MESSAGE
DATE | 2004-12-30 |
FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] 'Free' Software Isn't Free (Article)
|
From owner-hangouts-destenys-at-mrbrklyn.com Thu Dec 30 15:39:23 2004 X-UIDL: b4)"!KE2"!&_C"!2Rk!! Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id iBUKdNqr021010 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:39:23 -0500 Received: (from mdom-at-localhost) by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id iBUKdLfd021009 for hangouts-destenys; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:39:21 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangouts-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f Received: from mail56.messagelabs.com (mail56.messagelabs.com [193.109.254.67]) by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id iBUKdK2o021004 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:39:21 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: EInker-at-gam.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-56.messagelabs.com!1104439219!13163693!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.5; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [193.202.231.222] Received: (qmail 2475 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2004 20:40:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w2gw-ldn01.gam.com) (193.202.231.222) by server-3.tower-56.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 30 Dec 2004 20:40:19 -0000 Received: from ntas-ldn15.gam.com (unverified) by w2gw-ldn01.gam.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:40:19 +0000 Received: by ntas-ldn15.gam.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:40:19 -0000 Message-ID: <386AEEE1B7BAC34CB4DDF394C2349278D6E94C-at-w2cs-nyk02.gam.com> From: "Inker, Evan" To: hangout-at-nylxs.com Subject: [hangout] 'Free' Software Isn't Free (Article) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:38:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4EEAF.8958EB50" Sender: owner-hangouts-at-mrbrklyn.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Inker, Evan" List: New Yorker GNU Linux Scene Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribe name-at-domian.com in the body to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on www2.mrbrklyn.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_10_20, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Keywords: X-UID: 38729 Status: RO Content-Length: 21786 Lines: 383
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C4EEAF.8958EB50 Content-Type: text/plain
After reading this article and then retching uncontrollably for the next 10 minutes, I wanted to share one highly educated idiots IT Viewpoints on "Open Source software". Mind you, The author's Bio follows the article and is included for your information....
My favorite quotes as well as my responses follow:
" The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker retraining."
OK...so let's continue on the cycle of proprietary locked-down insecure software due to the fact "you believe" that State IT Workers would need re-training and possibly be outsourced to Free Software educated IT Workers...First of all, you give little or no credit to State IT Workers as to their "comprehension" and/or re-training. You cite the '"plight of the Poor Wretched Untrainable IT Worker" but seriously neglect the State's cost for proprietary systems which eat up $$$ in TCO, Security (let's not forget all those wonderful little security holes like VB Script, IIS, and ever popular hackable Outlook mail client; last but not least spyware and viruses which run rampant on Windows based systems) and forced software upgrades/maintenance. From your perspective, it's fine for the State to pass these costs along to the local citizens as long as your maintain your Locked Down Antiquated Software Security Nightmare called "Proprietary Commercial Software".
" One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can freely modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the free software isn't free."
Wrong again....Changing or modifying a program does not necessarily "voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software" unless the programmer doing the modification is ill-equipped to be a programmer. Software development aka coding, programming etc. whether in C++, Java, Python etc has basic tenets and rules which translate to both Free and Proprietary Software. Maybe the emphasis here should be more on correcting the shoddy habit of creating software developers in 6-8 courses who have little or no computer experience whatsoever. IT is one field where accurate technical proficiency is not a luxury but a necessary pre-requisite to getting the job down correctly as opposed to turning out crappy sub-standard software (proprietary or otherwise).
THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago, IL 60603 phone 312/377-4000 * fax 312/377-5000 http://www.heartland.org
_____
'Free' Software Isn't Free
Author: Steve DelBianco Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2005
States facing budget shortfalls are poring over government management and purchasing practices in search of any sort of savings. At the same time, a worldwide movement for "free and open software" falsely promises something for nothing plus the ability to modify code and share changes among users.
State legislators attracted to the free software flame are likely to get burned if preference legislation opens a dangerous back door to purchasing safeguards and ends up costing more than commercial software alternatives.
It's not unusual for state legislatures to implement public policy choices with laws affecting state purchases of information technology (IT) products and services. For example, many states have bidding rules that confer advantages to in-state businesses, and some have passed increased security standards in the wake of cyberterrorism threats.
However, even well-intentioned legislation can produce unpredictable and undesirable results when it affects complex software decisions made at the state agency and departmental level. Moreover, taking the risk of unintended consequences isn't justifiable when state IT managers are already, on their own, making the very choices legislatures seek to enforce.
Many Definitions of "Open Source"
Open source is widely used as an umbrella term for more than 85 different software license agreements that variously allow access to the source code, or recipe, for the program. However, the term "open source" is neither precise nor instructive, since these licenses vary greatly in their terms, and some are actually quite restrictive when it comes to modifying and redistributing software.
Cost-sensitive state managers are attracted to "free software" on the promise of saving money and avoiding the procurement processes that govern proposals and purchasing decisions. While initially appealing, free software has costs and risks that should be understood when considering legislation that favors its use.
With all software, the price of acquisition is just the first cost incurred over the life cycle of an application. IT managers know to expect additional upfront costs for training, data conversion, and integration, plus several years of ongoing costs for maintenance, upgrades, and support. This concept is well understood as "total cost of ownership (TCO)." Within the context of TCO, an initial cost advantage for free software can be offset by higher life cycle costs.
Modify at Your Own Risk
One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can freely modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the free software isn't free.
The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker retraining.
Legislative preferences also can hamper state IT directors, who are charged with implementing multi-year comprehensive IT strategies across government agencies. They also are struggling to deploy e-government solutions that are accessible and secure for citizens and business users. To execute these long-term IT plans, states have to keep a tight rein on IT purchasing decisions made by agencies. But state mandates for open source licensed software could encourage decentralized purchasing decisions, without regard for a state's broader IT strategy.
Finally, in an era of viruses, worms, and spyware, IT security has never been more important. State IT directors must be confident that any software deployed in state government will be adequately protected from threats to security and information privacy. Software that's downloaded and deployed without state approval could compromise the security of sensitive citizen information such as Social Security numbers or health records.
State legislators should exercise their oversight role to get the best value for their state's software dollars, but they must also maintain an open and competitive environment so that all software and services are scrutinized according to rules developed through decades of experience. Moreover, state IT managers are in the best position to evaluate which technologies and licensing methods fit with specific agency needs and plans. And businesses serving the states are already offering and supporting software with a variety of licensing terms, including open source.
Legislative preferences for open source licensing will only limit choice and restrict competition in what is already an intensely competitive market.
_____
Steve DelBianco represents the Association for Competitive Technology and the NetChoice Coalition. He is also private-sector chair of the Competition Subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. This article is adapted from "No Such Thing as Free Software," published in ALEC Policy Forum: Jeffersonian Principles in Action, Spring 2004.
**************************************************************************** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required. ****************************************************************************
------_=_NextPart_001_01C4EEAF.8958EB50 Content-Type: text/html
Message
After reading this article and then retching uncontrollably for the next 10 minutes, I wanted to share one highly educated idiots IT Viewpoints on "Open Source software". Mind you, The author's Bio follows the article and is included for your information.... My favorite quotes as well as my responses follow: " The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker retraining." OK...so let's continue on the cycle of proprietary locked-down insecure software due to the fact "you believe" that State IT Workers would need re-training and possibly be outsourced to Free Software educated IT Workers...First of all, you give little or no credit to State IT Workers as to their "comprehension" and/or re-training. You cite the '"plight of the Poor Wretched Untrainable IT Worker" but seriously neglect the State's cost for proprietary systems which eat up $$$ in TCO, Security (let's not forget all those wonderful little security holes like VB Script, IIS, and ever popular hackable Outlook mail client; last but not least spyware and viruses which run rampant on Windows based systems) and forced software upgrades/maintenance. From your perspective, it's fine for the State to pass these costs along to the local citizens as long as your maintain your Locked Down Antiquated Software Security Nightmare called "Proprietary Commercial Software". " One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can freely modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the free software isn't free." Wrong again....Changing or modifying a program does not necessarily "voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software" unless the programmer doing the modification is ill-equipped to be a programmer. Software development aka coding, programming etc. whether in C++, Java, Python etc has basic tenets and rules which translate to both Free and Proprietary Software. Maybe the emphasis here should be more on correcting the shoddy habit of creating software developers in 6-8 courses who have little or no computer experience whatsoever. IT is one field where accurate technical proficiency is not a luxury but a necessary pre-requisite to getting the job down correctly as opposed to turning out crappy sub-standard software (proprietary or otherwise). THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago, IL 60603 phone 312/377-4000 · fax 312/377-5000 http://www.heartland.org
'Free' Software Isn't Free Author: Steve DelBianco Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2005 States facing budget shortfalls are poring over government management and purchasing practices in search of any sort of savings. At the same time, a worldwide movement for "free and open software" falsely promises something for nothing plus the ability to modify code and share changes among users. State legislators attracted to the free software flame are likely to get burned if preference legislation opens a dangerous back door to purchasing safeguards and ends up costing more than commercial software alternatives. It's not unusual for state legislatures to implement public policy choices with laws affecting state purchases of information technology (IT) products and services. For example, many states have bidding rules that confer advantages to in-state businesses, and some have passed increased security standards in the wake of cyberterrorism threats. However, even well-intentioned legislation can produce unpredictable and undesirable results when it affects complex software decisions made at the state agency and departmental level. Moreover, taking the risk of unintended consequences isn't justifiable when state IT managers are already, on their own, making the very choices legislatures seek to enforce. Many Definitions of "Open Source" Open source is widely used as an umbrella term for more than 85 different software license agreements that variously allow access to the source code, or recipe, for the program. However, the term "open source" is neither precise nor instructive, since these licenses vary greatly in their terms, and some are actually quite restrictive when it comes to modifying and redistributing software. Cost-sensitive state managers are attracted to "free software" on the promise of saving money and avoiding the procurement processes that govern proposals and purchasing decisions. While initially appealing, free software has costs and risks that should be understood when considering legislation that favors its use. With all software, the price of acquisition is just the first cost incurred over the life cycle of an application. IT managers know to expect additional upfront costs for training, data conversion, and integration, plus several years of ongoing costs for maintenance, upgrades, and support. This concept is well understood as "total cost of ownership (TCO)." Within the context of TCO, an initial cost advantage for free software can be offset by higher life cycle costs. Modify at Your Own Risk One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can freely modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the free software isn't free. The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker retraining. Legislative preferences also can hamper state IT directors, who are charged with implementing multi-year comprehensive IT strategies across government agencies. They also are struggling to deploy e-government solutions that are accessible and secure for citizens and business users. To execute these long-term IT plans, states have to keep a tight rein on IT purchasing decisions made by agencies. But state mandates for open source licensed software could encourage decentralized purchasing decisions, without regard for a state's broader IT strategy. Finally, in an era of viruses, worms, and spyware, IT security has never been more important. State IT directors must be confident that any software deployed in state government will be adequately protected from threats to security and information privacy. Software that's downloaded and deployed without state approval could compromise the security of sensitive citizen information such as Social Security numbers or health records. State legislators should exercise their oversight role to get the best value for their state's software dollars, but they must also maintain an open and competitive environment so that all software and services are scrutinized according to rules developed through decades of experience. Moreover, state IT managers are in the best position to evaluate which technologies and licensing methods fit with specific agency needs and plans. And businesses serving the states are already offering and supporting software with a variety of licensing terms, including open source. Legislative preferences for open source licensing will only limit choice and restrict competition in what is already an intensely competitive market. Steve DelBianco represents the Association for Competitive Technology and the NetChoice Coalition. He is also private-sector chair of the Competition Subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. This article is adapted from "No Such Thing as Free Software," published in ALEC Policy Forum: Jeffersonian Principles in Action, Spring 2004.
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
------_=_NextPart_001_01C4EEAF.8958EB50-- ____________________________ NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene Fair Use - because it's either fair use or useless.... NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|