FLOSS is not about the frivolous items discussed in the summary. The poll is only a small part of the study, which goes into great depth in the use and role of free software in companies and in government.
It goes as far as recommending that EU states adopt legislation similar to the one proposed in Argentina, Perú, Colombia and others, mandating the use of free software in government for security reasons. Section 4.2
I love to see this lively discussion of such an important topic, but I feel we're talking about Tim's opinion on the proposed bill without actually reading the bill itself. Tim and his followers argue that the bill is unnecessarily restrictive. It does restrict the government, but is it really unnecessary? The proposed bill's preamble says:
The State of California seeks to improve the security, interoperability and quality of its software while lowering the cost and invigorating competition among suppliers. To guarantee the succession and permanence of public software and data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software be independent of the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. California's software integrity and security is jeopardized by proprietary software systems whose security and product enhancements are provided solely by the software's vendor. In these situations, vendor caprice, instability or bankruptcy subject the State of California to incalculable risk that its computer systems may be vulnerable to attacks by malefactors whose actions can be prevented only by the vendor. Further, vendors having exclusivity to provide security maintenance for their proprietary software systems have the ability to charge monopoly prices. For these reasons, the State seeks systems the development and maintenance of which can be guaranteed in absence of magnanimity of its suppliers and despite its malfeasance
Do we all agree that these are all valid, critical issues? Free software does offer a solution to each and every one of them, not always easy solutions, but better than what proprietary has to offer. As citizens, it is important to us that the government address these problems.
The "free software is about freedom of choice" mantra, while true for individuals, and really great-sounding, doesn't say a thing about how to solve the problems outlined by the bill. I have still to see anybody say "the restrictions are unnecessary because the concerns are not valid. We can address every one of them with proprietary software just as well, simply by..."
Until somebody does, I'm not impressed.
Re:push for open DATA FORMATS, not open SOURCE
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 0
Open data formats will help make information available to the citizen, but you'll need open APIs as well. And even both together won't help you improve security.
To quote one of my favourite ESR bits, "Closed source code is an unacceptable strategic business risk. When your key business processes are executed by opaque blocks of bits that you can't even see inside (let alone modify), you have lost control of your business."
Government use of proprietary software means that we as citizens are giving up control of the involved government operations to the owners of the software. That's a bad idea.
So right now you have all these rogue PCs, but Palladium will enable to regain control over them.
Sounds great, except for the fact that MS will be gaining even more control over them than you will ever be able to, and I can't think how that can be good.
Point being, you can't apply this model to an artist that doesn't have that kind of track record. Try floating "Britney Bonds" or "'Nsync Notes" and see how far those fly. They won't
[...] do certain elements of the government get an exemption if they can show no 'free' software exists to fulfill a specific need?
The peruvian bill is based on the proposed draft (also used by congressman Dragan of Argentina for his own proposed bill), created in open-source fashion by an international group of interested people interacting thorugh the "proposición" mailing list. As such, it contains provisions for a transition period and clear rules for exceptions. In short, the State can use proprietary software for a limited timeframe if all the following criteria are met:
no free software exists that fulfills the need (which must be properly documented an published for public scrutiny)
the need is so urgent than it just can't wait for the development of a free solution
the software provides a means of rendering all its data in an open electronic format
a security assessment of the risk of using the software for that particular purpose and in that particular environment is published for public scrutiny
The exception allows the State to go ahead with the deployment of the software, but requires it to immediately pursue the development of a free alternative. There are other exceptions for educational purposes, too.
Having worked for the public sector, I agree that the lack of appeal of free software comes down to accountability, but not as represented by this post. The gist of the problem is that public employees don't want to be accountable.
The true killer feature of proprietary software for public administration is that when things go wrong, all it takes is for the people responsible to point at {Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, whoever} and scream "it's not my fault, it's their software that's buggy", and since that is one of the many accepted "facts of IT life", they're off the hook. With free software, on the other hand, they cannot do this.
Mind you that this technique of flinging blame around does nothing to actually solve the problem, but keeping the system up only comes a very distant second after keeping they asses of the line with a bare minimum of effort.
Re:14 years - ok for an artist - big suckage for c
on
When Elephants Dance
·
· Score: 1
[...]after all we want films like LOTR financed, don't we?
I loved LOTR. But if I have to trade it for my right to running my computer as I see fit, I will do without, thanks.
Now, these were really too easy. So easy, in fact, that all they do is highlight the advantages of free software:
1. There's no support built into the product. Yes, you can hire people to support it for you, but it's a seperate cost.
AFAIK, this is also true of commercial software. The few cases where support is included, you can be sure it's included in the bill, too.
2. Similarly, There is no warrantee of any kind. If it breaks, you have no one to complain to: "you get what you pay for."
Again, this is not different from software licences that grant the right to use the program "as is", and limits the warranty to replacement of defective media. So the fact that you paid for the license doesn't mean that you have a right to a working program.
3. The programmers may suddenly decide they have no vested interest in continuing the project, or development may slow to a crawl (eg, mozilla), and there's nothing you can do about it.
This can also happen in the commercial world. Each time a product fails to win a significant portion of the market, the company behind it will lose interest in it. It even happens that quite successful projects get yanked because they are no longer perceived as part of the company's long-term strategy (FoxPro, anyone?). And when this happens to a commercial project, you are left with exactly nothing, whereas nobody can stop you from adopting an orphan project. This may turn out to be expensive, of course, but it is still much better than not even having that option no matter how much money you throw at it.
Open Source does seriously empower expert individuals who wish to customize and improve software for their own use, and the community with which those individuals share the improvements. But that's not really a business situation.
Actually, it's bussiness that benefit most from free software. "Expert individuals" enjoy working with it, and probably trust it better than anything they can't inspect. But bussiness data is worth real money. It must not leak, it dare not disappear or become inaccessible, it must stay consistent and unadulterated, the programs that handle it must be kept on-line no matter what. You can't get any of that with poprietary software.
So now there's an OS company, an App company and and an Internet Services company. This would solve a lot of the problems related to monopoly abuse... IF the OS company behaves like a really really nice girl. But remember that this whole trial revolved around Microsoft's claim that Explorer was part of the OS! I heard about it, I've read about it, I've just written it, and I still can't believe anybody could ever hear that argument and not break into uncontrolled laughter. But they said it repeatedly, with a straight face.
So what's to stop the OS company from pretending, a few months from now, that a spreadsheet is OF COURSE an inseparable part of the OS? OK, that crappy Linux thing does work without one, but that's just a sign of how far back they are from the cutting edge. Or more likely: who will prevent the App company from creating an OS that runs their stuff, and start with their bully tactics all over again? Sure, they COULD play fair. But they haven't showed any sympathy for fair play so far, so why would they start now?
The only real solution to this problem, the one that would solve the problem, not just for Microsoft but for the general case, is to pass legislation to require all closed-source software to publish their complete API and file formats. This would even have a very nice secondary effect: for the first time in history, software companies would have to publish a specification for their software, and they would actually have to live up to it. Accountability! A warranty that would go beyond replacing the CD! No more charging for upgrades that solve bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place!
Hey, the government is desperately seeking something to do to prevent its obsolescence, they could do much worse that enforce this.
Slashdot Mirror
FLOSS is not about the frivolous items discussed in the summary. The poll is only a small part of the study, which goes into great depth in the use and role of free software in companies and in government.
It goes as far as recommending that EU states adopt legislation similar to the one proposed in Argentina, Perú, Colombia and others, mandating the use of free software in government for security reasons. Section 4.2
I love to see this lively discussion of such an important topic, but I feel we're talking about Tim's opinion on the proposed bill without actually reading the bill itself. Tim and his followers argue that the bill is unnecessarily restrictive. It does restrict the government, but is it really unnecessary? The proposed bill's preamble says:
Do we all agree that these are all valid, critical issues? Free software does offer a solution to each and every one of them, not always easy solutions, but better than what proprietary has to offer. As citizens, it is important to us that the government address these problems.
The "free software is about freedom of choice" mantra, while true for individuals, and really great-sounding, doesn't say a thing about how to solve the problems outlined by the bill. I have still to see anybody say "the restrictions are unnecessary because the concerns are not valid. We can address every one of them with proprietary software just as well, simply by..."
Until somebody does, I'm not impressed.
Open data formats will help make information available to the citizen, but you'll need open APIs as well. And even both together won't help you improve security.
To quote one of my favourite ESR bits, "Closed source code is an unacceptable strategic business risk. When your key business processes are executed by opaque blocks of bits that you can't even see inside (let alone modify), you have lost control of your business."
Government use of proprietary software means that we as citizens are giving up control of the involved government operations to the owners of the software. That's a bad idea.
So right now you have all these rogue PCs, but Palladium will enable to regain control over them.
Sounds great, except for the fact that MS will be gaining even more control over them than you will ever be able to, and I can't think how that can be good.
Point being, you can't apply this model to an artist that doesn't have that kind of track record. Try floating "Britney Bonds" or "'Nsync Notes" and see how far those fly. They won't
Which, of course, is a feature, not a bug.
[...] do certain elements of the government get an exemption if they can show no 'free' software exists to fulfill a specific need?
The peruvian bill is based on the proposed draft (also used by congressman Dragan of Argentina for his own proposed bill), created in open-source fashion by an international group of interested people interacting thorugh the "proposición" mailing list. As such, it contains provisions for a transition period and clear rules for exceptions. In short, the State can use proprietary software for a limited timeframe if all the following criteria are met:
- no free software exists that fulfills the need (which must be properly documented an published for public scrutiny)
- the need is so urgent than it just can't wait for the development of a free solution
- the software provides a means of rendering all its data in an open electronic format
- a security assessment of the risk of using the software for that particular purpose and in that particular environment is published for public scrutiny
The exception allows the State to go ahead with the deployment of the software, but requires it to immediately pursue the development of a free alternative. There are other exceptions for educational purposes, too.After all, isn't he responsible for just about anything that goes boom in the States?
That sneaky bastard!
Having worked for the public sector, I agree that the lack of appeal of free software comes down to accountability, but not as represented by this post. The gist of the problem is that public employees don't want to be accountable.
The true killer feature of proprietary software for public administration is that when things go wrong, all it takes is for the people responsible to point at {Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, whoever} and scream "it's not my fault, it's their software that's buggy", and since that is one of the many accepted "facts of IT life", they're off the hook. With free software, on the other hand, they cannot do this.
Mind you that this technique of flinging blame around does nothing to actually solve the problem, but keeping the system up only comes a very distant second after keeping they asses of the line with a bare minimum of effort.
[...]after all we want films like LOTR financed, don't we?
I loved LOTR. But if I have to trade it for my right to running my computer as I see fit, I will do without, thanks.
Now, these were really too easy. So easy, in fact, that all they do is highlight the advantages of free software:
1. There's no support built into the product. Yes, you can hire people to support it for you, but it's a seperate cost.
AFAIK, this is also true of commercial software. The few cases where support is included, you can be sure it's included in the bill, too.
2. Similarly, There is no warrantee of any kind. If it breaks, you have no one to complain to: "you get what you pay for."
Again, this is not different from software licences that grant the right to use the program "as is", and limits the warranty to replacement of defective media. So the fact that you paid for the license doesn't mean that you have a right to a working program.
3. The programmers may suddenly decide they have no vested interest in continuing the project, or development may slow to a crawl (eg, mozilla), and there's nothing you can do about it.
This can also happen in the commercial world. Each time a product fails to win a significant portion of the market, the company behind it will lose interest in it. It even happens that quite successful projects get yanked because they are no longer perceived as part of the company's long-term strategy (FoxPro, anyone?). And when this happens to a commercial project, you are left with exactly nothing, whereas nobody can stop you from adopting an orphan project. This may turn out to be expensive, of course, but it is still much better than not even having that option no matter how much money you throw at it.
Open Source does seriously empower expert individuals who wish to customize and improve software for their own use, and the community with which those individuals share the improvements. But that's not really a business situation.
Actually, it's bussiness that benefit most from free software. "Expert individuals" enjoy working with it, and probably trust it better than anything they can't inspect. But bussiness data is worth real money. It must not leak, it dare not disappear or become inaccessible, it must stay consistent and unadulterated, the programs that handle it must be kept on-line no matter what. You can't get any of that with poprietary software.
So now there's an OS company, an App company and and an Internet Services company. This would solve a lot of the problems related to monopoly abuse... IF the OS company behaves like a really really nice girl. But remember that this whole trial revolved around Microsoft's claim that Explorer was part of the OS! I heard about it, I've read about it, I've just written it, and I still can't believe anybody could ever hear that argument and not break into uncontrolled laughter. But they said it repeatedly, with a straight face.
So what's to stop the OS company from pretending, a few months from now, that a spreadsheet is OF COURSE an inseparable part of the OS? OK, that crappy Linux thing does work without one, but that's just a sign of how far back they are from the cutting edge. Or more likely: who will prevent the App company from creating an OS that runs their stuff, and start with their bully tactics all over again? Sure, they COULD play fair. But they haven't showed any sympathy for fair play so far, so why would they start now?
The only real solution to this problem, the one that would solve the problem, not just for Microsoft but for the general case, is to pass legislation to require all closed-source software to publish their complete API and file formats. This would even have a very nice secondary effect: for the first time in history, software companies would have to publish a specification for their software, and they would actually have to live up to it. Accountability! A warranty that would go beyond replacing the CD! No more charging for upgrades that solve bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place!
Hey, the government is desperately seeking something to do to prevent its obsolescence, they could do much worse that enforce this.