On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course not.
>
Of course not what?
I would not work for the government for free.
> Would i contribute software to government? Of course!
>
Then good for you. But I was arguing about working as an
administrator, a developer, an
"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:42 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>> > Okay, I can't sit back and just let this slide.
>> >
>> > On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vendors/solutions should be chosen *first* by meeting
> specifications/requirements, then among the qualified candidates
> choose the most cost-effective solution.
That's wha
Hi Sir Ian Dexter,
On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, Dean:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Look at it in this perspective: Because this is exactly how the
> Communist government works. The dictator at the helm will say what
> ever
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vendors/solutions should be chosen *first* by meeting
specifications/requirements, then among the qualified candidates
choose the most cost-effective solution.
That's what the different stages of government procurement are
actually impl
On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sabi ni Andre noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 1:06 PM:
> I agree. Let FOSS compete on the same even terms with non-FOSS solutions. If
> the FOSS proponent proves cheaper and better, there should be no reason why
> it wouldn't win out.
Have you read
On 12/8/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A simple question would be this: would you work for free for the
> Philippine Government? I for one would not, and any pragmatic person
> will think twice or more before saying Y
Hello, Dean:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Paolo,
On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that it's alright for government to make a choice -- but
> > making a choice for everyone else in government? That's like saying
> > on
Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They'd still
> be paid for the services and labor they incurred, which are real costs
> by the way - so why should government pay for artificial costs like
> onerous per-seat, per-user and per-CPU licenses?
>
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A simple question would be this: would you work for free for the
Philippine Government? I for one would not, and any pragmatic person
will think twice or more before saying YES. Of course unless you're a
communist and would like the com
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They'd still
> be paid for the services and labor they incurred, which are real costs
> by the way - so why should government pay for artificial costs like
> onerous per-seat, per-user and per-CPU licenses?
>
What the hell is wrong wi
On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sabi ni Dean noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 8:23 AM:
>
> I believe it should be enough that software the government uses should
> be under the government's scrutiny and evaluation in source and binary
> form. Requiring it that it be available to the
On 12/8/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And since it's about democracy, shouldn't we let the people involved
> with choosing the software be able to choose in a democratic way
> without having to legislate "one choice
On 12/8/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I know a lot of licenses that fall under the top 3, and even
> proprietary software licenses can be tailored for government use to
> fall under the top 3 criteria. But this one is
On 12/8/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am also a FOSS advocate, and I think I've done my fair share of
> advocating in my own ways. However I disagree with making government
> agencies choose FOSS over commercial licensed software _ALL THE TIME_
> in cases where there is a cho
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Choose: M$ as default, FOSS on a case-to-case basis, or
FOSS as default, M$ on a case-to-case basis.
How about no default, decide on a case-to-case basis?
Amen to that.
_
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mai
Hi Obet,
On 12/8/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why choose FOSS over commercial software (more appropriately,
> Non-FOSS) for all cases by law? Why not just have government choose
> which one is cheaper on a case to case basis, and have the third
> parties actually bid for
On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sabi ni Andre noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 1:06 PM:
> I agree. Let FOSS compete on the same even terms with non-FOSS solutions. If
> the FOSS proponent proves cheaper and better, there should be no reason why
> it wouldn't win out.
Have you read
ah, then a bill should address that, but in my opinion that bill should not
require FOSS. it should instead require interoperability by espousing open
standards.
you don't correct a wrong by doing another wrong. but then that's just my
opinion.
On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Sabi ni Andre noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 11:07 AM:
hmm I don't remember any law or bill saying that Microsoft (Windows or
Office) is the default for government procurements.
It's called a de-facto requirement. You won't find a law requiring
Microsoft's or any other proprietary software, but look
then the problem is with the one doing the RFP documents. :P
trying to handicap the (proprietary) opponents by preventing them from
bidding (since they're not FOSS) doesn't strike me as something that is more
fair than the situation you described.
On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Sabi ni Andre noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 1:06 PM:
I agree. Let FOSS compete on the same even terms with non-FOSS solutions. If
the FOSS proponent proves cheaper and better, there should be no reason why
it wouldn't win out.
Have you read any government Requests for Proposal (RFPs) or bid
announc
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as being advantageous is concerned, what *real* and not
*perceived* advantages are there to having only FOSS in government?
Granted that government is not a software development company, I don't
see what advantage FOSS has over n
On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:42 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Okay, I can't sit back and just let this slide.
>
> On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the short term costs may be higher since it's a
Hi Paolo,
On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe that it's alright for government to make a choice -- but
> making a choice for everyone else in government? That's like saying
> only congress needs to vote for Chacha to get in -- it doesn't make
> sense, and it
On 12/8/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/7/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Mhac Janapin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think that the question should be asked is: what are YOU doing? At
> > least Stallman is doing something positive. What a
it's premature to decide when you haven't really isolated the bottleneck.
but you can implement your idea thru subnetting and using a linux-based
router.
On 12/7/06, Joey S. Eisma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi!
i run a thinclient system to connect to win2k3 terminal services. id
like to sol
hi!
i run a thinclient system to connect to win2k3 terminal services. id
like to solicit ideas on how to create separate network for the stations
on the same physical layout (if this possible at all).
i have this nagging, intermittent problem when for no seemingly apparent
reason, the termin
hmm I don't remember any law or bill saying that Microsoft (Windows or
Office) is the default for government procurements.
sometimes I have the feeling that we are arguing about these things
endlessly because we have different viewpoints when it comes to "choice." on
one hand, the pro-FOSS bill p
> I am also a FOSS advocate, and I think I've done my fair share of
> advocating in my own ways. However I disagree with making government
> agencies choose FOSS over commercial licensed software _ALL THE TIME_
> in cases where there is a choice -- I would rather have the government
> agencies make
> But why choose FOSS over commercial software (more appropriately,
> Non-FOSS) for all cases by law? Why not just have government choose
> which one is cheaper on a case to case basis, and have the third
> parties actually bid for providing these software and services to the
> government?
This is
Thanks guys,
I'll try all you have suggested.
More power
Geruel
- Original Message -
From: "andrelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [plug] Server Temperature Monitoring
On 12/7/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/7/06, Mhac Janapin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just galled by people who act like they have no Utang na Loob. I
> think we are indebted to these guys who started out GNU/Linux. No, we
> whould never worship them; but at least r
On 12/8/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even if you'd use proprietary software, You'd STILL PAY FOR AN
ADMINISTRATOR. You'd STILL PAY FOR SUPPORT. You'd STILL PAY FOR CUSTOM
APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT. And that is NOT hypothetical by the way.
Of course. And pay for hardware to
Sabi ni Dean noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 8:23 AM:
> 4. Give copies of the software that we use, including source code, to
the
> public on whose behalf we govern,
OOPS. This is where I think I draw the line.
I know a lot of licenses that fall under the top 3, and even
proprietary software l
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And since it's about democracy, shouldn't we let the people involved
with choosing the software be able to choose in a democratic way
without having to legislate "one choice in the darkness bind us all" ?
I disagree. This is about us
On 12/5/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm all for a Web-based forum, the only major issue I can think of
being users with low bandwidth. A hybrid Web-and-email forum is IMHO
the best mix. Look at the Affinity groups at N-TEN --
http://groups.nten.org/welcome.htm -- which provides f
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. Give copies of the software that we use, including source code, to the
> public on whose behalf we govern, if we choose, so that they can verify
> our compliance with the law of the country.
>
OOPS. This is where I thin
On 12/5/06, Federico Sevilla III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fellow PLUGgers,
vBulletin (built on PHP and MySQL) seems to be a pretty solid and
well-supported web-based bulletin board system. It is not free, but is
affordable at US$85/year. I'm willing to host this service and pay for
the lice
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:50 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 06:12 +0800, Sir John Nueva wrote:
> > >
> > > By nature human do not want to be suppressed; all law that will
> > > prohibit them fro
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:42 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Okay, I can't sit back and just let this slide.
>
> On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the short term costs may be higher since it's a migration from one
> > system or technology to another. What
Wow, this will be very usefull tool. I will try to use
this today to uninstalled software installed from the
source and will use the RPM instead to avoid
headaches. Thanks Gideon and to all other for their
advise.
-
Compile it again but this time, instead o
Hi Ciaran,
On 07 Dec 2006 12:40:29 +, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > The commercial reps misunderstand (or misrepresent) FOSS as a technology. It
> > is not. ...
> IIRC FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. If the software
> part isn't clear,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 02:13:54 -0800 (PST), gillbates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everybody. I am currently looking for a solution to backup my entire
> hard drive. Right now I'm choosing between Ghost for Linux
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l) and Partimage (www.partimage.org).
> Has
On 12/7/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/5/06, Andre John Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> exactly. let us use real arguments and points in arguing our cause.
>
> that being said, i would reiterate that a more practical bill would have
> been to enforce the use of interoperab
On 12/7/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dean.
> Hi Sir Obet,
Obet lang pls... We are not members of a round table...
Okay. :)
Hi Obet,
>
> Hmmm... Should the government make a choice by law? Or shouldn't
> government play fair and do it on a case to case basis?
In fact,
good to hear that. and if i may add, the latest release for LVM
is 2.02.16 as of Dec 1, 2006.
On 12/7/06, Warren Beldad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
never mind on this. looks like its ok now for these latest packages.
we've just upgrade kernel, samba, lvm, etc...and its now working.
I have just
On 12/7/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also think the bill is not going far enough in terms of education
and training that would foster an environment that is conducive to its
success.
Amen.
Indeed, I think the bill needs a big cluebat. It appears that the
FOSS community itself
Rage Callao wrote:
> Yup, and you are free to modify the compiler so
> that it doesn't generate that "warning bug"
> now aren't you.
Another non-sequitur. I was referring to the attitude
that tries to attach strings and preachy agendas along
with the 'gift' of open sourced code and how it can
of
Sabi ko noong Tue, Dec 5, 2006 at 10:46 AM:
I'm all for a Web-based forum, the only major issue I can think of
being users with low bandwidth. A hybrid Web-and-email forum is IMHO
the best mix. Look at the Affinity groups at N-TEN --
http://groups.nten.org/welcome.htm -- which provides for both W
never mind on this. looks like its ok now for these latest packages.
we've just upgrade kernel, samba, lvm, etc...and its now working.
I have just tested with 2G file with 5 snapshots, so far there's no problem
thanks for all. :-)
On 12/5/06, andrelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now it's a b
i prefer the web based forum version so that i don't have to read all those
topics that are political in nature :D.
all in one forum including linuxjobs, main PLUG, PLUG-misc...
--
RoundCube Rocks!!!
http://www.roundcube.net/
The best WebMail client to date!
___
On 12/7/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/5/06, Andre John Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> exactly. let us use real arguments and points in arguing our cause.
>
> that being said, i would reiterate that a more practical bill would have
> been to enforce the use of interoperab
Hi Dean.
> Hi Sir Obet,
Obet lang pls... We are not members of a round table...
>
> Hmmm... Should the government make a choice by law? Or shouldn't
> government play fair and do it on a case to case basis?
In fact, today, the law and govt rules require that among bids which meet
specification
On 12/6/06, Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What other reason would there be to write a piece of software?
To spread a political idea? I'm afraid a piece of software
written with that primary goal in mind is not likely to be
very succesful.
Case-in-point: There was an extremely annoying and
Just a thought, have you tried any of these?
Mondo Rescue
http://www.mondorescue.org/
Bacula
http://www.bacula.org/
--
RAGE CALLAO
Free Software :: empower :: educate
_
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PL
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > The commercial reps misunderstand (or misrepresent) FOSS as a technology. It
> > is not. ...
> IIRC FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. If the software
> part isn't clear, I don't know what you mean...
This is not about software technology, this is about soft
Besides office software what else is needed by the government?
Messaging would be at the top of my list.
C4 system?
_
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://lin
On 12/5/06, Andre John Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
exactly. let us use real arguments and points in arguing our cause.
that being said, i would reiterate that a more practical bill would have
been to enforce the use of interoperable protocols and (file format)
standards. that would, in my op
On 12/7/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is illegal to do that right? That means employees cannot just
> download software from the internet and use it?
>
Illegal to do what?
replace the system already running in a government pc. Is it ok to
install FC6 in the DBM Le
Hi Sir Obet,
On 12/3/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the mandatory implementation of F/OSS within the Gov't, I am on the side
> of pro-choice. Same with my clients, I always promote and recommend
> M$but also inform them of the alternative, F/OSS. Then I leave up to
> the
Hi Marvin,
On 12/3/06, Marvin T. Pascual <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
I can't stand it anymore. If you just read the postcript of Federico D.
Pascual Jr. at http://www.philstar.com/philstar/NEWS200612032602.htm it is
unfair to us advocates of the F/OSS that we don't have any press rel
Hi Rogelio,
On 12/7/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/7/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is a misnomer. Just because it's FOSS doesn't mean it's cheaper
> in the long run. How much will you spend for an administrator? For
> support? For custom applic
On 12/7/06, Mhac Janapin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm just galled by people who act like they have no Utang na Loob. I
think we are indebted to these guys who started out GNU/Linux. No, we
whould never worship them; but at least respect must be given when it
is due. We are enjoying these freedo
On 12/7/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, I can't sit back and just let this slide.
On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, the short term costs may be higher since it's a migration from one
> system or technology to another. What's more impor
Hi Paolo,
On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 06:12 +0800, Sir John Nueva wrote:
>
> By nature human do not want to be suppressed; all law that will
> prohibit them from freedom to choose is actually counter acting on
> this very nature [Consumer rig
I don't understand. Who will be shooting who's foot? How can a
gradual adoption be more dangerous than one done step by step?
What I mean is how can gradual adoption be more dangerous than
one done hurriedly?
_
Express yourself
Okay, I can't sit back and just let this slide.
On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, the short term costs may be higher since it's a migration from one
system or technology to another. What's more important though are the
long term savings that can be done IF the mi
I am sure the bill would be much more easily passed if they pushed for
a phased migration to Linux/FOSS. For example, minimum 30% adoption
by 2010, 60% by 2015 and 90% by 2020 to be adjusted depending on
the success of those FOSS-based solutions already in place. If FOSS
solutions prove benefici
By the way, I am using the ext3 filesystem. I have two hard drives, one for
system and swap partitions, and the other contains mysql data, downloads, etc.
Thanks,
-brian
- Original Message
From: gillbates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion
Hello everybody. I am currently looking for a solution to backup my entire hard
drive. Right now I'm choosing between Ghost for Linux
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l) and Partimage (www.partimage.org). Has
anyone used either of these? Which is better?
Thanks,
-brian
Send instant messages
On 12/7/06, Anthony Chua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is too risky to do a radical changeover without trying it out first
>piece
> > by piece. That way you do not encounter heavy opposition from people
>who
> > are used to the old way. If these experiences prove successful, then it
> > mak
> It is too risky to do a radical changeover without trying it out first
piece
> by piece. That way you do not encounter heavy opposition from people
who
> are used to the old way. If these experiences prove successful, then it
> makes
> it easier to argue for more widespread adoption. If the
On 12/7/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that it is still generally better for government to use FOSS even if
> it is not as polished as non-FOSS as long as they can save substantial
> taxpayer
> money in the long run. However, if consulting and other costs for FOSS
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 14:23 +0800, Anthony Chua wrote:
> It is too risky to do a radical changeover without trying it out first piece
> by piece. That way you do not encounter heavy opposition from people who
> are used to the old way. If these experiences prove successful, then it
> makes
> it
75 matches
Mail list logo
