| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open-source battle rages in Oregon | |
|
||
| Time: 13:05 EST/18:05 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The bill, introduced by Oregon Rep. Phil Barnhart, D-Eugene, last month, would require the state to consider using open-source software when buying new programs. Although the bill does not specifically mandate open-source software over proprietary software, the bill does say it cannot be excluded from the selection process. The bill, HB 2892, also says open-source options can "significantly reduce the state's costs of obtaining and maintaining software." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:53:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/10/2003 1:33:19 PM |
|
I don't know what this bill actually does...
"require the state to consider" - What's that supposed to mean? It's not really affirmative action, it's not really forcing things. It's not really doing anything. |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 4/10/2003 2:46:04 PM |
|
You are right Soda.
How is anyone going to know that you 'considered' open source. Or, how about you just think about using Open Source for a couple mins and decide against it, is that 'considering' open source? Bills like this are just wrong, in my opinion. Any decent admin will consider all possibilities. The admins should be able to do whatever they see fit, and talk of forcing the government to use open source is just absurd. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/10/2003 3:04:45 PM |
|
jvmahon - "Why should government adminis be able to do whatever they see fit?"
Ok... "If they work for the government, then the government has the right to control the work they do; to say that the government doesn't have the right to control its own workers is absurd." But what does that mean? What's this bill actually telling people to do? I've worked for the government, and you'd be amazed at some of the problems caused by well meaning bills that control purchase requests. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/10/2003 4:46:02 PM |
|
#6 - Interesting. From that it's quite clear this bill should be killed.
This is just yet another example of how Open Source advocates have been unable to compete in the free market due to the low quality of their goods so they turn to government mandates. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 4/10/2003 6:09:24 PM |
|
jvm:
Why should the admins do what they see fit? Because perhaps that is there JOB. |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 4/10/2003 7:49:06 PM |
|
CPUGuy:
An Admin's job is to do what they see fit? What kind of twisted logic brought you to that conclusion? Last time I checked and admin's job was to administer the network, and maybe make recommendations to the CIO. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/10/2003 8:19:22 PM |
|
tgnb - So if an admin wants to bring Linux into the department without first requesting permission, they should be fired. Wouldn't you agree?
Anyway back to this law. The issue I have with it is that it gives preferential treatment to one particular type of product. I used to work for state government, and already there is a bias towards open source because departments generally do not have much in the way of funding. Furthermore government bureacracies are driven by an individuals desire to create work for themselves and thus stay employed. It's not entirely their fault, the political structures create this problem, largely by way of the paperwork they require for any decision made. Putting in place a mechanism which says "If you don't use open source, you must justify your decision... but if you do use open source well that's ok" will pretty much mean everybody will follow the path of least resistence and go the route that requires less paperwork and thought. You want to be fair, make them cost justify whatever decision is made. That's pretty typical within companies... you identify the options, examine them for strengths and weaknesses and then make a decision. |
| #8 By 7797 (64.105.197.82) at 4/10/2003 9:12:09 PM |
|
sodablue:
"So if an admin wants to bring Linux into the department without first requesting permission, they should be fired. Wouldn't you agree?" If he wants to? No, then he surely shouldn't be fired. Of course if he follows through and actually DOES bring in Linux without first requesting permission then he should be fired. But not for bringing in Linux, but for doing "whatever he sees fit" without getting approval first. "You want to be fair, make them cost justify whatever decision is made." I agree. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, April 10, 2003 at 21:20. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/10/2003 11:57:21 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - "What this bill really would do is set OSS as a standard for MEASURING."
Yes, that's the mistake the bill makes. |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 4/11/2003 1:00:05 AM |
|
Well obviously the admin isn't going to go off doing whatever he wants.
An admin recognizes that this needs to be changed, they tell their superior and get permission and does it. If an admin sees it fit to install an open source app, he will go and get permission from his superior to get it taken care of. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 4/11/2003 10:56:37 AM |
|
CPUGuy:
"Why should the admins do what they see fit? Because perhaps that is there JOB." Then the moonwalk syndrome kicks in: "Well obviously the admin isn't going to go off doing whatever he wants." Well Duh! It's best to be quite if you are caught talking smack otherwise you'll make yourself look even worse. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/11/2003 2:00:31 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - "So saying that OSS generally represents the "lowest bar" acceptable seems quite sensible. "
Because it will encourage people to not go to any effort to find out if there are better options, like I said in my other post. OSS is a very bad idea for government, because the bureacratic mindset promoted by the politicians will result in choices being made which represent job security rather than efficiency. I don't think that should be encouraged, even though it may seem reasonable it isn't smart. This bureacratic mindset is one of the major problems we have in government, and we to stop encouraging that via laws which "seems reasonable". |
| #13 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 4/11/2003 4:13:14 PM |
|
tgnb: Or perhaps it's best to read the spirit of the comment.
My point was that a decent Admin isn't going to just go off and use something for the hell of it. But, oh wait, you just wanted to pick a fight.... it's time to grow up. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:53:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
