Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Governments & Open Source

Posted by Hemos on from the oh-noes-the-confusion dept.

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."

4 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Proprietary doesn't matter...just get there by flinxmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My workplace recently started moving some critical servers from Solaris to Red Hat. Of course this is a proprietary (and often reviled) Linux. But that's not important.

    What's important are the number of people installing test boxes and "piddle" boxes running Linux to get more familiar with it. Some of these are Red Hat, but a couple folks are starting to look at the other non-commercial packages. I fully expect more to do this.

    Once corporate folks have put their feet on the Linux platform and found it will both hold weight and perform fabulously, they can then move on to the freer options. I think almost all of it has to do with support and CYA.

    Personally, my philosophy is "best tool for the job". If that's a commercial/proprietary Linux, so be it. If it's Sun, so be it. MS...same deal. This adoption of proprietary Linux is a first step towards a similar, more open philosophy, so it shouldn't be poo-poo'd.

  2. "Proprietary versions of OSS" by overshoot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is apparently the new version of the "Red Hat is becoming Microsoft."

    Novell, in case the Greens didn't notice, has been releasing more and more of the Ximian and SuSE code under the GPL and making their distribution much easier to acquire gratis as well as libre. So what's their complaint? Reading TFA it's hard to tell.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  3. I'm confused by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The news post claims the greens are upset about this deal, then links to an article in which two different spokespeople from the green party praise the deal.

    And what's with the jab at Novell for offering "proprietary versions of OSS". What does that even mean? Is Suse Linux somehow now less open because Novell owns it?

    Am I missing something here?

  4. Re:Right-tool-for-the-job advocate by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Word doc reader is only free to people that already have paid microsoft for their use of the windows platform. That's like saying that your car doors were free with your car - no, the doors came with the car, they were part of what you paid for.

    When MS publishes a DOC reader for a free operating system, or releases a win32-compatible operating system for free (with a perpetual license) _then_ the Doc reader will be free.

    PDF, on the other hand, can be viewed with free tools.