Crispin Cowan wrote: > Shaun Savage wrote: > >> 1A+ "competition inceases software quality" > > > Does not follow. A vendor that has a monopoly on a narrow niche may be > able to devote sufficient resources to supporting a complex application, > where as two competing vendors trying to live in the same niche may find > themselves with insufficent revenue to properly support their applications. If two companies make "chairs" and if one company chair is softer, last longer, and cost the same, the other company will need to make better chairs in order to sell chairs. The niche example is an exception not the rule. > >> 1A- "shorter development time reduces software quality" > > > Does not follow. Good design can lead to shorter development and better > software quality. And this does not appear to have anything to do with > monopolies. > Correct it does not relate to monopolies, but on average it is true. When a project reaches a large size, the good design will only help so much. On average, if competition forces the release of a project before it is ready, the software quality will be reduced. The more "man years" put into software the better the software ON AVERAGE. >> 2> "proper software development inceases software quality" > > > Er, yes, but "proper" is so ill-defined that this statement is a tautology. > Yes, the word proper is ill-defined. That is what I would like to see this group define. If this group can define what is "proper" then the group can help the state. >> 3> "people are more important than business" > > > This is not true when you are trying to conduct business, to wit: > > * Vendor: you should use my product. > * Consumer: no, theirs is cheaper & more cost-effective. > * Vendor: but that hurts my feelings. > * Consumer: lump it. > > "Business vs. people" is a misleading concept. "Business" is just an > abstraction for how people can interact, in contrast to some other > models such as "cooperation", "fighting", and "indifference." Business > has stood the test of time as a pretty darned effective way for people > to interact. When someone argues a position on the basis of "people are > more important than business", they are more than likely BS'ing an > indefensible proposition that you should do something that contravenes > the rules of business conduct for some reason that lends particular > advantage to some particular people, without letting on to who gets the > advantage. > The concept of "people are more important than business" is that the term "business" means the enity of, not the verb. I see Enron, Harken, Tyco making shady deals and stealing from people. I see companies getting bailed out by the US goverment, I see companies selling something then telling you you can't use it. To me this is business being more important. That is why I say "people are more important". > Open source development models are an interesting new model that is not > well-understood (in economic terms) but people are working on it. For a > great deal more on this topic, go look at the FSB (Free Software > Business) mailing list, where people who actually run free software > businesses chat with people with job titles like "professor of > economics." http://www.crynwr.com/fsb/ > I keep hearing about companies giving away IP if they move to open source. I keep hearing about what is the motivation is write open source software? If the state pays for a custom software, does not the state owns that custom software? If companies know they are working for money writing open source software, then there should be no problem. When you get paid for programming, does not the payor own what you programmed? >> The topics I want to discuss are >> What procedure are need to improve software quality for the state? > > > My position on this: > > * The State should mandate that when *custom* software is procured > by the state that the source code be delivered to the state under > an open source license, so that the State is not placed in a > monopoly lock position of having only one vendor to supply > support for that system. I agree > * The State should *consider* open source solutions when procuring > commodity systems, but should not be required to choose open > source for any particular application. This is because open source > is *sometimes* the best solution (e.g. Apache is the most > cost-effective web server) and sometimes not (AbiWord and Star > Office are simply not viable competition for MS Office. Yet :) > OK, BUT all protocols and file formats should be OPEN and published. By requiring open protocols and file formats, that allows prevents monopoly on software and locking user into poor software. > >> How the bidding for software can be done to improve quality and security? > > > Dunnow. Some of the things I've heard here about how the State procures > consulting services in general, and software in particular, are pretty > depressing. > >> One idea is to have development and maintaince be two seperate >> contracts. But this would also require a formal acceptance testing >> procedure. > > > Just mandating open source licensing of custom procured software > obviates that complexity. If the State has open source rights to the > code, then they can hack any contract they want for support. NOw the open source software needs to open to the public. This allows new people/companies to learn the software and compete in the bidding process for maintaince. If the software is only open to the state then the same old people will keep bidding and winning the contracts. Shaun
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 22:54:48 PDT