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

Grammar Nazis

[Recovering Hater]

Slashdot is just taunting with this headline. I mean, come on! "Open Souce"?

Re:Grammar Nazis

[beef3k]

Oh give them a break - anyone can misspell "Sauce" once in a while...

Proprietary doesn't matter...just get there

[flinxmeister]

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.

Re:Proprietary doesn't matter...just get there

[AvitarX]

What makes Red Hat and SUSE proprietary Linux?

Red Hat was the a huge supporter of OSS and one of the last distros to always release a completely free version of their OS, now they only give it away to hobbiests and openly release all their developments before the paying customers get them.

Novel releases an OSS version of its OS and is also a big supporter of OSS, arguably bigger than SUSE who had taken a turn for the worse towards the end.

The only problem with Novell could be the use of their directory, but that is not a proprietary version of OSS, it is proprietary software that runs on OSS.

I think (as you seem to, this is not an attack on you, but on the greens) converting over to SUSE or Red Hat both fall into the category of "[clearing] the path for government agencies to adopt and expand their use of non-proprietary software"

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.

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

[Pxtl]

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.

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Dimitri Sklyarov was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada for writing software while in Russia which decoded e-books which were a form of Adobe PDFs.

Right, because he broke the trivial encryption on encrypted PDFs. He could just as easily be arrested for breaking encryption on text files. That does not make either PDF or TXT closed formats. Both are open, published, and have multiple implementations of readers and writers. .DOC, on the other hand, is not only closed, but also ever changing and intentionally obscured. Yup Adobe are a bunch of asshats and should be slapped around, but that has nothing to do with the PDF format which they created and in no way makes PDFs less open.

"Proprietary versions of OSS"

[overshoot]

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.

I'm confused

[Digital_Quartz]

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?

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.

Govt. logic, go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Govt. logic, go figure

[hey!]

Well, it's funny to me, since I'd resolved to teach myself French around the start of 2003.

I'd noticed around that time that a lot of people were pushing the idea of France as (variously) the enemy, or the most contemptible country in the world. Then I looked at the principles of the people selling this idea, and the intelligence of the people buying it, and discovered that I liked France more than I thought.

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.

Misrepresentation of the article

[GileadGreene]

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.

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.

proprietary?

[burnin1965]

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