Having read the law, the specific wording is such that if you don't use open source software you have to justify why. That means paperwork.
How many people who just want to create a small database for their department is going to want to write up a 40 page paper justifying the use of Microsoft Access? They won't, so they'll find something which takes less work to acquire even if it is actually more expensive to setup and use.
The people sponsoring this bill obviously understand how government bureacracies work, and they have setup wording that sounds reasonable on the surface, but would have devastating impact. It's manipulative, but that's frequently how you get bad laws passed.
Many states have balanced budget amendments, and it's a hard thing, but it's also a good thing in many ways.
What it does is force the politicians to be somewhat responsible. That is, if they want to give a big tax break they need to balance it with spending cuts. If they want to spend more money, they have to balance that with tax hikes.
The way to win elections today is to push for tax cuts and spending increases, and there is no accountability for it.
Yes there are certainly exceptions that need to be considered, but that's easy. Just require a super majority to override the budget for that year. I believe that means more than 60%, same as you need to override a Veto. If it's really important, like say a war or something, you can easily convince that many to vote for it.
"This is the same department, remember, that ascertained the necessity of protecting the Iraq Oil Ministry whilst the relics of civilation's birth were plundered."
Bah, most of the good relics are already in the British Museum anyway.
I guess I'm just not a big fan of soft remotes. I want to be able to change the channel without looking at the remote. The Pronto is not easy to use in that regard.
The point is, I can program the discrete codes into my MX-500 to switch the system over to DVD mode, or television watching mode. From there, the rest of it is just controlling the devices.
I just wanted to get away from having six remotes on the table. The MX-500 accomplishes this, at about 1/3rd the cost of the Pronto. It is more difficult to setup with the JP1 method, but it's easier to use in the long run than the Pronto.
"You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal."
Moi? Naw...
"Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... "
No, actually that's not my argument. If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
Let me summarize.
Linux Whiner: Whaaaa!!!!! Microsoft is going to make money off of us.
Myself: So? People do it all the time from Linux, but you don't complain about that.
Linux Whiner: But... whaaa!!! I can't get it for free! I like free stuff! That's why I miss Napster!
Myself: Is that the only reason you prefer Open Source? If so I feel sorry for you.
"Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access."
Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
You don't get anything extra from Redhat that you don't get from Microsoft. Sure the Microsoft product has per unit royalties, but you pay these regardless. The benefit you have of contributing changes back is to make the product better.
"If the Mozilla (or any other Open Source product) development team produces software that someone turns around and resells for cash then more power to them as well. Anyone can go download the source or even a precompiled binary without paying a cent. Anyone can choose to buy the commercial product or download the free version."
If this is the bulk of your argument, then it has become quite clear that most of the slashbots advocating Open Source have no real interest in the source code, they just want software for free. These are the same people who justify copyright infringement for music, movies, books and other software. Their argument is totally consistent because the end result is the same... i.e. freebies.
Whatever, I'm only interested in having discussions based on technical merits.
"If you don't need those types of options, then PCs are fine."
Don't wish too hard. Hot adding of RAM has been available for PCs for a couple years. Hot-swap of PCI cards since at least 1996. Terabytes of storage is a no brainer... and 64 Gig of RAM comes along with these new 64-bit processors.
"If you don't need those types of options, then PCs are fine."
The Mainframe folks said the same thing when the Unix machines came along.
"What the heck are you talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Linux usage is increasing."
You know those IDC reports the Linux zealots were trumpeting back in 1999? The last several years they've shown declining growth.
"However, no one that's paying any attention at all to the server market can pretend that Linux isn't making a serious impact. "
10% market share is certainly nothing to sneeze at... but it's nowhere near widespread as you believe.
"You may not like that fact, but saying that it isn't so is just ridiculous."
I don't really care. What I don't like is people claiming things which are obviously not true for some weird political gain. All I ask is you back up your statements with facts, not anecdotal evidence and links to opinion articles.
"Oh well, let's you and I just take our troll and flamebait moderations and move on."
Heh. I'm on a roll this week losing points.:)
It's the general mantality of the slashbots to moderate down any opinion which requires them to think. i.e. anything that doesn't trumpet Linux as great and Microsoft as evil.
I'm wondering if maybe it is not time to start up a lobbying group to stop the flow of FUD.
"That's a bit thin. If he's using OS as "Open Source", then what he has said is true. Linux kernel defects are generally fixed within a few hours of their discovery. Microsoft defects, if fixed at all (there are some known local security bugs that were allowed to go for years without a fix), generally take at least 30 days."
Ok, I keep going back to the KDE discovery from last August... only because I paid attention to that one. I should pull together some information and identify how more of these bugs are handled.
The KDE bug was trumpeted as having been fixed within 90 minutes of discovery.(which is why I noticed it) However, it took a month before KDE provided fixed binaries off their website, and at least an additional month beyond that for Redhat to provide patches for their distributions. Even worse, in the mean time they came out with a new distribution which even then didn't have the patched version.
This pattern is actually quite common. The bugs are fixed within a matter of hours, but only in a beta form. The same is true of Microsoft. The bugs are fixed, the fixes are sent to others(usually the one who reported the problem) for verification... they go through a full regression test, etc. Two weeks to a month later they're released to the public.
One can certainly understand why, you really don't want to push out patches which don't fix the problem completely or break something completely different. So really for both products the situation is the same, the difference is just one of Linux Zealot propoganda.
"There are exceptions on both sides of the fence, but historically, it is probably a true statement."
No what this is is an example of a preconceived notion. Something that people just keep repeating over and over again until it is believed, whether or not there is any proof to back it up.
There are many examples of this, not just in the computer world.
"If you would have clicked on the link that I provided you would have noticed that the divisions that produce Windows and MS Office do indeed have profit margins of well over 80%. "
But your claim was companies with 80% profit margins. It is not at all unusual for certain divisions of companies to have high margins and other divisions to be taking losses. This is the nature of business.
"Why exactly would they lie about this?"
It's not that they lie, it's just that they don't tell the whole story. That's the nature of press releases.
"As for the rest, well, you can believe that Linux use isn't growing, if that is what makes you happy. While you are at it feel free to believe that the moon landings were elaborate fakes."
That's interesting.
With the moon landings we have evidence, thus I can confirm the stories.
With the Linux stories we have... well wishful thinking.
"You depend on MS for your livelyhood and feel threatened by Linux."
That's a curious statement considering I used to make my livelihood using Linux and decided to switch because I found it technically inferior to alternatives.
But you just keep believing what you want to believe.
I'm assuming the above post is a troll, but I'll respond anyways.
Microsoft issues security bulletins for all of their software. Windows, Exchange, SQL Server, SNA Server, ISA Server, Biztalk, etc. etc. etc.
So this was a count of all security bulletins issued by Microsoft, as well as all security bulletins issued by Redhat.
Also Redhat doesn't support their software for nearly as long a period of time as does Microsoft. So while bulletins are still issued for NT4, you won't find any for Redhat 5.0.
"Plus, it's been documented many times before that bugfixes are available much quicker in the OS world than the MS world."
You were looking for an example of a lie... there you go.
"Is it because Red Hat ships their OS with more software than Microsoft?"
I was counting all bulletins.
"The quantity of bugs reports is a meaningless statistic, regardless of what any zealot might say."
Agreed.
"OTOH, the speed of bug fixes is far more useful. "
Actually that's a meaningless statistic as well, especially since it's commonly misreported. Last August KDE reported a security problem with Konqueror. They claimed they fixed it in 90 minutes. It took a month for KDE to actually release a binary with the fix, and it took at least an additional month beyond that for Redhat to provide this binary update to their OS consumers. So while it was reportedly fixed in 90 minutes, it really took over two months.
"Though there's no shortage of people continuing to work on Linux's development, and that's all it'll take for it to keep going forever."
I hope for your sake that's true.
Unfortunately all I've been seeing is no shortage of people willing to make ridiculous claims.
You're right... Last year Readhat issued nearly twice as many security bulletins as Microsoft.
I'm increasingly convinced that Linux is dying off. The lies and distortions we are seeing on slashbot have become more and more desperate over the past two years.
"That's simple. Just take a quick look at Microsoft's public financial statements. They make absolutely ridiculous profits on both Windows and MS Office. Here's a link [yahoo.com]. "
You better check your facts again...
Microsoft had $30 billion in revenues, with about $10 billion in net profits. 30% is a pretty high profit margin, but it is nowhere near the 80% you claimed.
"Give the desktop a few more years and Free Software will be competitive there as well."
People have been saying this since 1992, the problem is the competitors are improving at an even more rapid rate.
"On the server side, on the other hand, I personally find Linux much easier to admin than Windows, and I come from a Windows background (that's an entirely different discussion). "
I disagree, and I come from a Unix background.
"The point that you don't understand is that the the folks purchasing software don't care about commercial software developers anymore than they care about buggy-whip makers."
The people buying the software? No. The people selling software? Well I can tell you this... Microsoft cares a lot more about it's developers than Redhat ever has.
"If Free Software produces a product that is "good enough" at a lower price, then the market is going to be interested. Free Software is now part of the software ecosystem, and all signs point to it becoming a larger part of the ecosystem in the future. "
What signs? The distorted articles you read here on slashbot? Linux growth has been stagnant since 1999, it's actually decreased over the last couple of years of this recession as companies have not been willing to take as great of risks.
"Oversight of government purchases is a good thing, and making government employees cost justify their software purchases is a definite benefit for the taxpayer."
I'm not talking cost justification, I'm talking mandated financing of open source development by way of government grants. The Redhat law which tried to outlaw commercial software in California for example.
If Free Software were competitive, the free software advocates would not need to resort to these low tactics.
"Unless you can convince thousands of Free Software developers to take up a different hobby you might as well get used to the idea of a world in which Free Software is an important part of the software ecosystem."
Ok, you don't seem to be getting it.
I don't care if developers want to spend their time writing software for free. I do this myself.
What I do care about is people being coerced into giving away their software for free... trying to force the government into funding such development using tax dollars and so forth.
Above all I really am opposed to the distorted commentaries you find on slashdot which try to claim Linux is more popular than it actually is.
You need to get out more.
"Merrill Lynch likes it so much they are touting how much money they are saving in a major periodical."
See, there you go again. You realize that commercial vendors issue press releases as well. Doesn't mean I believe everything they say.
"OTOH WinCE developers are paid nothing for fixes to a product that costs real money."
As opposed to the fake money Redhat charges.
"M$ is probably correct in assuming that developers will be motivated to produce fixes/additions to enhance the functionality of their own products."
Who is M$? I thought we were talking about Microsoft here.
"And if Microsoft continues to exploit their leverage like this they will alienate their developer base."
Alienate? You mean like how all the open source zealots are alienating developers by demanding they give away their work for free? At least Microsoft doesn't do that.
"If I were a device manufacturer I certainly wouldn't develop any new features for WinCE; I would be working for M$ for free."
Again, just like you work for Redhat for free, just like you work for other companies that take free software projects and resell them, just like you work for other companies that provide support for free software projects for a fee.
This isn't a valid complaint... you've been doing this for years, and you have been perfectly content to let people take advantage of you.
Now you want to come here and claim Microsoft is going to take advantage of you?
And you wonder why the development world considers open source people a bunch of whiners? Sheesh, look in the mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
"I couldn't find anything about 40 pages in there."
But you did find the justification section. That shows that you can at least read.
Now go find yourself a job with state government and you'll understand the 40 page comment.
Having read the law, the specific wording is such that if you don't use open source software you have to justify why. That means paperwork.
How many people who just want to create a small database for their department is going to want to write up a 40 page paper justifying the use of Microsoft Access? They won't, so they'll find something which takes less work to acquire even if it is actually more expensive to setup and use.
The people sponsoring this bill obviously understand how government bureacracies work, and they have setup wording that sounds reasonable on the surface, but would have devastating impact. It's manipulative, but that's frequently how you get bad laws passed.
Many states have balanced budget amendments, and it's a hard thing, but it's also a good thing in many ways.
What it does is force the politicians to be somewhat responsible. That is, if they want to give a big tax break they need to balance it with spending cuts. If they want to spend more money, they have to balance that with tax hikes.
The way to win elections today is to push for tax cuts and spending increases, and there is no accountability for it.
Yes there are certainly exceptions that need to be considered, but that's easy. Just require a super majority to override the budget for that year. I believe that means more than 60%, same as you need to override a Veto. If it's really important, like say a war or something, you can easily convince that many to vote for it.
"This is the same department, remember, that ascertained the necessity of protecting the Iraq Oil Ministry whilst the relics of civilation's birth were plundered."
Bah, most of the good relics are already in the British Museum anyway.
"This is one good reason why things like online registration and verification (like Windows XP has), and certain flavours of DRM, are flawed."
Not that I disagree that online verification does have it's share of problems.
But exactly how is this an example of that when Office 2000 uses neither?
I guess I'm just not a big fan of soft remotes. I want to be able to change the channel without looking at the remote. The Pronto is not easy to use in that regard.
The point is, I can program the discrete codes into my MX-500 to switch the system over to DVD mode, or television watching mode. From there, the rest of it is just controlling the devices.
I just wanted to get away from having six remotes on the table. The MX-500 accomplishes this, at about 1/3rd the cost of the Pronto. It is more difficult to setup with the JP1 method, but it's easier to use in the long run than the Pronto.
"The MX-500 would not run my system...nor several of my friend's systems."
I don't see why not. While it's a bit of a geek thing to do, you can program it with discrete codes using the JP1 method.
There's also the new IRClone solution which let's you program it quite easily from your PC basically like you do with the Pronto.
I looked at the Pronto, and while it's neat I didn't find it practical to use. The MX-500 has a much nicer interface with the user.
Well at least we are sure of where the Iraqi Information Minister is now working...
The Tax Accountants lobby is a pretty powerful force. If taxes were that simple thousands of people would be out of jobs, and they know that.
"You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal."
Moi? Naw...
"Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... "
No, actually that's not my argument. If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
Let me summarize.
Linux Whiner: Whaaaa!!!!! Microsoft is going to make money off of us.
Myself: So? People do it all the time from Linux, but you don't complain about that.
Linux Whiner: But... whaaa!!! I can't get it for free! I like free stuff! That's why I miss Napster!
Myself: Is that the only reason you prefer Open Source? If so I feel sorry for you.
"Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access."
Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
You don't get anything extra from Redhat that you don't get from Microsoft. Sure the Microsoft product has per unit royalties, but you pay these regardless. The benefit you have of contributing changes back is to make the product better.
"If the Mozilla (or any other Open Source product) development team produces software that someone turns around and resells for cash then more power to them as well. Anyone can go download the source or even a precompiled binary without paying a cent. Anyone can choose to buy the commercial product or download the free version."
If this is the bulk of your argument, then it has become quite clear that most of the slashbots advocating Open Source have no real interest in the source code, they just want software for free. These are the same people who justify copyright infringement for music, movies, books and other software. Their argument is totally consistent because the end result is the same... i.e. freebies.
Whatever, I'm only interested in having discussions based on technical merits.
"If you don't need those types of options, then PCs are fine."
Don't wish too hard. Hot adding of RAM has been available for PCs for a couple years. Hot-swap of PCI cards since at least 1996. Terabytes of storage is a no brainer... and 64 Gig of RAM comes along with these new 64-bit processors.
"If you don't need those types of options, then PCs are fine."
The Mainframe folks said the same thing when the Unix machines came along.
"What the heck are you talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Linux usage is increasing."
You know those IDC reports the Linux zealots were trumpeting back in 1999? The last several years they've shown declining growth.
"However, no one that's paying any attention at all to the server market can pretend that Linux isn't making a serious impact. "
10% market share is certainly nothing to sneeze at... but it's nowhere near widespread as you believe.
"You may not like that fact, but saying that it isn't so is just ridiculous."
I don't really care. What I don't like is people claiming things which are obviously not true for some weird political gain. All I ask is you back up your statements with facts, not anecdotal evidence and links to opinion articles.
"Oh well, let's you and I just take our troll and flamebait moderations and move on."
:)
Heh. I'm on a roll this week losing points.
It's the general mantality of the slashbots to moderate down any opinion which requires them to think. i.e. anything that doesn't trumpet Linux as great and Microsoft as evil.
I'm wondering if maybe it is not time to start up a lobbying group to stop the flow of FUD.
"That's a bit thin. If he's using OS as "Open Source", then what he has said is true. Linux kernel defects are generally fixed within a few hours of their discovery. Microsoft defects, if fixed at all (there are some known local security bugs that were allowed to go for years without a fix), generally take at least 30 days."
Ok, I keep going back to the KDE discovery from last August... only because I paid attention to that one. I should pull together some information and identify how more of these bugs are handled.
The KDE bug was trumpeted as having been fixed within 90 minutes of discovery.(which is why I noticed it) However, it took a month before KDE provided fixed binaries off their website, and at least an additional month beyond that for Redhat to provide patches for their distributions. Even worse, in the mean time they came out with a new distribution which even then didn't have the patched version.
This pattern is actually quite common. The bugs are fixed within a matter of hours, but only in a beta form. The same is true of Microsoft. The bugs are fixed, the fixes are sent to others(usually the one who reported the problem) for verification... they go through a full regression test, etc. Two weeks to a month later they're released to the public.
One can certainly understand why, you really don't want to push out patches which don't fix the problem completely or break something completely different. So really for both products the situation is the same, the difference is just one of Linux Zealot propoganda.
"There are exceptions on both sides of the fence, but historically, it is probably a true statement."
No what this is is an example of a preconceived notion. Something that people just keep repeating over and over again until it is believed, whether or not there is any proof to back it up.
There are many examples of this, not just in the computer world.
"If you would have clicked on the link that I provided you would have noticed that the divisions that produce Windows and MS Office do indeed have profit margins of well over 80%. "
But your claim was companies with 80% profit margins. It is not at all unusual for certain divisions of companies to have high margins and other divisions to be taking losses. This is the nature of business.
"Why exactly would they lie about this?"
It's not that they lie, it's just that they don't tell the whole story. That's the nature of press releases.
"As for the rest, well, you can believe that Linux use isn't growing, if that is what makes you happy. While you are at it feel free to believe that the moon landings were elaborate fakes."
That's interesting.
With the moon landings we have evidence, thus I can confirm the stories.
With the Linux stories we have... well wishful thinking.
"You depend on MS for your livelyhood and feel threatened by Linux."
That's a curious statement considering I used to make my livelihood using Linux and decided to switch because I found it technically inferior to alternatives.
But you just keep believing what you want to believe.
I'm assuming the above post is a troll, but I'll respond anyways.
Microsoft issues security bulletins for all of their software. Windows, Exchange, SQL Server, SNA Server, ISA Server, Biztalk, etc. etc. etc.
So this was a count of all security bulletins issued by Microsoft, as well as all security bulletins issued by Redhat.
Also Redhat doesn't support their software for nearly as long a period of time as does Microsoft. So while bulletins are still issued for NT4, you won't find any for Redhat 5.0.
"Plus, it's been documented many times before that bugfixes are available much quicker in the OS world than the MS world."
You were looking for an example of a lie... there you go.
"Which tells us nothing."
Exactly!
"Is it because Red Hat ships their OS with more software than Microsoft?"
I was counting all bulletins.
"The quantity of bugs reports is a meaningless statistic, regardless of what any zealot might say."
Agreed.
"OTOH, the speed of bug fixes is far more useful. "
Actually that's a meaningless statistic as well, especially since it's commonly misreported. Last August KDE reported a security problem with Konqueror. They claimed they fixed it in 90 minutes. It took a month for KDE to actually release a binary with the fix, and it took at least an additional month beyond that for Redhat to provide this binary update to their OS consumers. So while it was reportedly fixed in 90 minutes, it really took over two months.
"Though there's no shortage of people continuing to work on Linux's development, and that's all it'll take for it to keep going forever."
I hope for your sake that's true.
Unfortunately all I've been seeing is no shortage of people willing to make ridiculous claims.
"You know you are famous when you have your very own stalker [slashdot.org] "
I have like a dozen stalkers on slashbot.
Anyway, I'm assuming your post was a troll because I can't imagine anybody being stupid enough to really believe those claims.
You're right... Last year Readhat issued nearly twice as many security bulletins as Microsoft.
I'm increasingly convinced that Linux is dying off. The lies and distortions we are seeing on slashbot have become more and more desperate over the past two years.
Hit too close to home I guess.
"That's simple. Just take a quick look at Microsoft's public financial statements. They make absolutely ridiculous profits on both Windows and MS Office. Here's a link [yahoo.com]. "
You better check your facts again...
Microsoft had $30 billion in revenues, with about $10 billion in net profits. 30% is a pretty high profit margin, but it is nowhere near the 80% you claimed.
"Give the desktop a few more years and Free Software will be competitive there as well."
People have been saying this since 1992, the problem is the competitors are improving at an even more rapid rate.
"On the server side, on the other hand, I personally find Linux much easier to admin than Windows, and I come from a Windows background (that's an entirely different discussion). "
I disagree, and I come from a Unix background.
"The point that you don't understand is that the the folks purchasing software don't care about commercial software developers anymore than they care about buggy-whip makers."
The people buying the software? No. The people selling software? Well I can tell you this... Microsoft cares a lot more about it's developers than Redhat ever has.
"If Free Software produces a product that is "good enough" at a lower price, then the market is going to be interested. Free Software is now part of the software ecosystem, and all signs point to it becoming a larger part of the ecosystem in the future. "
What signs? The distorted articles you read here on slashbot? Linux growth has been stagnant since 1999, it's actually decreased over the last couple of years of this recession as companies have not been willing to take as great of risks.
"Oversight of government purchases is a good thing, and making government employees cost justify their software purchases is a definite benefit for the taxpayer."
I'm not talking cost justification, I'm talking mandated financing of open source development by way of government grants. The Redhat law which tried to outlaw commercial software in California for example.
If Free Software were competitive, the free software advocates would not need to resort to these low tactics.
"Unless you can convince thousands of Free Software developers to take up a different hobby you might as well get used to the idea of a world in which Free Software is an important part of the software ecosystem."
Ok, you don't seem to be getting it.
I don't care if developers want to spend their time writing software for free. I do this myself.
What I do care about is people being coerced into giving away their software for free... trying to force the government into funding such development using tax dollars and so forth.
Above all I really am opposed to the distorted commentaries you find on slashdot which try to claim Linux is more popular than it actually is.
You need to get out more.
"Merrill Lynch likes it so much they are touting how much money they are saving in a major periodical."
See, there you go again. You realize that commercial vendors issue press releases as well. Doesn't mean I believe everything they say.
Software is about technology, not religion.
"How much does Linux cost?"
Somewhere between $39.95 and $149.95.
"OTOH WinCE developers are paid nothing for fixes to a product that costs real money."
As opposed to the fake money Redhat charges.
"M$ is probably correct in assuming that developers will be motivated to produce fixes/additions to enhance the functionality of their own products."
Who is M$? I thought we were talking about Microsoft here.
"And if Microsoft continues to exploit their leverage like this they will alienate their developer base."
Alienate? You mean like how all the open source zealots are alienating developers by demanding they give away their work for free? At least Microsoft doesn't do that.
"If I were a device manufacturer I certainly wouldn't develop any new features for WinCE; I would be working for M$ for free."
Again, just like you work for Redhat for free, just like you work for other companies that take free software projects and resell them, just like you work for other companies that provide support for free software projects for a fee.
This isn't a valid complaint... you've been doing this for years, and you have been perfectly content to let people take advantage of you.
Now you want to come here and claim Microsoft is going to take advantage of you?
And you wonder why the development world considers open source people a bunch of whiners? Sheesh, look in the mirror.
"You can't do squat with the code, except tweak it and give the changes back to MS."
Huh? You can tweak it and use it as part of your product. What more do you want?
"You can't take the code and use it in your own project, you can't fork, you can't even distribute your work without giving MS royalties."
Do you just whine to hear yourself whine, or do you actually think your points are valid?