Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 25, 2003 09:38 PM
Even if ms were good, stable, and secure, there still would be important reasons for choosing open source instead.
Should election machines contain secret code? Say, a windows embedded operating system, with a ms database app?
Or should the code be open source, widely published, and available for audit? Just like the algorithms for encryption keys are available for testing by the encryption experts and researchers. Isn't that how we determine weak keys? And how long it would take, theoretically, to brute-force a key?
Shouldn't the government's most popular (or all for that matter) word processors and spreadsheet and database applications be open source? To allow for examination and auditing of the code? To allow for other companies to submit lower bids for future updates/upgrades? To protect against companies going bankrupt, against being sued into oblivion, against the chance that one or more programmer employees was/is a mole from a hostile country?
ms doesn't like the fact that the government will require an open source office suite? Too bad. They can choose not to do business with the government.
But to say that they are being discriminated against, or that they are being shut out of government contracts is utter bullshit. They can simply continue to bid on government contracts by simply innovating and creating an open source office suite that the government considers superior to others. Or not. It is their decision. They aren't being locked out of anything.
Moreover, foreign nations adopting an open source requirement for software IS NOT adopting a requirement that is a fair trade violation. This is more bullshit. microsoft does not want to provide an open source operating system or office suite to foreign countries? They don't have to. But they can. So can Red Hat. So can any other nation in the US. Adopting open source and free software is adopting a method. Not creating barriers to trade. Not targeting a specific company. It is targeting secrecy.
Adopting free and open source software in government is an important action to take. It is good for government, and good for taxpayers. And it encourages job creation, because more companies and individuals can innovate, can create software that complements with, or competes with, current software in use by the government. And they can provide it a cheaper price, if they have a better cost model. This is win win for government, win win for taxpayers, and win win for efficient businesses. Those businesses that can't compete on price and quality will disappear. AS THEY SHOULD.
And btw, remember the OS/2 wars? ms is hitting newsforge, slashdot, and other boards. The top post is a good example, as are any other posts that contain the phrase, "Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet", and similar phrases, and other anecdotes of linux/windows comparisons while "growing up".
Using free/open source software in government is so blatently obvious as a "good thing" for those that understand free/open source software, and the philosophy behind it, that one would have to be an idiot, or a ms employee, or a ms zealot, to deny knowing why use it, or that he just doesn't get it.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Good, stable, secure not enough
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2003 09:38 PMShould election machines contain secret code? Say, a windows embedded operating system, with a ms database app?
Or should the code be open source, widely published, and available for audit? Just like the algorithms for encryption keys are available for testing by the encryption experts and researchers. Isn't that how we determine weak keys? And how long it would take, theoretically, to brute-force a key?
Shouldn't the government's most popular (or all for that matter) word processors and spreadsheet and database applications be open source? To allow for examination and auditing of the code? To allow for other companies to submit lower bids for future updates/upgrades? To protect against companies going bankrupt, against being sued into oblivion, against the chance that one or more programmer employees was/is a mole from a hostile country?
ms doesn't like the fact that the government will require an open source office suite? Too bad. They can choose not to do business with the government.
But to say that they are being discriminated against, or that they are being shut out of government contracts is utter bullshit. They can simply continue to bid on government contracts by simply innovating and creating an open source office suite that the government considers superior to others. Or not. It is their decision. They aren't being locked out of anything.
Moreover, foreign nations adopting an open source requirement for software IS NOT adopting a requirement that is a fair trade violation. This is more bullshit. microsoft does not want to provide an open source operating system or office suite to foreign countries? They don't have to. But they can. So can Red Hat. So can any other nation in the US. Adopting open source and free software is adopting a method. Not creating barriers to trade. Not targeting a specific company. It is targeting secrecy.
Adopting free and open source software in government is an important action to take. It is good for government, and good for taxpayers. And it encourages job creation, because more companies and individuals can innovate, can create software that complements with, or competes with, current software in use by the government. And they can provide it a cheaper price, if they have a better cost model. This is win win for government, win win for taxpayers, and win win for efficient businesses. Those businesses that can't compete on price and quality will disappear. AS THEY SHOULD.
And btw, remember the OS/2 wars? ms is hitting newsforge, slashdot, and other boards. The top post is a good example, as are any other posts that contain the phrase, "Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet", and similar phrases, and other anecdotes of linux/windows comparisons while "growing up".
Using free/open source software in government is so blatently obvious as a "good thing" for those that understand free/open source software, and the philosophy behind it, that one would have to be an idiot, or a ms employee, or a ms zealot, to deny knowing why use it, or that he just doesn't get it.
#