Slashdot Mirror
Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government?
Skapare writes "Linux Journal is doing a story with a roundup of who the players are that are opposing open source in governments. The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA. But I think we all need to become familiar with this round-up of special interest groups not operating in our interests (as taxpayers)."
The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA
http://www.prestongates.com/meetpge/wGates.asp
"
Our Founders
William H. Gates
William H. Gates practiced law for nearly half a century and has always been very proud of the legal profession. He values professionalism and encourages other lawyers to take pride in every aspect of their careers. He has said, "We are indeed a heterogeneous profession, but there is both a richness and a balance that this condition produces. It is obvious that, notwithstanding this great diversity, we stand upon one common foundation - society's requirement for the rendering of legal services in a professional manner."
Mr. Gates was born in 1925 in Bremerton, Washington. He attended public schools in Bremerton, and graduated from Bremerton High. After high school, he enlisted in the United States Army. Graduating from Fort Benning Infantry School, he went on to serve in Japan and the Philippines during World War II before being honorably discharged in November 1946.
Mr. Gates enrolled in the University of Washington and earned his bachelor of science degree in 1949. He then continued on to the University of Washington School of Law, where he graduated in June of 1950. He was admitted to the Washington State Bar one month later.
After graduation, he practiced law in Bremerton, Wash. After two years, he joined the Seattle law firm of Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Uhlmann. In 1964, he moved to the firm of Shidler & King, where he launched a general corporate practice. He was made partner and the firm name was changed to Shidler McBroom & Gates. In 1985, Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas was formed when Shidler McBroom & Gates merged with Lucas Glase Sherman & Hendrickson.
In 1990, Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas merged with the firm of Preston Thorgrimson Ellis & Holman, becoming Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis. The firm name was changed to Preston Gates & Ellis in 1994. Mr. Gates continued to practice at the firm until his retirement in 1998."
WRONG BILL GATES!!!!
its funny nobody seems to realize that the current state of most software is open source. all the assembly instructions you need to fix/modify a windows program are right there in the .exe file. thats why people are able to crack shareware, make keygens etc.
the people arguing that opensource is a security risk seem to be under the impression that compiled source is secure. its not. this is ALL about the $$$$$
bite my glorious golden ass.
PS: 1%? I know that you're just trolling (because almost no one would be so damned ignorant to not know that Linux is making incredible in-roads in all markets and threatening Microsoft), but I felt compelled to respond anyways. Linux is winning. Redhat, Suse, and IBM might not be as powerful and widespread as Microsoft currently, but their growth is ridiculously fast.
On an unrelated note, Preston Gates' IIS seems to be slashdotted now. I was surprised to see that the BSA is using Apache on FreeBSD. It seems to be working fine, if a little slow.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
I'm sure that making unfounded claims about 40% of all software being pirated is very professional. And the same people that accused mirrors of openoffice.org of pirating MS Office. Or other horror stories. And check the first two comments here. This too.. They truly are professionals of the highest caliber. Professional what?
One of my friends was employed by the military (mechanical engineer), and often got involved in computer issues as a side-effect of his rank and position.
From the stories he told me, it sounds to me like the U.S. military often resists change on a department by department basis. I don't doubt that politicians at the top play a big role in keeping closed source commerical products in the military -- but in many cases, it seems like the only hurdles are technical ones. (EG. A specification demands that any software or OS solution used meet a number of criteria. If a Linux installation can meet them, then fine - it can *technically* be substituted as the server platform for that department.) Where it falls apart is when a colonel decides he really likes Microsoft products (maybe simply because that's all he ever used), and he dictates that *his* staff will never use anything but Windows.
On the particular military installation my friend worked at, they had a similar situation years ago, where one group kept using Novell - despite the rest of the base running Windows. Everyone tried to put pressure on the other group to ditch the old Novell server - but for years, they insisted on sticking with it. (Everyone else ended up having to mess around with loading Novell modules and IPX stacks they didn't want to use, or else not be able to access that one department's data.) Since the Novell system technically met the (old) requirements drafted up, there wasn't any way to mandate a change.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Better sign up at ITT Tech for that Linux+ course buddy.
FWIW, ITT Tech does not offer Linux+. Or any other certifications for that matter.
Although it should be noted that all ITT Tech electronics students used to have to take an into to programming course in C++ using Borland on WinNT, recently they've changed it so now they use KDevelop/GCC on Redhat 9...
Actually, the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Of course Gates supports the BSA. The BSA enforces Gates' ownership over the property he and his company have created.
I see no reason why anyone in government should care what software people use.
Amazing magic tricks
Thats just false in so many ways. The company is housed, according to its records with the Business Bureuos of many of the western countries, in the USA. Its owners pay taxes on income derived from the company in the US. The company is traded publicly on the US stock exchanges. Its incorporated, legally, in the US hence its ability to hide behind US law even as it is protected by US law (which means foreign governments cannot punish Microsoft for actions which are illegal in that country but legal in the US, unless those actions actually OCCUR in that foriegn country. You're full of shit, dont post here.
"Stumble before you crawl"
The status of SB 1579 can be found here.
It was left pending in committee on 5/8/2003, before 55 Democrats fled to Oklahoma on 5/11/2003 to break the quorum and prevent Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts and replace Democrat gerrymandering of Congressional districts back in 1991.
It's not clear that the exodus actually prevented further action on the bill, but the legislative session ended on 6/2/2003. The next regular session will not start until January, 2005.
And, oh gret NineNine, where do I get the Linux version? My school is 100% linux.
Put identity in the browser.
The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps web sites can answer your questions. I believe just about everyone qualifies for either of these organizations.
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Uh, no actually, I don't think you're right at all...
1) By your logic, closed-source solutions are inherently more secure, simply because an attacker needs to go a-searching for exploits on the call level, rather than having access to the source? Please. Doesn't seem to have slowed down the steady stream of MS-specific exploits, does it?
If anything, I'd rather said code have as wide a review base as possible to determine these exploits and fix them before the shenanigans begin. Possible with open source. Not happening with closed source. I'd say closing the source serves as a security de-stabilizer.
2) A proposition you clearly haven't considered: perhaps the government could find some more broadly meaningful use for monies earmarked for software licenses as opposed to a de-facto subsidy of our software development sector? General business development? Social support programs? Or, (as I put my Libertarian hat on), even return it to Joe and Jane Taxpayer and let them determine some useful purpose for it?
From the just the above, I think I could make a good case for open source that has nothing to do w/ "religion" and has a lot to do with pragmatic concerns about security and effective use of tax dollars.
Get off the soapbox. There are a number of sound reasons for supporting open source use by ouf government agencies that have nothing to do with hatred (blind or otherwise) of closed-source vendors.