On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The difference of the University of California is that it is a private
company, if it is a public school it is still governed by its charter, they
can do evrything as long as it is under their charter. Including refusing
entry to students for wha
I'd like to contribute to an open source traffic
management/monitoring system. It's one of the major problems that I want to help
in fixing it (or alleviate the problem at least). Anyway, I agree that
the government should not require open source on all computers. But I do want
them to condu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogelio Serrano
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:53 PM
To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On 7/18/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Well, DOST 7 went OpenBSD, and they are more secure becaus eof it. And it> cost them a whole lot less than if they went with proprietary software.
> And the BSD servers require very little main
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogelio Serrano
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:51 PM
To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogelio Serrano
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
>I work for a service company. You cannot provid
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Software is a tool, nothing more. Unless its your business that is.
Governments role is to run the country, public works, health care, public
safety etc. It may use software, to do its job, but software merely
accelarates the process. It is
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:29 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > The Government is _NOT_ a software development firm, and its
> > function is to protect the sovereignity of the country and its
> > constituents, and provide the basic ser
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped]
[snipped]
> And if we do put Linux on every government machine, where does the
> government get the support for it? Canonical, RedHat, Novell, IBM,
> Sun? How is that in line with the government's agenda to help out the
> constituency
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:29 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The Government is _NOT_ a software development firm, and its function
> is to protect the sovereignity of the country and its constituents,
> and provide the basic services requir
On 7/18/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:29 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The Government is _NOT_ a software development firm, and its function
> is to protect the sovereignity of the country and its constituents,
> and provide the basic services requir
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:25 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to lower the count of Windows based machines in
> government because if it works for them, why do we need to change it?
[snipped]
>Because Windows is a very insecure OS?
>Why should our government pay to safe
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:29 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The Government is _NOT_ a software development firm, and its function
> is to protect the sovereignity of the country and its constituents,
> and provide the basic services required by the same constituency that
> it serves. The
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:25 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to lower the count of Windows based machines in
> government because if it works for them, why do we need to change it?
Because Windows is a very insecure OS?
Why should our government pay to safeguard Microsoft
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 20:29 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The Government is _NOT_ a software development firm, and its function
> is to protect the sovereignity of the country and its constituents,
> and provide the basic services required by the same constituency that
> it serves. The govern
On 7/18/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just curious, why do you have to put it under an open source license?
Why not a proprietary _source available_ license? Government needs to
_use_ the software -- not redistribute
On 7/18/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, DOST 7 went OpenBSD, and they are more secure becaus eof it. And it
> cost them a whole lot less than if they went with proprietary software.
> And the BSD servers require very little
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Write the whole thing under an open source license? How much will that
> cost? Where will you find developers that will do this for free?
I dont know. Maybe someone has written it
On 7/17/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, DOST 7 went OpenBSD, and they are more secure becaus eof it. And it
cost them a whole lot less than if they went with proprietary software.
And the BSD servers require very little maintenance. Just guess how much
the government would have saved
On 7/17/06, Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is of course patently untrue. Free Software speaks about Freedom
not price. Isipin mong Kalayaan at hindi Libre. Richard Stallman
advocated these ideals more than a decade before the Open Source
movement even formally existed. I
Hi Kaloy,I think Bayan Muna Representatives might get interested with our efforts last September of 2005 when we conducted the first ever Open Source Literacy Project for the Out-of-School Youth in San Antonio, Ozamiz City duly funded and supported by BAYAN MUNA. With that we were recognized by the
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Savings? You do see that using FOSS will require support which the
government still has to pay for -- just the same as acquiring and
using proprietary software. I for one would not want to run a
government that tried to do everything by itself and
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Okay, now I get it. But then again, it's a catch 22 -- if the software
that does the job is not under any open source license, and the
government will require all software to be used/acquired to be under
an open source license, what will be done?
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Yes, these are big plusses. However, the predicament that we are
currently in -- the government currently using non-open source
solutions that _already work_ and open source solutions (locally
grown) that work but not as well as I personally would
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Write the whole thing under an open source license? How much will that
cost? Where will you find developers that will do this for free?
May not cost much. In fact, there's a ghood chance that the application
already exists and will require only
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Guaranteed access? If it's stipulated in the awarded contract that the
code is made available to the government, then _that_ is guaranteed
access enough.
That depends on what kind of access is granted. Seeing the code is NOT
enough for some. The
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What should be done is have the government hire programmers so they
put together software that meets government needs and provide it for
free to others who will need it. And in so doing get automatic peer
review from the thousands of program
On 7/17/06, Tito Mari Francis Escaño <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, these are big plusses. However, the predicament that we are
> currently in -- the government currently using non-open source
> solutions that _already work_ and open s
On 7/17/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Write the whole thing under an open source license? How much will that
cost? Where will you find developers that will do this for free?
I dont know. Maybe someone has written it. If you cant write it
yourself you pay someone who can. B
On 7/16/06, thad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what dou you mean by locally developed proprietary software can you qualify
it? Are these apps were developed using expensive propietary tools so its
end products can not be doubted as proprietary also.
It is software that is developed here in the Ph
On 7/15/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is precisly why I think making a bill that will require
> government to use only open source software is a big hindrance to
> _measurable_ productivity and progress.
Wrong. There
On 7/17/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> yes thats the free in freedom. and yes tco is a different thing. which is> why open source software like linux is free, but not free as beer. we agree
So you get in now?of course i get it. for years
On 7/15/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 01:22 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> Yes, these are big plusses. However, the predicament that we are
> currently in -- the government currently using non-open source
> solutions that _already work_ and open
On 7/15/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> > At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
> > software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well at this level its ok. But the learning curve is still steep and
> every now and then you get confused right? You have to pause and think
> . I think people want to go fasterthan theygo
On 7/15/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Souce available" doesn't necessarily mean that the source caa be
> > modified and that the resulting compiled binary can be red
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes thats the free in freedom. and yes tco is a different thing. which is
why open source software like linux is free, but not free as beer. we agree
So you get in now?
market forces also include whether an open source project competes with a
"b
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well at this level its ok. But the learning curve is still steep andevery now and then you get confused right? You have to pause and think. I think people want to go fasterthan theygo now. Thats a majorpoint. The ui needs to change.
well people
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sounds evil right?
arms race. dunno if that's good. mutually assured destruction is what they
used to call it. MAD-- where both superpowers had the assurance that the
other had nukes pointed at them and both were afraid to destroy the world
Well
On 7/17/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the first item, if the Quezon City government starts hiring the
programmers to develop software, what will he do with them after development
has been finished? You cant expect him to hire all of them to support the
software, that would cost to
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not? Relying on peoples good will and character does not alwayswork. Who is the perfect judge of character? This is technology andits going to be passed around regardless. Iran is building their own
nuclear weapon which it intend to use on
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped...]
like i said...
>
> I dont agree. Thats what conventional wisdom says. There are ways
> around that. Like how to hold a tooth brush is almost trivial to
> teach. Current Interfaces are just not designed well. I blame WIMP in
> particular.
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped...]
and for you and me, we have the skills and inclination to prefer to tweak
the system and make it work for us. thats engineer talk and its fine with us
right? but you know what? normal people don't care about such things. they
just need th
On 7/17/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Free as in freedom. The issue of total cost of ownership is anothermatter which by all reputable accounts are tremendously in favor ofFOSS.yes thats the free in freedom. and yes tco is a different thing. which is why open source software like lin
Cocoy wrote:
> its not about making software a free commodity. thats called "Free
> Software" a different animal all together. Open source doesn't just
> mean access to the source code.
That is of course patently untrue. Free Software speaks about Freedom
not price. Isipin mong Kalayaan at hindi
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
its not about making software a free commodity. thats called "Free Software"
a different animal all together. Open source doesn't just mean access to
the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply
with the following criter
On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> hello,[snipped...]>>> its not about making software a free commodity. thats called "Free Software"
> a different animal all together. Open source doesn't just mean access to> the source code. The d
On the first item, if the Quezon City government starts hiring the
programmers to develop software, what will he do with them after development
has been finished? You cant expect him to hire all of them to support the
software, that would cost too much. Government is overemployed as it is.
Secondly
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hello,
[snipped...]
its not about making software a free commodity. thats called "Free Software"
a different animal all together. Open source doesn't just mean access to
the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply
w
On 7/17/06, Charles Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
What should be done is have the government hire programmers so they put
together software that meets government needs and provide it for free to
others who will need it. And in so doing get automatic peer review from the
thousands of program
hello, On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Cocoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 1. i guess we can all agree on this: that legislation that mandates "open> source" isn't really that wise.
> because:No i disagree.> a) "open source" is a methodology, a way of building softw
51 matches
Mail list logo
