«

SOFTWARE LIBRE! By Nandor Tanczos, Green MP
Nandor has written an article about use of open source in Government:
http://www.nzoss.org.nz/portal/modul...rticle&sid=242

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:47 +1200, Peter Harrison
<> wrote:

>SOFTWARE LIBRE! By Nandor Tanczos, Green MP
>Nandor has written an article about use of open source in Government:
>http://www.nzoss.org.nz/portal/modul...rticle&sid=242

Running Mandrake eh? Good choice. I'm a complete Linux novice but have
tried a few flavours and have found Mandrake to be the "easiest" to
configure and use. It also always found all hardware where RedHat
seems to be fussy with soundcards and modems.

In article <WMLbb.3130$>,
says...
> SOFTWARE LIBRE! By Nandor Tanczos, Green MP
> Nandor has written an article about use of open source in Government:
> http://www.nzoss.org.nz/portal/modul...rticle&sid=242

Great, someone point out that www.greens.co.nz - is *still*
running on MS IIS...

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/...w.greens.co.nz

--
Duncan

"T-Boy" wrote
> > Nandor

> Great, someone point out that www.greens.co.nz - is *still*
> running on MS IIS...

Looks like he is still a drugged up hippie.

"T.N.O." <> wrote in message
news:bko5se$3vsn9$...
> "Peter Harrison" wrote
> > SOFTWARE LIBRE! By Nandor Tanczos, Green MP
>
> Opening sentence...
> "Imagine if your car came with conditions."
> It does, I am only allowed to drive under the speed limit, not on the
beach,
> not on rugby fields...
>
> A few lines into it.
> "The commercialisation of science has distorted its direction towards
> technologies that facilitate corporate control and profit rather than the
> well being of humanity as a whole (GE, armaments, botox)."
>
> GE has not been proven good, bad or otherwise, there are things that can
be
> done with GE that may well help the world.
> Armaments were used to bring down Nazi Germany, cant say that that didn't
> help the well being of humanity.
> Botox, well.. yeah, no comment
>
> and then
> "When I ask them about it the answer is usually "um, we think it's good
but
> we keep forgetting to consider it when we upgrade"."
> I'd like to know who he asked, and if this is a direct quote as it is
> implied.
>
> and then
> "However, there is little information about what we have given Microsoft
in
> exchange or how much this is going to cost us."
> There is also no information to suggest that they have had to give
anything,
> or provide any payment... FUD.
>
> and then
> "In any case, most virus writers design viruses to attack Microsoft and
not
> Linux!"
> at this stage, as linux grows more popular, and more ma and pa's start
using
> it, it will be targeted.
>
> and the last paragraph.
> "Because the programs are usually more streamlined"
> In what way?
>
> "they can be run on smaller hard drives"
> yeah, because that is a major issue today.
>
> It's good to see that he isnt just a drugged up hippy, but really, he
> probably should have stuck to "greeny" issues.
>
>

Well he might not be 100% correct (in your opinion) about everything, but
the value in the piece is that he is in a position of influence where he can
say that these are important things to be considered.
If you asked Trevor Mallard to justify the extraordinary amounts that the
government pays for deals with proprietary software vendors, I'm sure he
would be similarly adept, and both of them would do much better than the
average parliamentarian, both on "greeny" issues and "geeky" issues.

reply is inline, all good point have been sniped... not for any reason other
than, differing opinions, bever gonna agree.

"Evil Bastard" wrote
> > at this stage, as linux grows more popular, and more ma and pa's start
using
> > it, it will be targeted.
>
> One difference - with open source development teams, they have a tendency
> to pull their fingers out and issue new patches - FAST.

But users still have to apply patches, look at pretty much any virus
problems that have existed on MS platforms, almost all(I cant think of any
exceptions) had patches available, they simply had not been applied.

> The open source user community - the end customers - have much more of a
> 'community' focus, and tend to take more responsibility for the good
> running of their systems.

Well I hope they are good at user education, they have one hell of a job
ahead of them.

> In contrast, customers of proprietary software tend to be babies, lying
> back uttering 'goo goo goo' and crying 'i'm wet/hungry/cold/lonely'.

oh yeah, thats mature.

> > "they can be run on smaller hard drives"
> > yeah, because that is a major issue today.
>
> It amounts to massive savings. If an office suite or other strategic
> application can run on the existing hardware, there's no need for any
> ginormous hardware upgrades. The hardware upgrade cycle can be slower, and
> when upgrading, govt customers won't have to buy the latest and greatest -
> they can upgrade to slightly older gen hardware and save an absolute wad.

at the detrement to the hardware industry... it isnt all one sided.

> > It's good to see that he isnt just a drugged up hippy, but really, he
> > probably should have stuck to "greeny" issues.
>
> An Afro-American would have an easier time swaying people's beliefs at a
> midnight KKK rally than anyone would have in getting you to examine your
> own entrenched prejudices.
> Please - for ****s sake - RE-THINK!!!

I do think... constantly.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:24:33 +1200, T.N.O. wrote:

> But users still have to apply patches, look at pretty much any virus
> problems that have existed on MS platforms, almost all(I cant think of any
> exceptions) had patches available, they simply had not been applied.

Referring to earlier reply - I believe the attitude amongst OSS users is
more pro-active. For instance, when I hear about new sploits I dive in and
patch straight away.

>> The open source user community - the end customers - have much more of a
>> 'community' focus, and tend to take more responsibility for the good
>> running of their systems.
>
> Well I hope they are good at user education, they have one hell of a job
> ahead of them.

You do have a point there. OSS is still a tad 'geeky' compared to
proprietary solutions. However, Mandrake continues to be a major innovator
in the evolution towards user-friendly desktops/servers that still let
people in under the hood.

There will be a lot of responsibility - but this will mainly be with the
techos who stitch the apps together and control the visible desktop
look-n-feel.

Just as many libraries have done a great job of locking down the desktops
on their public internet computers, it'll be up to govt geeks to lock down
OSS desktops to make them fit for users.

The good news is that the cost of hiring and retaining such geeks is a
puny fraction of the cost of the proprietary alternatives. Even if you pay
them salaries of $100k each, it's not a drop in the ocean compared to the
money saved.

>> In contrast, customers of proprietary software tend to be babies, lying
>> back uttering 'goo goo goo' and crying 'i'm wet/hungry/cold/lonely'.
>
> oh yeah, thats mature.

A *slight* exaggeration, I confess

>> > "they can be run on smaller hard drives"
>> > yeah, because that is a major issue today.
>>
>> It amounts to massive savings. If an office suite or other strategic
>> application can run on the existing hardware, there's no need for any
>> ginormous hardware upgrades. The hardware upgrade cycle can be slower, and
>> when upgrading, govt customers won't have to buy the latest and greatest -
>> they can upgrade to slightly older gen hardware and save an absolute wad.
>
> at the detrement to the hardware industry... it isnt all one sided.

There ain't no hardware industry in NZ. Like, where can I buy NZ-designed
and built monitors, motherboards, CPUs etc.

If there's a detriment to the overseas hardware industry, that's great,
because that's bux that aren't haemorrhaging out of NZ.

>> > It's good to see that he isnt just a drugged up hippy, but really, he
>> > probably should have stuck to "greeny" issues.
>>
>> An Afro-American would have an easier time swaying people's beliefs at a
>> midnight KKK rally than anyone would have in getting you to examine your
>> own entrenched prejudices.
>> Please - for ****s sake - RE-THINK!!!
>
> I do think... constantly.

There might be some constants which could have been better declared as
variables in your neural net code.

"Evil Bastard" wrote

All good points sniped... again, not intentional, just that well, I agree
with most, and those that I dont, not worth arguing about.

> > at the detrement to the hardware industry... it isnt all one sided.
>
> There ain't no hardware industry in NZ. Like, where can I buy NZ-designed
> and built monitors, motherboards, CPUs etc.
> If there's a detriment to the overseas hardware industry, that's great,
> because that's bux that aren't haemorrhaging out of NZ.

it may be good for NZ, but who is NZ going to sell software to, no-one is
going to be able to afford it as they are selling no hardware... ok so
they'll sell something, but the market will shrink overall.

> > I do think... constantly.

> There might be some constants which could have been better declared as
> variables in your neural net code.

Bt said something similar the other day, maybe I need a holiday

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:24:33 +1200, "T.N.O." <> wrote:

>reply is inline, all good point have been sniped... not for any reason other
>than, differing opinions, bever gonna agree.
>
>"Evil Bastard" wrote
>> > at this stage, as linux grows more popular, and more ma and pa's start
>using
>> > it, it will be targeted.
>>
>> One difference - with open source development teams, they have a tendency
>> to pull their fingers out and issue new patches - FAST.
>
>But users still have to apply patches, look at pretty much any virus
>problems that have existed on MS platforms, almost all(I cant think of any
>exceptions) had patches available, they simply had not been applied.
>
<snip>

Patch comes before virus these days.
Some outfit of mostly Czechs in CA find the buffer overruns and tell
msoft.
Msoft issue the patch.
Virus writers decompile the patch to figure out the vulnerability.
Then they write the virus and release it.

At least that is what I have been told

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:53:47 +1200, "T.N.O." <> wrote:


>and the last paragraph.
>"Because the programs are usually more streamlined"
>In what way?
>
>"they can be run on smaller hard drives"
>yeah, because that is a major issue today.
>
>It's good to see that he isnt just a drugged up hippy, but really, he
>probably should have stuck to "greeny" issues.
>

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps the following
excerpts may make Nandor's comment a little clearer.

from:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.09/myhrvold.html
"...it has perhaps half a million. Microsoft Word was at 27,000 lines
of code in the first version. It's now about 2 million. So, we have
increased the size and complexity of software even faster than Moore's
Law. In fact, this is why there is a market for faster processors ..."

from:
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/li...4/abiword.html
"...However, the AbiWord team doesn't want AbiWord to become bloated
with features that most users don't bother to use. With this in mind,
they've managed to keep the current Windows version down to a 4.4MB
download.

"People don't care about [program slimness] that much anymore, but we
stil consider it an achievement," says Sink. He adds that there's a
benefit to cutting down the fat in the code: "The smaller size has
allowed AbiWord to contemplate sub-desktop environments that Word
could never fit into." "