MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | ruben safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.
|
> >Never heard of him. His paper had so much influence that there are thousands
> >of FedBizOp jobs requiring GNU Desktops....
> >
> >Right?
> >
>
> His paper documents the existing situation. And what makes you think the
> work shows up as a stated requirement for free/open-source in FedBizOp?
> BTW, he works for Mitre. You've certainly heard of them. Haven't you?
>
His paper hasn't done a darn thing. I just poured over bizops this evening
and their is not a SINGLE KDE desktop, free software database request,
or any other commonly used Free Software project in any of the requests.
NOT ONE.
> I sat in a meeting listening to contractors report on their use of
> free/open-source on government projects and wondering how I can get some of
> that action. At a Maryland High Tech Council event, I asked a federal CIO
> about his use of free/open-source and he told me he has a couple of
> contractors and is making major use of it. You need to know the
> ins-and-outs of federal contracting to figure out how it happens.
>
The fact that the contractors are making use of free software from time to
time is not the same thing as the government actually being receptive and
encourging Free Software. In fact, specification after specification
outlines needed Microsoft infrastructure for existing components.
Most of it, actually sounds fixed.
This is the very definition of 'ineffective' as well as useless.
The only thing that can be concluded is that the good folks doing
the presentations don't know how to market Free Software in everyday
common usage.
This will change, but it won't be because of any of these efforts, white
papers and political eggshell dancing.
> Terry simply documented -- recently -- that it has been happening with good
> results. That provides a basis for further growth.
>
>
The results have not been good. The evidence is clear in FedBizOps
>
> It was in their meeting that I listened to the contractor reports. BTW,
> they don't trumpet the fact that the software is free/open-source. They
> trumpet the cost savings, improved service, greater productivity, and other
> benefits, and oh-by-the-way it is free/open-source and that's what made it
> work.
>
Since their not trumpeting the benifits of Free Software because - it's
Free Software, then there is no possible spin off to other projects.
Another failure.
>
> His work provides ammunition for business cases to prove that
> free/open-source really saves money. Microsoft FUDsters are claiming
> otherwise. David's work is a primary resource for justifying consideration
> of free/open-source.
>
>
Actually, I read his paper. Nobody else ever heard of it. It has holes
you can drive a mac truck through. Jay Sulzburger gave a more convincing
write up in 20 lines in this thread that Wheeler whole report.
> >
> >This is an old story already which started with NT3. And the White Papers
> haven't
> >had any impact. NONE
> >
>
> What white papers are you talking about and how do you gauge their impact?
>
I gage the impact by the number of phone calls Free Software Consultants
get asking for bids, and successful projects.
I gage the impact when I see oversite committees investigating agencies
for the misuse of government funds in the purchase of propriatory systems
with bloated costs, single source lockups, negligent security holes, and
closed standards.
When the charts for adoptation moves off the early apopter stage and
into a market growth stage, that is a gage of growth.
When I go to 26 federal plaza and see Free Software desktops used to
write reports by clerks, and when I say, have you heard of Linux, and
I hear something other than, 'huh - what's that' from office workers,
THAT IS PROGRESS.
>
> Organization is one thing and abrasive, in-your-face tactics are something
> else. It sounds to me like you are wedded to abrasive, in-your-face
> tactics because that's the only thing you know.
>
Nonsense - People are the same nearly everywhere. It's just one big
happy party in Washington. It takes 15 white papers to get a copy
of SUSe into the hands of someone making a buying decision. And
nobody wants to upset anyone...
unless your trying to impeach the president.
I'm abbrassive in THIS matter, because, frankly, most of the people
making this deicsion are so corrupted and so dense, that it's the
only thing they respond to.
It's not going to change anything. Tony is STILL on the take and Perens
is still wedded to the idea that Stallman is evil and incompetentent
and Microsoft needs a fair trial (as if they haven't already been
convicted in a few).
> The Free Software issue and the DRM issue are two separate issues, although
> they have points of connection.
No, they are NOT. Free Software is directly wedded to DRM. It's the same
issue.
>
> Take a look at the IEEE-USA position paper on DRM. I think it is being
> actively lobbied.
>
>
I've seen the lobbying and it sucks.
We had more impact on DRM in one afternoon than the efforts of the entire
community, including the Libraries, OSI, Universities all combined. Everyone
is looking for a compromise on the issue, and nobody is doing the work.
There is no compromise on DRM. Vote for it, and we will work to defeat
you in Congress on every turn. We will knock on doors, hand out flyers,
and if need be, run for office.
There is no Compromise on DRM, and their is no compromise on keeping our
public communications infrastructure free, and in the hands of the people.
> >Instead, I have Linus making DRM chips for Transmeta.
> >
> >All Hail the Perens/Cohen political doctrine.
> >
> >Correct political tactics work everywhere. And they are always the same.
>
>
> One size always fits all? Hmmm. How sophomoric.
>
>
Come ON ... you can sling a better insult than that!
>
> You don't recognize a political conference when you see one? You need to
> learn about politics in the large sense.
>
Nonsense. Show me the Money Mr Cohen...
Your talking, but your not producing results. I actually represent someone.
I've actually been elected to a public position. I'm actually responsible
to someone. It's time to grow up and realize that MS is not giving you
ANYTHING, and neither is the government. You'll get victory when you
removed from the cold dead hands.
>
> Us guys? I'm not an organizer of the conference. I'm just a very
> interested bystander and free/open-source software advocate who sees what's
> going on and wants to help prevent a train wreck.
>
Then help to remove MS from the panel and give a working stiff a chance.
>
> Let's see. Wall Street is one of the fastest growing markets for
> free/open-source.
Wall Street isn't growing at all, and it was never a haven for free software.
Go to the NY Times and put in the word Linux and see what pops up ...
a bunch of Solaris and NT jobs with GNU/Linux as a side order.
What does SIAC run on?
What do Brokers trade on?
What Database servers are being used?
Do you actually know the answers to any of these questions?
Wall Street looks for Fincancial Experience FIRST. And it
doesn't care less what the platform is.
> >
> >Your conference can not deliver that is currently hurting our efforts.
>
>
> It isn't *my* conference.
It's your to the degree that your defending an imoral decision on the
part of the conference decision makers.
Thanks for the engaging discussion Stan. You've gone a long way to
helping us decide what actions to take.
Ruben
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
