Slashdot Mirror
Governments & Open Source
sydney-computer-support writes "The Greens in New Zealand who advocate the use of OSS are upset about a Novell contract because it doesn't support open source. The article mentions the greens spokeperson saying
the contract "cleared the path for government agencies to adopt and expand their use of non-proprietary software" -- failing to note that Novell is a company offering proprietary versions of OSS."
If the system does what it's supposed to do, with an appropriate cost to taxpayers, what's the problem?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
How, "of course?"
I'm by no way a Red Hat fan, but every byte of software that Red Hat produces is under the GPL, and they not only tell you that in their LICENSES file but give precise instructions for how to remove the Red Hat trademark files from their distribution so that it can be redistributed.
If that's "proprietary" then we're well on our way to becoming what the anti-OSS crowd call us: religious fanatics, more interested in internal inquisitions for insufficient piety than in the real world.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
It's poorly researched and little more than "MS good, FOSS bad". The fact that he uses Laura DiDio to support one of his points (with a minor disclosure about her being viewed as a troll) says all I needed to see. Atleast is marked as a commentary.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
...as long as they employ open standards which would guard against vendor lock-in. If M$ were involved in any way, I'd be very worried, but Novell, no problem. If Novell tried any monkey tricks, that will automatically generate bad publicity. I am sure Novell does not like this.
If you read TFA -- or even part of it -- you'll see that this article posting is really little more than a blatant troll. The TFA mentions Laura DiDio, but it might as well have been written by her or, if not her, then by someone else on Redmond's payroll.
Better summary: The NZ Greens are pumped about moving to OSS, but some random Microsoft shill at a business rag thinks the move sucks, because Microsoft rocks. Anyone with half a brain can dismantle most of the arguments in TFA. Mod story -1, troll.
Another one bites the dust
What really maters is that the file formats be 100% open, 100% available to Microsoft and NON-Microsoft products alike. And without the usual closed source tricks of useless proprietary extentions, traps for proprietary lock-in and the usual antics employed my MS Office in the past.
If it is created with OSS or OSS made proprietary or even Microsoft does it mater? If created with Suse open office, it can be viewed by all - even Microsoft users. This is the point.
Proprietary file formats are bad for all.
How do corporations offer "proprietary versions of Open Source", more specifically closed-source versions of GPL'ed programs? Doesn't the GPL prevent a recipient of Open Source from "taking it proprietary"? Not just the sleazy technique of hiding the source so completely that its origin in GPL'ed source isn't apparent, but well-known examples. How do they get to do so?
--
make install -not war
It's a moot point. Moot. Moot moot moot.
I'm not usually this much of a jerk, really. I have a cold, you see.
We need to wait until MS is defeated before we start publicly fighting among ourselves. When the audience is persons considering free vs. MS software, we need to convey that all the distros are good guys, and save the XYZ distro is evil stuff for those who are converted already. Besides, it is true, every one of the Gnu/Linux distros is staffed by far nicer human beings than MS has, even the ones that steal the credits from those who write the stuff.
See the shades of grey please people.