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".
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
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
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?
here's a better idea.. start a foundation and instead of wasting money on the inevitable stupid looking costumes, each geek contributes $10. Next, select a politician target to defeat, preferably one of the DMCA proponent idiots. Take a pool of collected cash and give it to the opponent of the targetted politician and vote for the opponent come this midterm election. Given this is a midterm election, turn out will be light. After tossing out the targetted politician, put another politician in the crosshair. All we need is that first unemployed politician to make them take notice.
a march just convince the rest of the population that geeks are a bunch of weirdos and must avoid eye contact at every opportunity.
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
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.
Nah. If hundreds show up, people will just assume it's the early line for Star Wars: Episode III.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.