not allowed to examine the code for themselves. The proprietary format issue is slightly different from Open Source. Some of these legislations like in Peru demand Open Standards for government publishing of information. Microsoft Word .DOC files from government is completely unacceptable, even though OpenOffice works fine. I am 100% for Open Standards in government, not necessarily mandating Open Source. Forcing the use of open source software in the interest of freedom is no different from requiring corporations to open their books and to be subject to audits: no doubt it would be more efficient to just trust them, but there is a public interest that overrides efficiency. I think we should prefer open source to closed code even if it is technically inferior, not that it is! OSS that is superior to proprietary solutions does exist, unfortunately we lack one powerful factor here: marketing. =( I see the California OSS legislation as one thing: publicity. We wont win, but we will attract attention. Warren Togami [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
Wow, these are all excellent points that I didn't even consider when I sent in my last post. However, it is also true that even without having the source handy, an organization with enough resources can do stack traces and network monitoring to make sure no spyware or anything exists in a product. In any case, yes, open source would save the government a lot in strict software purchase price and it may have many other good effects. However, there are a few things that might be lacking. I think if a proprietary solution is by far the best solution, it should still be used after some testing. But here are some examples of problems that could arise: 1. If every worker had to adopt open source software, the retraining costs would be horrendous. I work essentially taking calls from people with computer problems, and I can tell you that the average user out there does not learn new computer concepts easily. Furthermore, due to a lot of social welfare types of legislation, a lot of government workers aren't exactly the top of society. There are some very intelligent people who work for the government, but the government also makes up a lot of silly positions for people who would otherwise be unemployed. 2. If the current sysadmins of government servers are not qualified for unix servers, there would need to be massive restructuring and rehiring in every IT department. ...I have to do EE homework... All of these issues could probably be resolved by a very slow adaptation of open source software, with bills starting at new software solutions should strongly consider open source as a viable option to eventually (like 10 years from now) open standards and open source software shall be the only option allowed in government. -Eric Hattemer On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 15:44, James A. Stroble wrote: On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Warren 100% on this one. It is silly to say that open source would be competing on its own merits if you force everyone to use it. That's a dictatorship of sorts. Its like saying Sadam Housein is a great leader because he is *the* leader of Iraq. Now I haven't looked at the proposed legislation, so everything I am about to say is protected by profound ignorance. It seems to me that the issue in requiring open source software has very little to do with techical merits, and everything to do with politics. This is the main source of dispute between the Open Source movement and the Free Software folks. A government has a responsiblity to provide information to its citizens, and this means at the least that such information cannot be tied up in proprietary formats. As well, a government must be able to ascertain the integrity of the data it uses, which again means that it should have access to the source code of the programs that process that data. It is not surprising that other countries are leary of being tied to proprietary software that may contain backdoors, spyware, etc., when they are not allowed to examine the code for themselves. Forcing the use of open source software in the interest of freedom is no different from requiring corporations to open their books and to be subject to audits: no doubt it would be more efficient to just trust them, but there is a public interest that overrides efficiency. I think we should prefer open source to closed code even if it is technically inferior, not that it is! -- **;~) * James (Andy) Stroble *Honolulu, HI * * http://www2.hawaii.edu/~stroble/ * c. 39 No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed nor shall we go against him or send against him unless by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. John, king of England 1199-1216 Magna Carta 1215 ___ LUAU mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On 12 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote: 2) By outright banning proprietary software, we didn't compete based on merit. Instead we used non-technical means to negate the competition process. I'd rather win fairly, and people choose our software sincerely. Point of advice; if a professor asks you to prove or support an assertion, it is usually best not to re-state the assertion as the response. 3) Most societies aren't ready for the Open Source Software paradigm. The vast majority of IT service providers and developers have no clue what it is or how the community works. They will not transform overnight. If we have to wait until most societies are ready for a new paradigm, then nothing will happen at all. I think our biggest disagreement is not about the legislation, but about the 'paradigm'. In my opinion, these legislations are not about getting open source, but getting freedom. As long as the wording in the legislation continues to use 'Open Source', then people are going to get the wrong impression about the goals of the legislation. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, R. Scott Belford wrote: Can either you or Warren explain how these legislation prevent Open Source or Free Software from competing on their merits? I can't because it doesn't. I can say that efforts on such legislation are wasted. These efforts would be, as my post attempted to state, better used advocating Open Source software in the private sector. Why are such efforts wasted? Is the goal of these efforts not improving the government in the way it spends our tax dollars and the way it handles our security? Why are such efforts preventing someone from advocating Open Source software in the private sector? Could a person not do both? I am curious. What do you and Warren believe is the goal of these efforts? It seems like both of your are stuck on this 'compete on merits' issue. It is hard for me to believe the _government_ cares about such things. I hope this issue does not take up as much of the governments time as it is taking up our time. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On 13 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote: Microsoft Word .DOC files from government is completely unacceptable, even though OpenOffice works fine. Again, the issue is what is the goal of the legislation? Is it to find the superior wordprocessor that can open a .doc file? Or is the goal to create open and standardized file formats? I find it hard to believe the governement cares about the former. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 15:45, Jimen Ching wrote: I am curious. What do you and Warren believe is the goal of these efforts? It seems like both of your are stuck on this 'compete on merits' issue. It is hard for me to believe the _government_ cares about such things. I hope this issue does not take up as much of the governments time as it is taking up our time. I feel that the effort in California is very unrealistic and will not pass, but their real goal is publicity, and they are successful in that. I do feel that the 'compete on merits' part as being far more important than anything else here, but I respect that others may have a differing opinion. Warren
Re: [LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates
On 13 Oct 2002, Eric Hattemer wrote: However, it is also true that even without having the source handy, an organization with enough resources can do stack traces and network monitoring to make sure no spyware or anything exists in a product. Would this be the best way to approach security? It seems to me that free software would be the better way. 1. If every worker had to adopt open source software, the retraining costs would be horrendous. I work essentially taking calls from people with computer problems, and I can tell you that the average user out there does not learn new computer concepts easily. 2. If the current sysadmins of government servers are not qualified for unix servers, there would need to be massive restructuring and rehiring in every IT department. I have no doubt this is true. The question is, should legislation be based on the intelligence of the governement workers or the lack thereof? What exactly do you believe the government cares about? Openness and accessibility: government documents in formats anyone can access. Note, I use the term 'government documents' loosely. It could mean anything that is available to the public. Security and privacy: prevent the exploitation of private citizens due to untrustworthy software. Accountability: ability to determine fault. I.e. if something goes wrong, the government should be in a position to take responsibility and, more importantly, to take action. Note, these are the things that the government SHOULD care about. Whether they actually do is another debate. I don't see why the govt. wouldn't want to run the best software possible at the lowest cost (as long as their cousin can still get a job in their department). Should this be the most important issue? It seems this is the only issue brought up so far. And I'm confused as to the last sentence, as though this discussion has taken up so much of our time is troubling to you. It troubles me that we spend so much time on issues that are not the goals of the legislations of those other governments. We should be spending time discussing other ways we can improve the government and the legislation that advocates freedom. We should be discussing how we could also be doing the same thing locally. It seems to me that the more vocal members of the LUAU organization are condemning the effort before it has a chance to get off the ground. Really, if this is wasting your time, you can ignore it and stop reading. Let me consider it... I was figuring that by considering all viewpoints and expertise of the list members, that we might all learn something and gain a firm and educated view on how legislation and policy should go. I would hope the issue is as carefully considered by the government and does in fact take up some of their time. Yes. But Warren and Scott is saying these legislations are a waste of time and is in some way, harming the open source effort. I hope the other members of this list reading that will not agree because Warren and Scott were the only ones speaking up on this issue. This is why I felt I had to respond. I was disappointed that the Linux/Open Source/Free Software advocates of Hawaii are not assisting in such efforts, but instead, are moving in the opposite direction. I tried to pursuad them by challenging them to look deeper and consider bigger issues. But that only caused them to re-iterate their original opinions. It is rather frustrating. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should ignore this issue and stop reading. It seems like every time something important comes up, and things get a little (or a lot) heated, the consensus is to ignore it. Somehow, I don't find this surprising, considering the state of our government. Though this is not the way I do things, I am never the one to go against consensus. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[luau] News - Blender released as GPL
Blender is a powerful 3D design and rendering tool, now released as fully Open Source Software under the GPL license. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/13/1754204mode=threadtid=117 Today, Sunday oct 13, 2002, we've launched the Blender sources as GNU GPL to the Internet. Blender has become Free Software forever! This should be a case study for other companies with software no longer profitable as payware; read some of our previous postings about Blender to follow the story from idea to release.
Fw: Fw: [luau] Help with Red Hat install of rwCdRom
- Original Message - From: al plant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linuxdan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [luau] Help with Red Hat install of rwCdRom linuxdan wrote: Al Ive checked with my braintrust on this one because I was a little confused. The same Sony CD Burner you purchased Im using on a RH7.3/8.0 box and didnt have to reconfig the kernel to get it to work. Please follow the attached email for contact info and instructions. Thanks Dan Some people from the Red Hat Psyche mailing list responded to this. Attached are their responses. And I'm in agreement, it sounds like the ide-scsi kernel module isn't configured, and the bottom portion of your message makes little sense. --- Hi Dan, The CR RW Cdrom is regognized by the OS. But the instructions are missing as to where to put the modules in to make it convert from IDE- SCSI and the how-to's don't tell you where the files are which are supposed to be changed. The OS is basically a 7.2 Red Hat upgraded to a 7.3. What files and instructions did you have to add to get yours to work? I have looked at the how'to's and the help from [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not know the tree structure of Redhat 7.* . This person Mark says its under /boot/grub/grub.conf The how to's don't even say anything about this. Aloha! Al Plant - Webmaster http://hawaiidakine.com Providing FAST DSL Service for $28.00 /mo. Member Small Business Hawaii. Running FreeBSD 4.5 UNIX Caldera Linux 2.4 RedHat 7.2 Support OPEN SOURCE in Business Computing. Phone 808-622-0043
[luau] News - Lessig's Thoughts On Eldred v. Ashcroft Arguments
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/13/1636205mode=threadtid=99 Lawrence Lessig has updated his blog giving his thoughts on how the oral arguments for Eldred vs. Ashcroft went before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. He discusses the goals and methods he used in framing his arguments to convince the court to overturn the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, how he felt he did in presenting his arguments, and also provides some analysis on how he thinks the court might rule. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42196cid=4441218 Quick Summary: For those of you who are too lazy to actually follow this, here's the quick summary of where we are at: Remember that just because a law is bad and horribly unbalanced towards lobbists doesn't make it illegal unless there is some specific legal reason the law is unconstitutional. Basically, Eldred is arguing that because we have a Constitution of enumerated powers (Congress can only do what the constitution specifically allows), that the power to extend copyright must be limited. In other words, the Constitution grants Congress specific powers. If Congress continually extends copyright, than it has unlimited power (which the Constitution doesn't give it). So far it seems the court is buying this argument. The court seems to be unsure though if it has any power to do anything about it. This is good news to Lessig, because it means the court buys the limited power argument. The case was also helped by a government bumble. The government argued that there is no constitutional limit on the ability of Congress to extend copyright, thus the extention was legal. This actually helped Eldred because the court did not like this view at all. The court did not support the idea that the constitution limits the powers of Congress, but that Congress gets to set what the limits are. In effect, the government proved Eldred's point themselves. So there is a fighting chance that Eldred might win. Everyone say a big thanks to people like Lessig who are fighting hard for the public's right to the creative commons. To quote Lessig: Peace, quiet, and may terms be limited.
[luau] Fw: This is Grant
- Original Message - From: Grant Apgar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:51 PM Subject: This is Grant hey dan, I can't find a graphical utilite on RedHat 8.0 that allows removal of 3rd party rpm's. the package manager is only for system files. And I hate using the command line for this because sometimes I forget a package name or can't recall it. Have you seen anything like this? or do I have to download a 3rdparty package manager Sincerely, Grant _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
[luau] RH8.0 graphical RPM management
What he wants is apt-get and Synaptic. http://apt.freshrpms.net Download apt for Red Hat 8.0. After it is installed, type: apt-get update (This downloads the list of packages.) apt-get install synaptic(This installs synaptic.) Synaptic is a GUI frontend tool for apt that does easy download and installation of packages. It will also allow easy graphical removal too. apt-get dist-upgrade(This will update all your packages.) FreshRPMS has a large amount of custom packages for RH8.0 like DVD player, MP3 plugin for XMMS and more. Check it out. On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 21:05, linuxdan wrote: hey dan, I can't find a graphical utilite on RedHat 8.0 that allows removal of 3rd party rpm's. the package manager is only for system files. And I hate using the command line for this because sometimes I forget a package name or can't recall it. Have you seen anything like this? or do I have to download a 3rdparty package manager Sincerely, Grant
