Open source is not a *requirement*. It is primarily a philosophy/religion/hobby/social organization. Open standards is not a requirement. The capabilities and guarantees of open standards are the requirements.
Here are some *requirements*:
the ability to check code for backdoor security issues
that your choice of software now doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor in the future
-------
"Restricting yourself to only those things which fullfill your needs is not insane, it is superlatively rational."
Yes, but how do you know that only open source can fulfill these needs? What are the needs? You are just *guessing* what the needs might be based on the professed requirement "Open Source."
The proper approach is for the government to issue an RFP with actual requirements in it. Microsoft, IBM, and open source vendors should be able to bid, and demonstrate how they meet the requirements.
I want the government to understand their needs well enough to be able to clearly state them and make a correct analysis and decision as to whether these needs are being met.
The longer we put it off, the cheaper it will be to solve the problem. Yes, sooner or later something will happen, but if it isn't likely to happen now, why spend the bucks. Spend them later when the (cost of fixing) (probability of happening) * (cost of happening). Yes, cost of happening is really big, but probability of happening is really low, and cost of fixing is probably pretty high.
Personally, I think this one goes in the "Global warming is going to kill us all" bucket.
> Afganistan right now. They are being shot at > all the time, but they move fast enough to get > out of the way. OpenSource moves faster than > closed source so I can't possible see how the > article writer concluded they were equal.
Yeah, but closed source operates in "stealth mode." Their planes are harder to see because you don't get to see the source. Open source, on the other hand, is like a plane the size of a blimp.
Equally buggy, yes. Equally secure, puhleez.
(note the nasty feeling you get when it doesn't follow your religion).
Why is an escort not as "nice" as a jaguar? Because the Jaguar has special leather seats, etc. In other words, due to the materials and manufacturing (which bumps up the cost).
Why do you like the Beef Wellington better than the hamburger? Better design, true, but mostly better manufacturing process and materials. MC Ds could hire a bunch of chefs and make Beef Wellington, but MC Ds food is designed to lessen manufacturing costs.
Why would someone else's software be better? Better design, not manufacturing. While there may be some niches/personal preferences, in general one of two pieces of software that do the same thing is going to be better.
If I make a manufacturing error (or if there is a flaw in the materials I use to make that item), only the single item is affected, not all items of that design.
On the other hand, a design error potentially affects all users of that product, be it a car (remember the Pinto), software, etc.
The cost of a design error in a car is huge in comparison to most design errors in software. The cost in software: put up a patch (in fact the cost may even be negative: someone else found your bug).
The cost of a design error in a car: potentially huge, due to recalls, law suits, etc. This is in part due to the manufacturing costs.
So anyone with adminstrative privileges has absolute right to anything they can see? Should system administrators be allowed to look at CEO's mail boxes?
Let's hope they prosecute corporations that make pop-up ads. They cause my computer to execute code without my authorization, and they are definitely for corporate gain. Same thing for anything that uses my CPU in a way I don't want it to.
(It's different when my browser downloads a page I asked it to).
Slashdot Mirror
Open source is not a *requirement*. It is primarily a philosophy/religion/hobby/social organization. Open standards is not a requirement. The capabilities and guarantees of open standards are the requirements.
Here are some *requirements*:
the ability to check code for backdoor security issues
that your choice of software now doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor in the future
-------
"Restricting yourself to only those things which fullfill your needs is not insane, it is superlatively rational."
Yes, but how do you know that only open source can fulfill these needs? What are the needs? You are just *guessing* what the needs might be based on the professed requirement "Open Source."
The proper approach is for the government to issue an RFP with actual requirements in it. Microsoft, IBM, and open source vendors should be able to bid, and demonstrate how they meet the requirements.
I want the government to understand their needs well enough to be able to clearly state them and make a correct analysis and decision as to whether these needs are being met.
The longer we put it off, the cheaper it will be to solve the problem. Yes, sooner or later something will happen, but if it isn't likely to happen now, why spend the bucks. Spend them later when the (cost of fixing) (probability of happening) * (cost of happening). Yes, cost of happening is really big, but probability of happening is really low, and cost of fixing is probably pretty high.
Personally, I think this one goes in the "Global warming is going to kill us all" bucket.
> Afganistan right now. They are being shot at
> all the time, but they move fast enough to get
> out of the way. OpenSource moves faster than
> closed source so I can't possible see how the
> article writer concluded they were equal.
Yeah, but closed source operates in "stealth mode." Their planes are harder to see because you don't get to see the source. Open source, on the other hand, is like a plane the size of a blimp.
Equally buggy, yes. Equally secure, puhleez.
(note the nasty feeling you get when it doesn't follow your religion).
I don't think these are analogous.
Why is an escort not as "nice" as a jaguar? Because the Jaguar has special leather seats, etc. In other words, due to the materials and manufacturing (which bumps up the cost).
Why do you like the Beef Wellington better than the hamburger? Better design, true, but mostly better manufacturing process and materials. MC Ds could hire a bunch of chefs and make Beef Wellington, but MC Ds food is designed to lessen manufacturing costs.
Why would someone else's software be better? Better design, not manufacturing. While there may be some niches/personal preferences, in general one of two pieces of software that do the same thing is going to be better.
There is no manufacturing differentiation.
I think this is exactly correct.
If I make a manufacturing error (or if there is a flaw in the materials I use to make that item), only the single item is affected, not all items of that design.
On the other hand, a design error potentially affects all users of that product, be it a car (remember the Pinto), software, etc.
The cost of a design error in a car is huge in comparison to most design errors in software. The cost in software: put up a patch (in fact the cost may even be negative: someone else found your bug).
The cost of a design error in a car: potentially huge, due to recalls, law suits, etc. This is in part due to the manufacturing costs.
So anyone with adminstrative privileges has absolute right to anything they can see? Should system administrators be allowed to look at CEO's mail boxes?
Let's hope they prosecute corporations that make pop-up ads. They cause my computer to execute code without my authorization, and they are definitely for corporate gain. Same thing for anything that uses my CPU in a way I don't want it to.
(It's different when my browser downloads a page I asked it to).