On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, T. Kenji Sugahara wrote: > Open Source is great but how about support? There are legions of MS > trained support people but how about Linux/UNIX trained folks? There is quite a bit of support available for Linux/Unix. Most of it is of better quality than you get from Microsoft. (Especially since so much of Microsoft's support is outsourced to outfits like Stream.) Linux is supported via companies like IBM and other large vendors. Sun has great support. (Try getting the response times from Microsoft that a Sun service contract will get you.) You can also get support via mailing lists, users groups, usenet, and even the developers themselves. I can get an answer to a Linux problem, with fixes to the code, in much less time than I can with Microsoft. If it is an actual bug, try getting a patch from Microsoft in less than a month. I have gotten fixes for problems from the kernel developers in under an hour. The "lack" of support for Linux has been one of the main excuses given as to why Linux should not be used. It is a bogus excuse. There is plenty of support. Just none of it like what Microsoft provides. (Thank goodness!) > 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. I wonder what IT support is like in that environment? And there is uniformity in the Windows world? Microsoft has been known to update parts of the OS with installation of other Microsoft products. (Microsoft Office has contained OS patches and upgrades for years, as have other MS apps.) Not to mention the changes made between version that render older third party apps buggy or even dangerous. (Older CD ROM burning software will destroy an install of Win2k or XP because of a change made to the OS that was never communicated to the developers until it was too late.) Any uniformity in the Windows world is superficial at best. In the Windows world most users have admin rights. They can make any changes they want. Under Linux, you can lock the users down to user level privileges. Under Win95/98, that is impossible. (And those settings can be bypassed in any other version of Windows due to logstanding privilege escalation bugs which Microsoft reefuses to fix.) At least with Linux I have the source and can figure out what is wrong. > In addition, how will software developers react to Open Source and Open > Standards? Will service contracts work as a business model for SW > developers? 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. Who says you cannot sell Open Source software? People do just that all the time. There is nothing in the GPL that says that you cannot sell the software. (Even Richard Stalman has sold Emacs CDs.) What it says is that if you use source licensed under the GPL, then you cannot make proprietary changes and refuse to give out the source. Not all Open Source has that license. The BSD license lets you take the code and not give anything back. Microsoft loves that license because it allows them to grab code for free and give nothing in return. (Most of the command line net utilities in Windows are from BSD sources.) You need to look at some information on Linux that was not written by the Microsoft marketing department. Much of the critisisms that Microsoft makes of Linux are things that they are far more guilty of. (Especially in the licensing department. Their source license pretty much makes anything you create after that point that might infringe on anything that Microsoft might want a "violation of intelectual property" and subject to the truncheons of lawyers.) And I won't even get into how much Microsoft "solutions" cost when you finnaly get done totaling up the bill... > > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 03:25 PM, Shaun Savage wrote: > > > T. Kenji Sugahara wrote: > >> What's needed is buy-in from the Governor on down. (e.g. a > >> fundamental shift in thinking). > >> Each agency head needs to understand the costs and benefits of > >> security. They need to be advised of the cost of computer >> insecurity. > > > > 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. > > > > I would donate my patented database GUI system to the projects the > > state would create for it self using open source licenese. This would > > reduce maintaince and development cost, increase security, while > > improving the common good for the average person in the state. > > > > Shaun Savage > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 11:04:49 PDT