Slashdot Mirror
Mega-Geek March?
hammerm writes " According to an article on infoworld.com, 'A group of open source and free software developers is planning to lead a march on San Francisco's City Hall next week in an effort to promote the use of freely available software by California's government offices,' and it goes on to say 'it aims to bring attention to proposed legislation that would require California's government offices to use software with freely available source code rather than products from proprietary vendors such as Microsoft Corp.'"
On the one hand, this is persuasive. OTOH, the persuasion that occurs when hordes of smelly, pasty geeks all simultaneously shouting about guhnew this and kernel spinlock that and all staring at the secretaries tits is going to be "these guys really ARE menaces to society that should be locked away".
If dozens show up, this is not so good.
if a hundred thousand show up, politicians will be amazed.
So what is the likely out come? I am guessing a few thousand.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Perhaps the motive is just to get a bunch of lazy programmers out from in front of their computers and walking around for exercise?
END COMMUNICATION
Something I don't quite get. The march is designed to promote open source as a viable solution to the state's OS needs right?
Why isn't it done like everything else in government life: ie, make a bid on a project. There are tons of OpenSource consulting companies out there, make a bid like the Novells and MSs of the world and see what happens.
Or, has this already occured?
Now for the flamebait piece:
With all the problems that face society in general today, these jokers are going to march in support of open source software? I mean, really.
Sent from your iPad.
We could represent our method of writing software by walking just like Microsoft would, but more jerkily and occasionally falling over.
:)
Alternatively, we can march in two different directions, to simulate KDE and GNOME. Then the walkers in each direction can break into two directions, one for Free Software, and one for Open Source. Eventually, we will all be outside the city, separated, unable to hear each other, and blaming Microsoft for the situation
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
I don't understand why people are supporting this. Requiring the government to use a specific type of software is a bad idea, whether that software be open source or closed source. The government should be using the best software for the job. All types of software should be considered, and all aspects of the software (availability of source code, price, features, easy of use, etc) should be considered. The minute you lock into one type of software, you set yourself up for major problems. Sure, Linux and Open Office are good enough to replace Windows and MS Office, but if they require all their software be OSS, what are they going to use for their financial system? The OSS financial products are no where near as good as the closed source products. There are some places where there just isn't a good OSS alternative and requiring them to use an inferior product makes no sense at all. We should be encouraging the government to consider all products equally, not trying to pull the same tactics that MS is pulling. It's no more right for the OSS community to lock people in than it is for the CSS people (even less right when we are trying to make it a law that cannot easily be changed if the policy is bad).
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Legislation demanding the use of one type of software, with licensing the primary concern, goes a bit too far. Legislation should instead simply dictate that all types of software are considered - bringing open source packages to the attention of decision makers is sometimes all that's needed, as many only know about MS, Lotus, etc. and don't know about some quality open source packages which perform the same task for a lower cost or with other benefits.
LEGISLATING that everyone has to use open source regardless of other factors has a bad impact. It smacks of 'affirmative action' programs and admission standards - you can't always be sure the people around you are there in that job or student seat because they can actually hack it, or there was a government program that placed them there regardless of merit or ability.
Legislating a written review process for software would help open the process to open source. Consider if we had written records of purchasing decisions. For example, person X considered Open Office, but went ahead and purchased 500 copies of Word for a bank of users who only ever read memos emailed from another branch. Having that on record, open for review, will surely help departments consider open source more, if only initially from a financial standpoint. It won't be an overnight thing, but it'll help.
It's just as wrong to legislate everyone use Open Office as it is to legislate that everyone use MS Office.
creation science book
I've always been skeptical of the rahrah marches that seems to dominate the latest fad.
Unfortunately, the geek populace tends to be politically apathetic or cynical. A well
organize block vote will have a much more effect on political policies than silly marches which
generally devolves into a rotten excuse for street theatre and fringe hoodlumism. The end
result will end up demeaning a well intended effort. Nothing speaks to a politician clearer
than cold hard cash. Until open source becomes a serious political lobby like the christian right,
NRA, or AARP, it'll merely be treated as an oddity and not be taken seriously.
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
The real point should be open DATA FORMATS...the government should be able to know the format of all the data that it is storing on behalf of the people of the state. I 100% agree that government procurement is a great way to enforce this kind of thing, but they should be pushing for something else. Open source, closed source, whatever...just make the data formats available.
- adam
just dont do what I did, turned up to the wrong march and ended up marching for gay rights (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Its hard to get across the message of open source when you're wearing drag....
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This is meny good things. A good idea is not one of them. A whole bunch of nations are doing the same thing all over the world. (OK. Maybe just half a dozen).
Why this needs to be done may be a mistery to the rest of you however.
We have to run flat out in this direction just to stand still. You see the proprietery vendors are quietly lobying (buying support) for legislation which will efectivly outlaw Free Software. If you put op a credible case for the revers we can maybe arive at a comfortable stalemate.
I.e. We will be right back where we started.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
I think Linux has got to the point now, where it is a mature and sturdy product, which easily rivals any other platform in many different fields. The problem is, free software marches, geeks proclaiming that Microsoft is evil, and cartoons of Tux & the BSD Daemon kicking Bill Gates ass don't really make people believe that Linux reliable business product that it actually is.
I think a lot of the Linux groups & distributions need to get together and plan some kind of marketing campaign, using the resources of all their people, which could really help Linux gain some real limelight - it has certainly earned it, and now it deserves the chance to shine through.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Is that 10^6 geeks, or 2^20 geeks? Or some hybrid, like (10^3)*(2^10)?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
It is just like filling in your yearly IT budget requests. You put in something totally unrealistic and hope that you actually get most of what you ask for. A smart person will immediately see that this is in fact a push for open data formats. Like the article says, legislation is a compromise. No valid argument can be held against the fact that govt should own their data.
It has little chance of passing in it's current state but that is never the intended goal.
Got Code?
The KDE guys start off first, but the Gnome group complains that the KDE people started off on their left foot, and they should have started on their right. So the Gnome people start off, and both groups are going in the same general direction. Occasionally, the two groups bump into each other, and for a little while it looks like they may march together, as one group. Eventually, though, they start stepping on each others toes, and the Gnome people complain that the KDE people are "walking wrong". So they split off into two groups again.
Towards the end of the march, the KDE guys keep breaking into a sudden sprint, which leaves the Gnome people puffing to keep up.
The Emacs & Vi people simply gun each other down at the start of the march, saving everyone a lot of trouble along the way.
Mega-Geek March = a march of gigantic (or important geeks)
Mega Geek-March = large turnout of geeks, not necessarily important or large, for a march (although, knowing the eating habits of many geeks, I can guess about the "large geek" part)
Perhaps there need to be extra spaces and such:
Meg, a geek march!
Me gag! Geek, march!
I guess I'm a little punchy after I just wake up...
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
While I think the idea of a small, medium, or large-sized march designed to show support for the Open Source cause could never be a prima face bad thing, I'm sad to report that our political players do not and will not care about our issues any more or less because of a demonstration.
...and maybe the `public` has absolutely no idea of what it is we do - as they never, ever have before. The vox populi will not be the tool of change when the majority of it cannot agree on how to correctly pronounce `Linux`. ("It's lynnux, dude." ``Wrong, it's LINE-ux! You suck!``)
.. hm, unversed? , to get out and compile their own apps - they won't fall in and cheer for us, so the guys in charge will take no note.
The right of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and it's entire purpose is to provide constitutional protection for a group of people who dislike the government (or hold a contrary opinion to the powers that be) to meet in order to find a way to change things. The assemblies themselves are not the tools of change - and never have been. I'm not sure where people got so confused.
Perhaps the march will bring out like-minded people who've kept their feelings in till now, reluctant to express an opinion -- maybe the public will join the throng, shucking off their closed source software for freely available and modifiable source code packages.
Living in the district I am compelled to restate the obvious: Politicans move because of two things and two things only.
1) Because it will help them stay in office,
2) Because of money.
Our `cause` will not engender any further public support for a re-election campaign, so strike #1 right off the ballot. Too many people use closed source software day in, day out and are too
Money is the only thing that will bring about change. Save the gas money you would have spent attending the march and donate it to a lobbyist group that works on our behalf. Does no such group exist? If not, create one.
I really think that's the only solution that's ever going to bring our needs out of the dark ages of politics and give us some play in the District.
What annoys me about these open-source fanatics, is that they have to force their beliefs on to other people. And just because they want everything open source, everyone else should hear about it.
This is not about "Linux is cool!", this is about avoiding security through obscurity, and making sure security related code is solid. If this was a march to try to get the government to mandate open source office software or something like that, I would agree with you, but I am all for security related code needing to be open source.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it need not make decisions based on cost. By its very nature it should take into account the people that it serves. And investing money in openly available technologies helps all. Investing money in propiretary solutions justs enriches the pockets of a few.
The bottom line is if Open Office or some other solution isn't good enough; with just a wee bit of Government funding it would be.
Inhouse developed software is already OSS, if the government wants it to be so, right?
As for the proprietary software - well they don't necessarily have to use OSS replacements. They can just tell the vendors "sorry guys we are no longer allowed to buy upgrades from you unless you open the source". What is the vendor going to do? He can't even negotiate anymore, his partner has no leeway. For a lot of vendors it might mean they have no choice but to go OSS, since they only have government customers.
A bit sneaky, I admit, but it may work.
"This is all real software that is *really* expensive and really proprietary[...]."
Doesn't it make more sense to use that money to develop free software that is available to the tax payers rather than buying software licenses?
A similiar opportunity arose recently in Phoenix, with members of the Phoenix LUG community strategizing and attending. The number of attendees wasn't huge, but it got some attention. The fact that there was an appointed designate and that the community presented themselves well (ie, not as the teeming horde) went a long way toward promoting Open Source.
It may not have changed much in the short term, certainly, but it started both sides off on even footing, and that first impression was the most important one.
- billn
Why not march on Washington? It won't make any difference other than a story on local networks if you restrict it to San Francisco, and at best a 2 second blurb on CNN, but if you march on DC then you have national news...
Considering that geeks are technically a minority in this country (and a minority that the country depends on desperately to keep it afloat nowadays), it wouldn't be unrealistic to think it could have the same impact as a million man or war vet protest...
I mean seriously, here is a government that has, for all intents and purposes, declared war on intellectuals and computer users, and they won't figure out just who they're influencing, because it's easy to ignore e-mail or snail mail when it piles up in the inbox... It isn't as easy to ignore a million geeks/nerds in front of the Jefferson monument on national TV, where they have no choice but to actually see who they're screwing...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's the thing that some Open Source advocates are kind of forgetting: the concept of total cost of ownership (TCO).
You are correct that state governments used closed source software from many different vendors, and the cost to convert everything currently used to Open Source in terms of coding time, testing the code and implementing the code (all part of the TCO equation) isn't going to be cheap, that's to be sure.
Open Source works best if you don't have to deal with legacy code, for example in the case of Google, the web searching service that was implemented in Linux right from the start.
OSS would only mean that the customer - i.e. the government gets access to the source code. So while that may not be of much use, admittedly - it also doesn't mean that everybody can see the source, if the state doesn't want them to.
What I'm trying to say is: these sort of issues could probably be worked around, and the state would still have the chance to profit from OSS for other applications.
I guess I still don't understand. Most likely the economics is more complex that I know.
Of course, the software that the government already has licenses for doesn't need to be rewritten. That would just be wasteful.
But when the government is paying for the software to be developed, couldn't they insist the software be free software? After all, they are the ones paying for it.