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."
Slashdot is just taunting with this headline. I mean, come on! "Open Souce"?
My humor is probably your flamebait
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.
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
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,
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?
Souse \Souse\, n. [OF. sausse. See Sauce.] [Written also souce, sowce, and sowse.]
1. Pickle made with salt.
2. Something kept or steeped in pickle; esp., the pickled ears, feet, etc., of swine.
And he that can rear up a pig in his house, Hath cheaper his bacon, and sweeter his souse. --Tusser.
3. The ear; especially, a hog's ear. [Prov. Eng.]
4. The act of sousing; a plunging into water.
So what's happening is that governments are struggling to keep the salted pickles free for everyone? So is that free as in beer?
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
The /. lead-in completely misrepresents the article in question. Had the submitter actually read TFA, he would know that the Greens are actually very excited about the deal. The quotes from Gren spokespersons cover a lot of the standard ground for OSS advocacy. However, the article in question was written for the National Business review, and is primarily a "debunking" of OSS, and of the Greens' enthusiasm for open solutions.
...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.
Are we sure Hemos that SUSe soruce is nto aviable to cusotmozie and use for free from Novell or are just guessing?? Try guessig a little harder next time
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
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.
Sorry but you shouldn't believe everything you read.
The Red Hat Enterprise distribution includes some trademarks, logos and what not, but it is in no way proprietary. You can download all the source code directly from Red Hat's own ftp servers for free. And you can even create your own linux distribution based off the source, however, you must remove the trademark logos and what not before you distribute as you are not Red Hat.
If you don't believe then try checking out http://centos.org/
Or just peruse the Red Hat website and read their licensing agreements for their products.
It seems you've bought into FUD spread by both the anti-OSS crowd saying "...Red Hat is no different, its proprietary just like Windows..." and the Red Hat bashing linux elitists "...Red Hat is the next Microsoft, they took our linux and made it proprietary...". Its all BS.
burnin
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
This does not surprise me. In my city there were plans for a power plant which would use household waste as a fuel. First there would be a multi-stage segregation process to divert glass, metal and some plastics for melting down; secondly a gasification stage converting organic matter to methane, and finally a turbo-charged, intercooled, internal combustion engine spinning an alternator at constant RPM.
The local Friends of the Earth miscategorised this as an incinerator, claiming that it would produce dioxins {about as much in one full year of running as 5 November} and CO2 {instead of an equal amount of CO2 which would no longer be produced from other power plants and some of which would be from non-fossil fuel sources due to the presence of plant and animal matter in the process feedstock}. When these arguments were shot down, they still claimed that the plant was a bad idea as by improving recycling rates it would encourage people to throw stuff away! In the end, the plant did not get built and people are still being poisoned both nearby {by leachate from landfill sites, which produce methane -- one molecule of CH4 is equivalent to 21 molecules of CO2 in terms of heat-trapping power} and far away {by mining metal ores to replace the recyclable metal being buried in landfill}. All to avoid a negligible effect on air quality in an area where the majority of the population smokes fags anyway.
There's no point even trying to reason with Greens, because they fundamentally don't get science.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If you mean that Red Hat won't support you unless you purchase a Red Hat support contract, then I guess my response is, "well, DUH!"
If you mean that you can't install the bits that Cadence guarantees will work, you're flat wrong. Read the Red Hat LICENSES file. Sure, you can compile it yourself or go with all the other precompiled RH options out there. But for that you don't really have a contract with RH do you? In that sense it's technically "open" but that's not what companies are doing. They are going with the proprietary version that asks for licensing info when you install it.
Tautologically true -- if you don't have an RH support contract, you don't have RH support.
On the other hand, take the CDs for RHEL and they have instructions for doing an unsupported installation. Same RPMs, no need to compile your own, install from their CDs (but replace a couple of trademark files) and you're up and running. RHEL is a proprietary, purchased license to use. You can't say "I'm going to run critical application X on Red Hat" unless you're going to purchase a Red Hat license.
Male Bovine Excrement. I've installed any number of applications that even check for Red Hat revision level -- they run just fine on systems prepared precisely to Red Hat's specifications. Unless, of course, you're referring to the fact that "Red Hat" is a trademark and only applies if you have a contractual relationship with Red Hat -- which isn't a comment on Red Hat, it's a comment on trademark law.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
Open souse = free beer!
Tom Geller
Did anyone read this? It's just a badly done rant against the Green party and open source.
It's got nothing to do with the Greens being ticked off at Novell. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone could get that out of the article.
The article is really just a snarling howl against open-source, with some mindless praise for Microsoft and its software.
Steven
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.