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."

Comments

Right-tool-for-the-job advocate

[goldspider]

If the system does what it's supposed to do, with an appropriate cost to taxpayers, what's the problem?

Re:Right-tool-for-the-job advocate

[div_2n]

If you are talking about an individual or corporation then your inclination would be ok.

Public systems paid for with public tax dollars do not in any way go by the same litmus tests. Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.

No government documents should ever be in a proprietary format. Also, when it comes to tax dollars, it seems to me that "good enough" makes a tool the right tool for the job when the price is free (OpenOffice.org) versus Microsoft Office. Price MUST be a factor when determining the "right" tool. Also, if proprietary vendor products attempt to lock in an organization and lock out competing products from interoperating, that is unacceptable.

Right tool for the job? Ok, but let's talk about what DEFINES the right tool. It isn't purely function.

Of course?

[overshoot]

Of course this is a proprietary (and often reviled) Linux. But that's not important.

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.

Re:I'm confused

[saintp]

You're not missing anything, but the submitter is. The TFA argues that the Greens' support of -- not disdain for, as the the summary wrongly claimed -- the new Novell contract is misplaced, mainly because Microsoft is t3h r0x0r!!!eleventy-one

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.

Mute point

[canuck57]

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.