1. They have more pressing issues to attend to. Patch the malformed URL syntax issue with IE or the "rootable" SQL Server one?
They have completely separate teams of people who work on different products.
I'm not speaking out against anti-MS sentiments at all here, I'm simply saying a lot of people chalk these things up to a company that's too big to care. Shocking as it may be, that might not be true.:) They have a lot of interoperating products (again, their own hole that they dug) and problems with one can affect the others. Likewise, their fixes.
Then instead of criticizing them for not fixing their holes, we should be criticizing them for having a stupid, defective software development model. Either way, we still get to criticize them, because they're still doing stupid things. Basically we switch our focus from their laziness, to their incompetence.
Re:Musical innovation is across the pond in Europe
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 2
Every decade has it's one hit wonders that are quickly forgotten. The problem is now, all the artists are one hit wonders.
Linkin Park. Godsmack. Incubus. Coldplay. System of a Down. These are all bands who have become big in the last few years, and have had multiple hit songs.
The only big named band that really took off in the 90s that I can think of is Nirvana,
So because *you* can only think of one Real Big Band, there weren't any others? Are you kidding me? Green Day. The Offspring. Foo Fighters. Pearl Jam. Blink-182. Bush. No Doubt. Dave Matthews Band. Oasis. Goo Goo Dolls. 311. Everclear.
In the Early 90s Nirvana hit the airwaves, and seemingly over-night the rock stations switched from an unnerving blend of techno-pop and glam metal to 'alternative', a term that makes me laugh. Since when is an industry reacting to market trends 'alternative'? Especially when every radio station that plays newly released rock calls themselves 'alternative'?
Alternative is the name of that genre of music. It existed in the 80s, too, only you apparently are unaware of that fact. When alternative suddenly became a big deal (due to Nirvana's influence), what did you expect them to do? Change its name? That would just have confused people.
Now, of course, the alternative stations sound the same coast to coast. As far as I can tell, in the rock genre, the only thing the format is an alternative to is the 80s rock music station, the 60s-70s 'classic' rock stations, and the 50s-60s 'oldies' station.
Well, I haven't listened to stations in that many cities. Apparently you've been to all the major markets across the USA, so I'll take your word for it.
This isn't to say that the 90s didn't put out quite a bit of good music, but none of it was found in the traditional 'hear a song on the radio, like it, buy an album'.
That's funny, I recall hearing quite a bit of very good music on the radio in the 90s. And buying numerous albums in response to hearing that music on the radio. *GASP* Maybe we like different kinds of music! And maybe it's okay if other people like music you think is crap, and vice-versa!
Re:Musical innovation is across the pond in Europe
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 2
What is it with this "Oh everything was so much better back in the day" nostalgia bullshit? The majority of albums EVER released have been formulaic, cookie-cutter crap. Things were just as "bad" (or "good") in the 1980s as they are now. What, do you seriously think there were no nameless one-hit-wonder artists in the 1980s? Or the 1970s? Or EVERY DECADE EVER?
...that schemes like this should be cracked. Why? Because such blindingly stupid methods of "protection" are an insult to even a basic understanding of computer security and data flow, and deserve to be annihilated. This protection isn't going to actually help anyone; it might make a few people feel better (assuming it's even for real; my vaporware sense is tingling), but it's not actually going to stop any serious cracker from getting through it.
Exactly. Things you never suspected were effects, are often effects these days. In AOTC, there's a scene where Padme, Anakin, and others are talking to the new queen of Naboo. Sio Bibble (Oliver Ford Davies) was sick on the day of shooting, so they filmed his empty chair (he has one or two lines of dialogue) that day, and then later filmed him separately and composited him into the scene. I've seen the movie four times and it never occurred to me that he wasn't actually on-set!
But AOTC is a bad example; you read the above, and think, "Well, yeah, it's an effects movie, it's not surprising that there's stuff LIKE that, even if I didn't notice that particular effect". But even "non-effects" movies like Insomnia, American Beauty, A Beautiful Mind, etc. all have numerous effects shots. Making people or trees move differently in the background; continuity errors (like a modernly-dressed person wandering through the background of a shot) can be easily removed; The color of the paint on a vehicle, building, or wall can be changed; and so on.
If you want to get really pedantic, most movies are really just large, elaborate special effects. You see a guy walking down a street. The camera cuts to another view of him walking down the same street. Looks like it's continuous, right? But those shots were probably taken several minutes apart, the guy repeating his path for each shot. That is, technically, a special effect -- it's just not the kind of flashy hocus-pocus we usually think about.
More or less. I saw AOTC at the Chinese, projected digitally, and it was Good. I was sitting about halfway back in the theater, and I couldn't see the individual vertical lines like I could when I saw it again a couple months later at another theater here in LA. At that showing, however, I was sitting much closer to the screen.
The studios themselves should subsidize the projector costs, if they want to see digital become pervasive. Digital quality issues aside, there's a significant long-term cost savings to using digital. It costs several million dollars just to strike the prints for even a moderate release (i.e. a couple thousand prints). If you use digital, you can copy the film to the same several thousand hard disk arrays over and over. Each disk array might cost as much, or more, than a single film print, but once you've reused those disks on even a couple of films, you're already ahead of the game cost-wise. Plus, HD arrays are physically smaller and lighter than film reels, and are easier (and cheaper) to ship/transport.
I don't have enough information to do all the math, but I suspect that if the studios invested in subsidizing digital projectors, they'd end up saving money in the long run, since they wouldn't have to strike thousands of individual film prints for each film, that might end up just getting recycled -- a hard drive array can last for years, sent back for reprogramming when a movie's run is done.
(Side note: Roger Ebert is orgasmically in favor of Maxivision, which apparently is more or less the same as regular film except it uses 48 frames per second instead of 24. The obvious downside is that you are now using twice as much film per print (probably not quite doubling the cost to strike a print), directors can only shoot for half as long at a stretch, and significantly increasing the difficulty of shipping and physically managing film prints. Even though retrofitting a standard projector to support Maxivision only costs $15,000 (compared to replacing it with a digital projector at $100-$150k), film costs are very significant.)
I've been reading/. for three+ years now. There's no substantial content difference between the stories and comments that are posted now, and the stories and comments that were posted then, except that with the continuing efforts of miscellaneous corporate and government persons to enact laws that will ensure their decrepit, outdated business model, we get more stories about such things (because more of it is happening).
Besides, who ever claimed that/. is the place for "reasoned political debate"? It's a site for GEEKS. We're not known for our social graces.
And another thing: Yeah, you left with a rant, but why not leave with something more substantial that might change/. into what you'd want it to be? Do you really think that bitterness and sarcasm are the best way to get what you want?
One of my wife's middle school math teachers had three different grading methods for different students. You could have your homework count for a majority of your grade, even if you did poorly on the tests; you could have it split evenly if you were better all-around; or you could have the final count for 50% of the year's grade. The idea was that people learn and relate to math differently; grading everyone the same way isn't going to help.
As far as I know, various courts have established that the (United States) government cannot copyright things. Any work produced by goverment employees is in the public domain. However, work done by companies or individuals under contract to the government can be copyrighted.
I tried to find the part in my post where I suggested the doctor stay inside the (theater/restaurant) to take the call, and couldn't find it. Maybe you could point it out to me.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I figured it was BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that once you receive the call, you take it somewhere private. Being able to receive an emergency medical call does not mean you are required to let everyone nearby in on the details.
Surely you, as someone trained in medicine, must have known that. Since you bothered to visit my website and find that much out about me, why didn't you read my other posts on this topic instead?
Competition is a good thing. The last thing I particularly want is for nVidia to get stomped by ATI because they start getting complacent like 3Dfx did. Let's hope they keep each other on their toes.
Last I checked, the government's reason to exist was to prevent people from hurting each others' person and property. You suffer no measurable harm from hearing a cellphone in a theater.
It's a social problem; society will deal with it. You REALLY want to help? When you go to a movie or theater, get up a couple minutes before the performance starts and remind the audience to turn their damn cellphones off. Keep doing it, encourage others to do it, and sooner or later everyone remembers and learns. Asking for laws to do this for you is lazy, inefficient, and misguided. Lazy, because you can easily do it yourself. Inefficient, because instead of the people who are affected by the action discouraging it, they're having hired goons do it for them. Misguided, because our government has WAY more important things to worry about than whether you enjoy a damn movie.
We don't have laws telling people to be quiet in restaurants, or laws insisting that you be nice to others, and there's a reason we don't.
At first I thought that sounded a little harsh, but then I realized that you said "incarcerated," not "incinerated." Then again, depending on the composition of the fart, and whether they use candlelight at the tables in that restaurant, "incinerated" may be the right word.
There's a lot more than eleven thousand people in the U.S.A. who need to be able to take a call whenever and wherever. They're called doctors.
Blocking cellphone signals to soothe your moral qualms is a foolish solution. Let society train itself to learn the rules of cellphone etiquette. Punishing the majority for the sins of a few has always been a <flame on!> stupid motherfucking retarded assfuck douchebag </flame> reaction to things.
No, most of us carry cellphones so that we can call anyone at any time we like, without having to find a payphone. I personally don't mind people calling me most of the time, but if I don't want to be reached, I turn the fucking thing off. This is not rocket science. By sheer non-coincidence, my friends are not people who expect me to be instantly available due to the fact that I have a cellphone.
Blanket jamming sounds like a great idea! I always hate it when doctors get emergency calls and have to rush off and, you know, save people's lives. Bastards. Is someone's life really more important than my moviegoing experience?
</sarcasm>
The answer to the social problem of idiots leaving their cellphone ringers on when it's inappropriate is to educate those idiots, not to punish everyone for the bad behavior of a few. "You cannot solve a social problem with a technological solution," remember?
I'm fully aware of the rights of Tim O'Reilly and millions of other Americans, including myself. "Your Mom" was claiming that the government employees should have the sole right to choose what tool fits their job best. This is false. Government employees' actions (or at least, the constraints they operate under) are dictated by the people. If the people pass a law saying that goverment employees should only be able to use open source (or closed source, or slightly ajar source) software, then so be it. You can bitch that it's the wrong decision, but to say that they have no RIGHT to pass such a law is ludicrous and false.
Whether I think the public makes good decisions is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from whether the public has the RIGHT to make those decisions. Personally, I think that in general, governments should be encouraged to use transparent methods (translation for this scenario: software with publicly available source code), but I don't necessarily think that mandating it in all situations is a good idea. Regardless of my opinions, however, it is a simple fact that the public does have the right to decide this question -- "Your Mom" was claiming that they shouldn't.
I'm glad to hear that the contract application process was open for review, but what about the actual provided tools? These are two separate facets of the same problem (openness in goverment work), but I was assuming we more or less all agree that the initial contracting process should be open and transparent -- it's really the end results of the contracting that I think should be more open.
Hmm... it seems that this would resolve to a de facto "All else being equal, take an open source option". Which may not be a bad thing, I'm still running through the implications in my head.
This does sound like a possibly good solution, assuming I understand you correctly. It has the force of command behind it (mandating that, if all other requirements are met, the government MUST choose the open solution), while allowing for overall superior closed solutions to win the day when they can.
Since/. is not the best forum for this, and since you don't seem to have an email address listed (there's one referenced on apocatopia.com but I'm not sure if that's you), would you like to continue this in email? My email should be listed above, and pretty easy to de-spam-proof it. Respond in email if you like, or here if you don't want me to have your email address;)
After all, the public is the employer and they feel that the govt serves them better with MSFT only technology.
I certainly wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't claim that the public had no right to do so. The public has every right to dictate how the government does its work -- the government exists only to serve the public!
You're right, no one should be forced to use any type of software -- to put it another way, any one should have the right to use whatever software they want. However, the government is not "any one" -- it is not a person, and does not have any rights except those that the American public gives it. If the public gives it the right to choose its software, then it has that right until the public revokes it. Same if the public mandates the use of open source or closed source software.
Taking your "No one should be forced..." argument another way, should the company I work for be able to require me to use Windows 2000? Should they be able to fire me if I say, "No way, I'm using Linux!"? According to you, "no one should be forced", so they shouldn't be able to force me to use W2K. This is, of course, ludicrous: companies can direct their employees to do their work in the way the company demands, within reason (they can't ask for anything illegal, or in violation of my rights).
I think michael would have done well to heed the old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Essentially, michael is seeing Tim's words, and assuming that he has a nefarious ulterior motive. I think that the simpler answer is better (yay, Occam): O'Reilly failed to consider the necessity of transparency in government effort. (No, I don't think he's "stupid", but it's an apt quote.)
Many posts here keep mentioning that the government should choose its software based on whether it's "the best tool for the job". I agree. The problem is in the definition of "best tool for the job". Most of the anti-michael posts seem to think that "best tool" only includes one, or maybe two factors: the technical superiority of the software, and possibly its monetary cost.
There is a third factor, equally (possibly more) important in my view: The government's responsibility to make its work transparent to its citizens.
The government does not have any "right to choose" what software it uses on its own initiative. The government's entire existence is contingent upon the will of the people -- essentially, the government is a company whose board of directors is the American public. Its employees (individual government workers) are beholden to the company's policies -- they must use what tools it specifies, just like any employee at any company.
If the public decides that it wants more transparency in government work, then that is the public's will and the government's duty. If the public decides that one good way to get this transparency is to require open source software, then so be it. As a member of that Board of Directors, I get a vote in whether that happens -- although due to the rather byzantine legal processes of the land, it's only an indirect vote with a massive lag-time. Nonetheless, the government exists to serve its public, and must act according to its public's will.
I think O'Reilly has confused the rights of an individual and the rights of government. Namely, that the government has no inherent rights, except those granted to it by the people. His final comments begin to sound as if the government is being oppressed by such decisions, instead of enjoying the liberty that all humankind deserves.
The problem being, of course, that the government is not a person, and does not "deserve" anything. Saying that "no one should be forced to choose open source" in defense of a nonexistant government right is errant -- in other words, he is saying that we should not force the government to use particular tools.
Now, the idea that EVERY government software solution should ALWAYS be open source is not necessarily a good idea (it may be, it may not be, I don't know) -- but claiming that it is morally wrong because the government has a right to choose what it wants, is ludicrous. The government exists to serve the people -- it has no rights except those we grant it.
I don't know if such legislation would work, due to the slipperiness of terms like "preferred". It's hard to quantify, which makes it hard to enforce. I think what would need to change would be the attitude of those in charge of such decisions; THEY need to be aware of the benefits (and, possibly, ethical necessity) of the government's use of open source. Whether this should be done through legislation or simple campaigning, well, that's another lengthy debate to be had.:)
You can look at it this way, of course: all else being equal (namely, quality and cost), if the percentage of government software that is open source increases from its current level, we're better off than we are now.:) I would tend to think that, in my previously described scenario, the majority of government-used software would be open source, with closed-source applications only coming up occasionally. Politically, it's hard to object to that.
I more or less agree. Each case should be examined on a... wait for it... case-by-case basis.:) The quality of the license involved in the software is at least as important as the software's technical efficiency and cost, and I think the overriding point here is that the government needs to take that into account.
Whether you think transparency is ALWAYS important enough to require open source software, is a further matter for debate. Michael seems to think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
What is it with this "Oh everything was so much better back in the day" nostalgia bullshit? The majority of albums EVER released have been formulaic, cookie-cutter crap. Things were just as "bad" (or "good") in the 1980s as they are now. What, do you seriously think there were no nameless one-hit-wonder artists in the 1980s? Or the 1970s? Or EVERY DECADE EVER?
...that schemes like this should be cracked. Why? Because such blindingly stupid methods of "protection" are an insult to even a basic understanding of computer security and data flow, and deserve to be annihilated. This protection isn't going to actually help anyone; it might make a few people feel better (assuming it's even for real; my vaporware sense is tingling), but it's not actually going to stop any serious cracker from getting through it.
Exactly. Things you never suspected were effects, are often effects these days. In AOTC, there's a scene where Padme, Anakin, and others are talking to the new queen of Naboo. Sio Bibble (Oliver Ford Davies) was sick on the day of shooting, so they filmed his empty chair (he has one or two lines of dialogue) that day, and then later filmed him separately and composited him into the scene. I've seen the movie four times and it never occurred to me that he wasn't actually on-set!
But AOTC is a bad example; you read the above, and think, "Well, yeah, it's an effects movie, it's not surprising that there's stuff LIKE that, even if I didn't notice that particular effect". But even "non-effects" movies like Insomnia, American Beauty, A Beautiful Mind, etc. all have numerous effects shots. Making people or trees move differently in the background; continuity errors (like a modernly-dressed person wandering through the background of a shot) can be easily removed; The color of the paint on a vehicle, building, or wall can be changed; and so on.
If you want to get really pedantic, most movies are really just large, elaborate special effects. You see a guy walking down a street. The camera cuts to another view of him walking down the same street. Looks like it's continuous, right? But those shots were probably taken several minutes apart, the guy repeating his path for each shot. That is, technically, a special effect -- it's just not the kind of flashy hocus-pocus we usually think about.
More or less. I saw AOTC at the Chinese, projected digitally, and it was Good. I was sitting about halfway back in the theater, and I couldn't see the individual vertical lines like I could when I saw it again a couple months later at another theater here in LA. At that showing, however, I was sitting much closer to the screen.
The studios themselves should subsidize the projector costs, if they want to see digital become pervasive. Digital quality issues aside, there's a significant long-term cost savings to using digital. It costs several million dollars just to strike the prints for even a moderate release (i.e. a couple thousand prints). If you use digital, you can copy the film to the same several thousand hard disk arrays over and over. Each disk array might cost as much, or more, than a single film print, but once you've reused those disks on even a couple of films, you're already ahead of the game cost-wise. Plus, HD arrays are physically smaller and lighter than film reels, and are easier (and cheaper) to ship/transport.
I don't have enough information to do all the math, but I suspect that if the studios invested in subsidizing digital projectors, they'd end up saving money in the long run, since they wouldn't have to strike thousands of individual film prints for each film, that might end up just getting recycled -- a hard drive array can last for years, sent back for reprogramming when a movie's run is done.
(Side note: Roger Ebert is orgasmically in favor of Maxivision, which apparently is more or less the same as regular film except it uses 48 frames per second instead of 24. The obvious downside is that you are now using twice as much film per print (probably not quite doubling the cost to strike a print), directors can only shoot for half as long at a stretch, and significantly increasing the difficulty of shipping and physically managing film prints. Even though retrofitting a standard projector to support Maxivision only costs $15,000 (compared to replacing it with a digital projector at $100-$150k), film costs are very significant.)
I've been reading /. for three+ years now. There's no substantial content difference between the stories and comments that are posted now, and the stories and comments that were posted then, except that with the continuing efforts of miscellaneous corporate and government persons to enact laws that will ensure their decrepit, outdated business model, we get more stories about such things (because more of it is happening).
/. is the place for "reasoned political debate"? It's a site for GEEKS. We're not known for our social graces.
/. into what you'd want it to be? Do you really think that bitterness and sarcasm are the best way to get what you want?
Besides, who ever claimed that
And another thing: Yeah, you left with a rant, but why not leave with something more substantial that might change
One of my wife's middle school math teachers had three different grading methods for different students. You could have your homework count for a majority of your grade, even if you did poorly on the tests; you could have it split evenly if you were better all-around; or you could have the final count for 50% of the year's grade. The idea was that people learn and relate to math differently; grading everyone the same way isn't going to help.
I hereby claim prior art on a Beowulf cluster of those. Ha!
As far as I know, various courts have established that the (United States) government cannot copyright things. Any work produced by goverment employees is in the public domain. However, work done by companies or individuals under contract to the government can be copyrighted.
Well, whenever there's some problem with apt, it is ;)
I tried to find the part in my post where I suggested the doctor stay inside the (theater/restaurant) to take the call, and couldn't find it. Maybe you could point it out to me.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I figured it was BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that once you receive the call, you take it somewhere private. Being able to receive an emergency medical call does not mean you are required to let everyone nearby in on the details.
Surely you, as someone trained in medicine, must have known that. Since you bothered to visit my website and find that much out about me, why didn't you read my other posts on this topic instead?
Competition is a good thing. The last thing I particularly want is for nVidia to get stomped by ATI because they start getting complacent like 3Dfx did. Let's hope they keep each other on their toes.
Last I checked, the government's reason to exist was to prevent people from hurting each others' person and property. You suffer no measurable harm from hearing a cellphone in a theater.
It's a social problem; society will deal with it. You REALLY want to help? When you go to a movie or theater, get up a couple minutes before the performance starts and remind the audience to turn their damn cellphones off. Keep doing it, encourage others to do it, and sooner or later everyone remembers and learns. Asking for laws to do this for you is lazy, inefficient, and misguided. Lazy, because you can easily do it yourself. Inefficient, because instead of the people who are affected by the action discouraging it, they're having hired goons do it for them. Misguided, because our government has WAY more important things to worry about than whether you enjoy a damn movie.
We don't have laws telling people to be quiet in restaurants, or laws insisting that you be nice to others, and there's a reason we don't.
At first I thought that sounded a little harsh, but then I realized that you said "incarcerated," not "incinerated." Then again, depending on the composition of the fart, and whether they use candlelight at the tables in that restaurant, "incinerated" may be the right word.
There's a lot more than eleven thousand people in the U.S.A. who need to be able to take a call whenever and wherever. They're called doctors.
Blocking cellphone signals to soothe your moral qualms is a foolish solution. Let society train itself to learn the rules of cellphone etiquette. Punishing the majority for the sins of a few has always been a <flame on!> stupid motherfucking retarded assfuck douchebag </flame> reaction to things.
No, most of us carry cellphones so that we can call anyone at any time we like, without having to find a payphone. I personally don't mind people calling me most of the time, but if I don't want to be reached, I turn the fucking thing off. This is not rocket science. By sheer non-coincidence, my friends are not people who expect me to be instantly available due to the fact that I have a cellphone.
Blanket jamming sounds like a great idea! I always hate it when doctors get emergency calls and have to rush off and, you know, save people's lives. Bastards. Is someone's life really more important than my moviegoing experience?
</sarcasm>
The answer to the social problem of idiots leaving their cellphone ringers on when it's inappropriate is to educate those idiots, not to punish everyone for the bad behavior of a few. "You cannot solve a social problem with a technological solution," remember?
I'm fully aware of the rights of Tim O'Reilly and millions of other Americans, including myself. "Your Mom" was claiming that the government employees should have the sole right to choose what tool fits their job best. This is false. Government employees' actions (or at least, the constraints they operate under) are dictated by the people. If the people pass a law saying that goverment employees should only be able to use open source (or closed source, or slightly ajar source) software, then so be it. You can bitch that it's the wrong decision, but to say that they have no RIGHT to pass such a law is ludicrous and false.
Whether I think the public makes good decisions is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from whether the public has the RIGHT to make those decisions. Personally, I think that in general, governments should be encouraged to use transparent methods (translation for this scenario: software with publicly available source code), but I don't necessarily think that mandating it in all situations is a good idea. Regardless of my opinions, however, it is a simple fact that the public does have the right to decide this question -- "Your Mom" was claiming that they shouldn't.
I'm glad to hear that the contract application process was open for review, but what about the actual provided tools? These are two separate facets of the same problem (openness in goverment work), but I was assuming we more or less all agree that the initial contracting process should be open and transparent -- it's really the end results of the contracting that I think should be more open.
Hmm... it seems that this would resolve to a de facto "All else being equal, take an open source option". Which may not be a bad thing, I'm still running through the implications in my head.
/. is not the best forum for this, and since you don't seem to have an email address listed (there's one referenced on apocatopia.com but I'm not sure if that's you), would you like to continue this in email? My email should be listed above, and pretty easy to de-spam-proof it. Respond in email if you like, or here if you don't want me to have your email address ;)
This does sound like a possibly good solution, assuming I understand you correctly. It has the force of command behind it (mandating that, if all other requirements are met, the government MUST choose the open solution), while allowing for overall superior closed solutions to win the day when they can.
Since
Taking your "No one should be forced..." argument another way, should the company I work for be able to require me to use Windows 2000? Should they be able to fire me if I say, "No way, I'm using Linux!"? According to you, "no one should be forced", so they shouldn't be able to force me to use W2K. This is, of course, ludicrous: companies can direct their employees to do their work in the way the company demands, within reason (they can't ask for anything illegal, or in violation of my rights).
I think michael would have done well to heed the old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Essentially, michael is seeing Tim's words, and assuming that he has a nefarious ulterior motive. I think that the simpler answer is better (yay, Occam): O'Reilly failed to consider the necessity of transparency in government effort. (No, I don't think he's "stupid", but it's an apt quote.)
Many posts here keep mentioning that the government should choose its software based on whether it's "the best tool for the job". I agree. The problem is in the definition of "best tool for the job". Most of the anti-michael posts seem to think that "best tool" only includes one, or maybe two factors: the technical superiority of the software, and possibly its monetary cost.
There is a third factor, equally (possibly more) important in my view: The government's responsibility to make its work transparent to its citizens.
The government does not have any "right to choose" what software it uses on its own initiative. The government's entire existence is contingent upon the will of the people -- essentially, the government is a company whose board of directors is the American public. Its employees (individual government workers) are beholden to the company's policies -- they must use what tools it specifies, just like any employee at any company.
If the public decides that it wants more transparency in government work, then that is the public's will and the government's duty. If the public decides that one good way to get this transparency is to require open source software, then so be it. As a member of that Board of Directors, I get a vote in whether that happens -- although due to the rather byzantine legal processes of the land, it's only an indirect vote with a massive lag-time. Nonetheless, the government exists to serve its public, and must act according to its public's will.
I think O'Reilly has confused the rights of an individual and the rights of government. Namely, that the government has no inherent rights, except those granted to it by the people. His final comments begin to sound as if the government is being oppressed by such decisions, instead of enjoying the liberty that all humankind deserves.
The problem being, of course, that the government is not a person, and does not "deserve" anything. Saying that "no one should be forced to choose open source" in defense of a nonexistant government right is errant -- in other words, he is saying that we should not force the government to use particular tools.
Now, the idea that EVERY government software solution should ALWAYS be open source is not necessarily a good idea (it may be, it may not be, I don't know) -- but claiming that it is morally wrong because the government has a right to choose what it wants, is ludicrous. The government exists to serve the people -- it has no rights except those we grant it.
I don't know if such legislation would work, due to the slipperiness of terms like "preferred". It's hard to quantify, which makes it hard to enforce. I think what would need to change would be the attitude of those in charge of such decisions; THEY need to be aware of the benefits (and, possibly, ethical necessity) of the government's use of open source. Whether this should be done through legislation or simple campaigning, well, that's another lengthy debate to be had. :)
:) I would tend to think that, in my previously described scenario, the majority of government-used software would be open source, with closed-source applications only coming up occasionally. Politically, it's hard to object to that.
You can look at it this way, of course: all else being equal (namely, quality and cost), if the percentage of government software that is open source increases from its current level, we're better off than we are now.
I more or less agree. Each case should be examined on a... wait for it... case-by-case basis. :) The quality of the license involved in the software is at least as important as the software's technical efficiency and cost, and I think the overriding point here is that the government needs to take that into account.
Whether you think transparency is ALWAYS important enough to require open source software, is a further matter for debate. Michael seems to think it is.