MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | From: "Stanley A. Klein"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.
|
From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Feb 10 13:05:52 2003
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h1AI5qso002289
for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:05:52 -0500
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h1AI5qE7002288
for hangout-desteny; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:05:52 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h1AI5pso002281
for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:05:51 -0500
Received: (from ruben-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h1AI5p77002280
for hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:05:51 -0500
Received: from server18.safepages.com (server18.safepages.com [216.127.133.11])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h1AFa3XH027842;
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:36:04 -0500
Received: by server18.safepages.com (Postfix, from userid 1012)
id E81A36E6C8; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:38:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LOCALNAME (1Cust243.tnt5.dca5.da.uu.net [67.249.218.243])
by server18.safepages.com (Postfix) with SMTP
id 138956E706; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:38:11 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.20030210055912.4727622c-at-cpcug.org>
X-Sender: sklein-at-cpcug.org (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (16)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 05:59:12
To: ruben safir
From: "Stanley A. Klein"
Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.
Cc: rms-at-gnu.org, jays-at-panix.com, hangout-at-nylxs.com, bkuhn-at-gnu.org,
dyfet-at-ostel.com, derek-at-gnue.org, fairuse-at-nylxs.com
In-Reply-To: <20030210085134.GA16168-at-mail.rm-cpa.com>
References: <3.0.5.16.20030209182438.44275b80-at-cpcug.org>
<3.0.5.16.20030209060640.39778df4-at-cpcug.org>
<3.0.5.16.20030209060640.39778df4-at-cpcug.org>
<3.0.5.16.20030209182438.44275b80-at-cpcug.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Stanley A. Klein"
List: New Yorkers Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribename-at-domian.com to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7763
Status: RO
Content-Length: 10905
Lines: 348
At 03:51 AM 2/10/2003 -0500, ruben safir wrote:
>> >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.
>
>
And you probably wouldn't see any mentioned even if free/open-source were
the most commonly used software in the government. That's the way they do
things.
The fact that you are looking in bizops proves you know nothing about
federal contracting. Bizops is the replacement for the CBD. By the time
anything gets in there other than bid requests for commodity items, the
procurement has already been wired to someone.
Are you folks on GSA schedule? Have you pursued SBIR's? Do you have a
clue what you are doing?
>
>> 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.
>
Marketing doesn't take place at a conference like that. The conference and
all the papers only help get the door open and provide some resources with
good credentials that can help the real marketing.
>
>
>> 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
What you will see in FedBizOps is an RFP for a support contract. The
support contractor gets the job and gets a task order. They convince the
customer to let them use free/open-source to do the task order, and build a
successful system. Terry did a survey and found that this (or something
like it) has happened on something like 40% of DoD systems without DoD
actually knowing about it. MS FUDsters go to DoD and say "you shouldn't
use free/open-source because you can't trust it and it won't work," but
Terry's report says "You've been using it all over the place and finding it
trustworthy, and finding that it does work."
>
>
>>
>> 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.
You've got 100 unemployed people looking for instant results. Federal
government projects have to be marketed 3 or 4 years in advance. If you
are looking for work in FedBizOps you have already failed.
>
>>
>> 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.
You mean the idiot who wrote that stupid email about your political stuff?
He wouldn't know a business case if was handed to him on a silver platter.
>
>
>> >
>> >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.
What federal agencies are headquartered at "26 federal plaza"?
Compare where we are now to where we were 5 years ago. Then look 5 years
ahead. That's how you gauge the impact of this stuff.
>
>
>>
>> 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...
Yup. That's the way it's been for the last 40 years that I know, and it's
how it will be for the next 40.
>
>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.
>
You are abrasive because that's the only thing you know how to do. There
is an old song about "Johnny One Note." Shall we name you "Ruben One Note"?
>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.
You have? I don't think you would see it. Give me details.
>
>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.
You might be interested in the forthcoming IEEE-USA position on broadband.
It goes to the board for final approval on Wednesday. I can't discuss it
until then.
>
>
>> >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!
>
Competition in slinging insults is a New York thing. Learn the differences
in culture!
>
>>
>> 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...
Who is this guy Cohen you keep mentioning?
>
>Your talking, but your not producing results. I actually represent someone.
>I've actually been elected to a public position.
And what position might that be?
>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.
>
The issue is do you know the answers to these queations 5 years from now?
>From what I've heard, they might not be the same as the answers now.
>> >
>> >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.
An immoral decision??? Where do you get that crazy idea?
Political or economic mistake is one kind of issue, but where do you get
immoral?
>
>Thanks for the engaging discussion Stan. You've gone a long way to
>helping us decide what actions to take.
I hope you keep your hot heads screwed on. Unfortunately, I somehow doubt it.
Stan Klein
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
