T. Kenji Sugahara wrote: > Shaun, > > Open Source is great but how about support? There are legions of MS > trained support people but how about Linux/UNIX trained folks? I have seen some of the MS support people, and they are worthless. One person spent two hours trying to hook up a 8 port hub. The docs stated port 8 was the crossover connection but if you looked at the hub, port 1 was. my guess is that there are about equal QUALIFIED Linux/unix <-> MS support people. If you know the protocols, and undrestand what is really happing, it is easier to migrate from MS to Linux than from Linux -> MS Which > brings about another question of Open Source - Uniformity. What do you > think the repercussions are of the kind of mods that you can make in an > open source environment? Most everything can be modified - and will be. > It tends to require a different perspective than out of the box > solutions. This is more of procedure than tech. By creating a STD distro for the enviroment then creating a package database for every machine, then you will know what you have. That database for each machine is stored on a central configuration computer. When any update are made to that machine the changes are made in the DB on the central computer. If policy does not allow configuration changes to the base machine the then root should not change it. This like any enterprize admin. I wonder what IT support is like in that environment? > > In addition, how will software developers react to Open Source and Open > Standards? I don't understand the question. I thought that open RFC's already define how developers program. Only in the MS world is SMPT not the SMTP protocol. MS removes the "<>" in <email@domain> defined by the SMTP RFC. Personally I think programming to and following standards would be good for the public. Will service contracts work as a business model for SW > developers? There would be not much difference in the way it is done now. Open bids for a application, where the developer gets NRE. Then another open bid for support. Because the code is released into the public commons any person can become an expert on it. That should increase competition and reduce price. It is sort-of a throwback to the old IBM model of sell the > HW for under cost and then make em pay for the maintenance. The difference between the IBM model is that the source is open. The state is NOT locked into one vender. The vendor does NOT have a monopoly on the code. This is the key idea. When source code is closed this creates a monopoly on maintaince and upgrades. This monopoly increases price and reduces quality of both product and service. The side effect of going to open source it when one state developes a GREAT DMV system, other states can use it. This will standardize the DMV system across the states. This is both good and bad, it allows for a common database format that the feds can search easier;-/ > > >> Open of the problems in goverment is that they are not open to new >> ideas, even if the ideas better server the people of the state. The >> concept of open source is totally unheard of in goverment. As such >> they, the big cheeses, don't want to get near it. To me open source >> is the best concept for goverment. Pay for software once, >> development, then the people could use it forever. If a program is >> put into the public domain then that adds to the commen welfare of >> everyone. >> >> I have read that the goverment should support business. The question >> here is are the people more important or companies. people vote but >> companies donate(bribe) more money. >> >> Shaun Savage >> >> >> >> >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 08:08:25 PDT