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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, R. Scott Belford 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
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
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 00:16, Jimen Ching wrote:
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
This is a sad fact of life. However, if Linux is to succeed in any
large way, the Linux word processors are going to have to be much much
better.
Ronald Willis wrote:
When I go into these offices (of about 25 - 50 computers) and interview
the staff on their computing habits, and discover
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 00:16, Jimen Ching wrote:
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
On 10 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 00:16, Jimen Ching wrote:
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.
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 20:58, Jimen Ching wrote:
I disallowed Scott from demonstrating his POS terminal? I did no such
thing.
Sorry. When I asked Scott whether he finished his POS terminal
presentation, he said no and he was preparing to shutdown the POS server.
Since the presentations
On 7 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote:
Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next
week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from
Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source code and
licensing policies.
Thanks you JC,
On 7 Oct 2002, Warren Togami wrote:
Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next
week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from
Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source code and
licensing policies.
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 23:05, Jimen Ching wrote:
I disagree, if we advocated for the banning of proprietary software, we
would be hypocrites to be advocates of free choice.
I doubt those people are against free choice. Having choice and having
source code are orthogonal.
The proponents of
Further reading on this topic:
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/09/2351215mode=threadtid=23
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/09/12/2040246mode=threadtid=19
From the State WUG...I wonder if Hawaii could...?
Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next
week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from
Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source code and
licensing policies.
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:40, ronal wrote:
From the State WUG...I wonder if Hawaii could...?
Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next
week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from
Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source
If this isn't a hoax it ought to be. This idea might fly in Arkansas, but
California,
the home of Silicon Valley? My eyes are rolling like a slot machine.
Dumbfounded Dave
Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next
week to prohibit the state of California from
23 matches
Mail list logo
