Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Linux

Governments & Open Source 127

Posted by Hemos from the oh-noes-the-confusion dept.
sydney-computer-support writes "The Greens in New Zealand who advocate the use of OSS are upset about a Novell contract because it doesn't support open source. The article mentions the greens spokeperson saying the contract "cleared the path for government agencies to adopt and expand their use of non-proprietary software" -- failing to note that Novell is a company offering proprietary versions of OSS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Governments & Open Source More

Governments & Open Source

Comments Filter:

  • Grammar Nazis (Score:5, Funny)

    by Recovering Hater ( 833107 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:24AM (#13863606)
    Slashdot is just taunting with this headline. I mean, come on! "Open Souce"?

    • Govt. logic, go figure (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Souse \Souse\, n. [OF. sausse. See Sauce.] [Written also souce, sowce, and sowse.]

      1. Pickle made with salt.

      2. Something kept or steeped in pickle; esp., the pickled ears, feet, etc., of swine.

      And he that can rear up a pig in his house, Hath cheaper his bacon, and sweeter his souse. --Tusser.

      3. The ear; especially, a hog's ear. [Prov. Eng.]

      4. The act of sousing; a plunging into water.

      So what's happening is that governments are struggling to keep the salted pickles free for everyone? So is
      • No, I think it was a bit of Franglish, misspelling the word "sous" (under) as "souce".

        What they really want to say is "ouvert sous" -- "open under", down implying of course "down under".

        Why Franglish? Well, obviously because this is the Greens and they're taking their orders from Paris, now that their communist sponsors in Moscow are hors de combat.

        • Franglish, like Engrish, but not funny.

          • Re:Govt. logic, go figure (Score:4, Interesting)

            by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @10:11AM (#13863964) Homepage Journal
            Well, it's funny to me, since I'd resolved to teach myself French around the start of 2003.

            I'd noticed around that time that a lot of people were pushing the idea of France as (variously) the enemy, or the most contemptible country in the world. Then I looked at the principles of the people selling this idea, and the intelligence of the people buying it, and discovered that I liked France more than I thought.
            • So you came to the conclusion that people are always the opposite of the people that hate/dislike them?
              • So you came to the conclusion that people are always the opposite of the people that hate/dislike them?

                Why in the world would you be forced to conclude that?

                You could read other positions into what I said:
                1. people are sometimes the opposite of the people that hate/dislike them.
                2. people are sometimes not exactly the same as how the people that hate/dislike them paint them to be.

                  or
                3. when politicians are whipping up hate against somebody, those people deserve a fair and open minded hearing.

                I will confess, however,

    • Re:Grammar Nazis (Score:5, Funny)

      by beef3k ( 551086 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:35AM (#13863693)
      Oh give them a break - anyone can misspell "Sauce" once in a while...
    • Is the middle point between "Open Source" and "OpenSuse", to make the headline more into the point discussed into the article.
    • Yeah, by the title, I thought I was on Digg.com for a second....

  • Proprietary doesn't matter...just get there (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flinxmeister ( 601654 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:28AM (#13863646) Homepage
    My workplace recently started moving some critical servers from Solaris to Red Hat. Of course this is a proprietary (and often reviled) Linux. But that's not important.

    What's important are the number of people installing test boxes and "piddle" boxes running Linux to get more familiar with it. Some of these are Red Hat, but a couple folks are starting to look at the other non-commercial packages. I fully expect more to do this.

    Once corporate folks have put their feet on the Linux platform and found it will both hold weight and perform fabulously, they can then move on to the freer options. I think almost all of it has to do with support and CYA.

    Personally, my philosophy is "best tool for the job". If that's a commercial/proprietary Linux, so be it. If it's Sun, so be it. MS...same deal. This adoption of proprietary Linux is a first step towards a similar, more open philosophy, so it shouldn't be poo-poo'd.

    • Of course? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:36AM (#13863702)
      Of course this is a proprietary (and often reviled) Linux. But that's not important.

      How, "of course?"

      I'm by no way a Red Hat fan, but every byte of software that Red Hat produces is under the GPL, and they not only tell you that in their LICENSES file but give precise instructions for how to remove the Red Hat trademark files from their distribution so that it can be redistributed.

      If that's "proprietary" then we're well on our way to becoming what the anti-OSS crowd call us: religious fanatics, more interested in internal inquisitions for insufficient piety than in the real world.

      • If that's "proprietary" then we're well on our way to becoming what the anti-OSS crowd call us: religious fanatics, more interested in internal inquisitions for insufficient piety than in the real world.
        I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter (or, debian.legal, as it's known) :)

      • Re:Of course? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Builder ( 103701 )
        but every byte of software that Red Hat produces is under the GPL
        Not true at all. Much of their most useful software is under a closed source licence.

        Their RHN Satellite product (which is the only reason my enterprise installation chose RH over Novell) used to be under a closed licence, but at least I had the code and I could send bug fixes back. Their newest release, 4.0 is java based, so I don't even get the source any more. Now I have to patch my installation up with CGIs that are called instead o
        • Something else I forgot to mention on this topic. Does anyone remember when Red Hat launched the Red Hat Database ? I'm not too familiar with the history, but if I remember right, this was a rebadged PostgreSQL.

          Well, does anyone want to guess what DB their RHN tools use ? yep - you guessed it - Oracle. Oh, wait... That's not what you guessed ? :D

          The do claim that Oracle is one of the main reasons that their RHN products are so expensive, and this is something I can believe!

      • Re:Of course? (Score:3, Informative)

        by flinxmeister ( 601654 )
        "How, "of course?""

        It's "of course" because you can't just install the industry supported Red Hat Linux without a purchased license.

        Sure, you can compile it yourself or go with all the other precompiled RH options out there. But for that you don't really have a contract with RH do you? In that sense it's technically "open" but that's not what companies are doing. They are going with the proprietary version that asks for licensing info when you install it.

        RHEL is a proprietary, purchased license

        • RHEL pay-for-use? (Score:3, Informative)

          by overshoot ( 39700 )
          It's "of course" because you can't just install the industry supported Red Hat Linux without a purchased license.

          If you mean that Red Hat won't support you unless you purchase a Red Hat support contract, then I guess my response is, "well, DUH!"

          If you mean that you can't install the bits that Cadence guarantees will work, you're flat wrong. Read the Red Hat LICENSES file. Sure, you can compile it yourself or go with all the other precompiled RH options out there. But for that you don't really have a

      • I think Red Hat is doing a lot for the Open Source community, but I think there are enough of us lazy geeks that just want to download a CD .ISO of open source software and be able to freely distribute it without having to change the name just to appease a license agreement.

        Once again, this impression is caused by lazy people like myself, who simply download Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] ISOs, burn it to CD, give/sell it with all of the logos in tact to whoever I want, then if they want support, the company sponsoring Ubuntu off

      • The many flavors of open source will bring in enormous spectrum of supporters and as the different distributions of Linux spread, the nature of it's supporters will become more and more varied.

        Linux as an operating system provides a core level of interoperability where governments, companies and individuals, from all over the world can work together for their and our mutual self interests, a global project of global worth.

        This will of course bring on a lot of minor bickering as people will want to prese

    • What makes Red Hat and SUSE proprietary Linux?

      Red Hat was the a huge supporter of OSS and one of the last distros to always release a completely free version of their OS, now they only give it away to hobbiests and openly release all their developments before the paying customers get them.

      Novel releases an OSS version of its OS and is also a big supporter of OSS, arguably bigger than SUSE who had taken a turn for the worse towards the end.

      The only problem with Novell could be the use of their directory, but that is not a proprietary version of OSS, it is proprietary software that runs on OSS.

      I think (as you seem to, this is not an attack on you, but on the greens) converting over to SUSE or Red Hat both fall into the category of "[clearing] the path for government agencies to adopt and expand their use of non-proprietary software"

    • proprietary? (Score:5, Informative)

      by burnin1965 ( 535071 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:54AM (#13863833) Homepage
      Sorry but you shouldn't believe everything you read.

      The Red Hat Enterprise distribution includes some trademarks, logos and what not, but it is in no way proprietary. You can download all the source code directly from Red Hat's own ftp servers for free. And you can even create your own linux distribution based off the source, however, you must remove the trademark logos and what not before you distribute as you are not Red Hat.

      If you don't believe then try checking out http://centos.org/ [centos.org]
      Or just peruse the Red Hat website and read their licensing agreements for their products.

      It seems you've bought into FUD spread by both the anti-OSS crowd saying "...Red Hat is no different, its proprietary just like Windows..." and the Red Hat bashing linux elitists "...Red Hat is the next Microsoft, they took our linux and made it proprietary...". Its all BS.

      burnin

      • It seems you've bought into FUD spread by both the anti-OSS crowd saying "...Red Hat is no different, its proprietary just like Windows..." and the Red Hat bashing linux elitists "...Red Hat is the next Microsoft, they took our linux and made it proprietary...". Its all BS.

        Amen! Not only is it BS, it is a gross injustice to all that Red Hat has done for the FOSS community. They have not only done tremendously in evangalizing Linux in the corporate arena, they have also made great code contributions all o

    • People should use Gentoo Linux - truly open and fully configurable even down to the build level.

  • Right-tool-for-the-job advocate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:30AM (#13863661) Homepage
    If the system does what it's supposed to do, with an appropriate cost to taxpayers, what's the problem?

    • Re:Right-tool-for-the-job advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @10:06AM (#13863921)
      If you are talking about an individual or corporation then your inclination would be ok.

      Public systems paid for with public tax dollars do not in any way go by the same litmus tests. Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox [groklaw.net].

      No government documents should ever be in a proprietary format. Also, when it comes to tax dollars, it seems to me that "good enough" makes a tool the right tool for the job when the price is free (OpenOffice.org) versus Microsoft Office. Price MUST be a factor when determining the "right" tool. Also, if proprietary vendor products attempt to lock in an organization and lock out competing products from interoperating, that is unacceptable.

      Right tool for the job? Ok, but let's talk about what DEFINES the right tool. It isn't purely function.

      • Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.

        With regards to this, I did some research some time ago, and found out that NZ government is actually taking these matters rather seriously. See their guidelines [e.govt.nz] for .govt.nz websites, for example. It covers things such as standards compliance, compatibility with alternative browsers, and accessibility in great detail. It's not just talk either - I've thrown some random pages on websites of various government agencies into W3C

  • "Proprietary versions of OSS" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:31AM (#13863662)
    This is apparently the new version of the "Red Hat is becoming Microsoft."

    Novell, in case the Greens didn't notice, has been releasing more and more of the Ximian and SuSE code under the GPL and making their distribution much easier to acquire gratis as well as libre. So what's their complaint? Reading TFA it's hard to tell.

    • There is no complaint. The submitter is an idiot who has misrepresented what TFA is about.
      • "There is no complaint. The submitter is an idiot who has misrepresented what TFA is about."

        Indeed. Six stories up from this one another submitter misrepresented what Wikipedia was doing in their write up as well:

        http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/24/167217 &tid=95&tid=187 [slashdot.org]

        If the trolls are going to be submitting misrepresented stories as a part of their bag of tricks then the editor's here will have to read / check the stories now. That and or use Karma as a factor when choosing stories as it
      • He's listed [nbr.co.nz] as NBR's webmaster. lynx -dump -head says this:

        Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
        X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

        My guess is that Microsoft is everything that he knows and trusts. As if that weren't obvious from that special faux-sly cluelessness of the article itself.

        However, whatever the submitter was smoking is stronger than whatever Francis Till uses. Till actually makes sense, even if he's wrong practically across the board.

  • I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Digital_Quartz ( 75366 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:32AM (#13863672) Homepage
    The news post claims the greens are upset about this deal, then links to an article in which two different spokespeople from the green party praise the deal.

    And what's with the jab at Novell for offering "proprietary versions of OSS". What does that even mean? Is Suse Linux somehow now less open because Novell owns it?

    Am I missing something here?

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saintp ( 595331 ) <stpierre@NOSPam.nebrwesleyan.edu> on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:44AM (#13863762) Homepage
      You're not missing anything, but the submitter is. The TFA argues that the Greens' support of -- not disdain for, as the the summary wrongly claimed -- the new Novell contract is misplaced, mainly because Microsoft is t3h r0x0r!!!eleventy-one

      If you read TFA -- or even part of it -- you'll see that this article posting is really little more than a blatant troll. The TFA mentions Laura DiDio, but it might as well have been written by her or, if not her, then by someone else on Redmond's payroll.

      Better summary: The NZ Greens are pumped about moving to OSS, but some random Microsoft shill at a business rag thinks the move sucks, because Microsoft rocks. Anyone with half a brain can dismantle most of the arguments in TFA. Mod story -1, troll.

      • Truely misrepresented by its headline. Nandor has many times in the past praised OSS and advocated its use in government with well reasoned and thoughtful comment. He and I believe the rest of the NZ Green party are among the most technical savvy politicians we have in this country. They certainly demonstrate this in any interviews I've seen.

        Microsoft shill may even be a compliment for the author of TFA who is listed in the NBR contacts page as their webmaster. Hardly an authority. The fact that a niche bus

        • Nandor has many times in the past praised OSS and advocated its use in government with well reasoned and thoughtful comment. He and I believe the rest of the NZ Green party are among the most technical savvy politicians we have in this country.

          Too bad he's out of government now, eh? (Well, I know a number of people who think that's a very good thing ...)

      • This guy is their own (IIS+ASP.NET) webmaster. Broad range of experience? I think not.

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Informative)

      by djmurdoch ( 306849 )
      I think you are less confused than Hemos and sydney-computer-support. C'mon, the headline for the linked article is "Open source in government: A delusional cheer from the Greens". The Greens *support* the contract. The article writer doesn't.

      It's a pretty badly written article, but that much of it should be clear.

  • New title (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hotspotbloc ( 767418 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:37AM (#13863710) Homepage Journal
    "Tech writer and MS shill goes on rant with pro MS talking points" [nbr.co.nz]

    It's poorly researched and little more than "MS good, FOSS bad". The fact that he uses Laura DiDio to support one of his points (with a minor disclosure about her being viewed as a troll) says all I needed to see. Atleast is marked as a commentary.

  • Misrepresentation of the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:42AM (#13863746) Homepage
    The /. lead-in completely misrepresents the article in question. Had the submitter actually read TFA, he would know that the Greens are actually very excited about the deal. The quotes from Gren spokespersons cover a lot of the standard ground for OSS advocacy. However, the article in question was written for the National Business review, and is primarily a "debunking" of OSS, and of the Greens' enthusiasm for open solutions.

  • It doesn't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:42AM (#13863748)
    ...as long as they employ open standards which would guard against vendor lock-in. If M$ were involved in any way, I'd be very worried, but Novell, no problem. If Novell tried any monkey tricks, that will automatically generate bad publicity. I am sure Novell does not like this.
    • I think I just realised that "vendor lock-in" is not the thing to fear - that's just a symptom of something more ominous. For instance, what do you really mean by "vendor lock-in"? I think the issue here is "we want to be sure we can always access the information without having to [pay tribute] to a specific individual/organisation". If the latter is indeed the case, then the idea will never be realised. Granted, having "closed source" tools make it difficult to keep information readily available. However -
      • Printed material will often take a few days to arrive, whereas a digital copy could be accessed instantly..
        As for converting to other formats, this becomes easier by the government using open formats, if they use closed formats then they can only convert to other formats supported by a single app vendor whereas open formats will rapidly have lots of conversion tools available to many formats.

      • I disagree with you for two reasons. First, If one person can instantly access the information and the other needs to wait days for a hard copy, then that second person is at an unnecessary disadvantage. This means companies doing business with the government by say, getting bid information, will be at a disadvantage if they don't pay money to particular corporation, this is unfair.

        Second, file formats and protocols are not only about obtaining information, but also submitting information. It is a two-way

      • The concern with government vendor lock-in is that a commercial company controls government access to government data. What happens to all that data if the commerical company manages to revoke the licesnse? This is especially troublesome with patents, as you can't "code around" a patent. Your post refers to convienences, whereas the real fear is more of a leveraged timebomb.

        For instance, what happens the next time the BSA gives a city government 30 days to provide proof of license, and the city's IT i
    • If Novell tried any monkey tricks

      That's the best pun I've seen all week.

  • Are we sure Hemos that SUSe soruce is nto aviable to cusotmozie and use for free from Novell or are just guessing?? Try guessig a little harder next time
  • eh? Proprietary OSS?
  • What stake do the "non-violent direct violence" Greens have in open source? I mean, they might be a significant part of whoever actually is supporting open source, but are they actually spearheading it themselves? Why? What does this have to do with dismantling capitalism with environmental rhetoric?
    • Probably because they think they're spearheading capitalism?
      That's too bad though, when non-political ideas become political. Good ideas are good regardless of the source.

      Disclaimer: I'm a biotechologist, a supporter of OSS but a Green hater.
    • It keeps from trying to ban DHMO [junkscience.com].
    • Ummm, this is the Green Party [greens.co.nz] of Aotearoa NZ... are you confused with some US organisation called the greens?



      The Greens are a political party with policies on all areas of governance in NZ. They were in the last New Zealand government coalition (although they missed out this time, they still have members in parliment).



      They are a left wing, environmentally focused (but not single issue) party.

      • Yeah, LIKE I SAID: What stake do the "non-violent direct violence" Greens have in open source? I mean, they might be a significant part of whoever actually is supporting open source, but are they actually spearheading it themselves? Why? What does this have to do with dismantling capitalism ...?

        And to another person: if they're really worried about locking the government into only buying from overpriced suppliers, they must also want the government not to buy union labor... right?

        So again, when did open sou
        • Do you want to explain (with some cites) your "non-violent direct violence" quote, and why you think they are attempting to go about "dismantling capitalism", rather than just opposing free market capitalism [greens.co.nz] (the only mention of the word capitalism on their site).

          I'm not saying your necessarily wrong, but it would be useful for you to give some more background about what you are talking about here.

          • I have no dirt on this specific group of Greens. However, it is common, esp. on the left, to talk about "non-violent direct action" when in fact their actions are either violent, or worse than violence. Take this example of Greenpeace's "non-violent direct action":

            http://forum.freestateproject.org//index.php?topic =9341.0 [freestateproject.org]

            Basically, they invaded a stock exchange and installed deafening noisemaking machines of some kind, which can cause serious hearing loss. I consider that to be violent. (Btw, I'm not im

            • You seem to be lumping two separate organisations in different countries and with different agenda that have "Green" in the title together as though they were somehow connected. I trust this is an error of judgment rather than a rhetorical ploy. Now, the NZ Green Party does refer to Greenpeace (or at least the NZ branch of Greenpeace) relatively infrequently -- still that's more than I would prefer. But in truth there doesn't seem to me to be any more unity between different organisations called "Green what

              • Again, I'm point out the common rhetoric of both groups. Greens and Greenpeace promote "non-violent direct action". As shown by Greenpeace, terms like that turn out to mean very little. I was ridiculing the frequent misuse of the term, irrespective of whether the NZ Greens themselves misuse it.

                Further, you're just making the confusion again in the other thread: capitalism can mean the political ideology supporting private property and free markets(1), or it can mean pursuing wealth(2). Banks are capital

                • In reply to your paragraph 1: it's frequent? Perhaps it is; I believe you, of course. It's not as if any one political faction has a monopoly on hawks.

                  Paragraph 2: my point was that you were making exactly the same kind of confusion between left-wing factions. NZ Greens are no more responsible for the actions of bolsheviks in London than the NZ ACT Party is for the actions of Enron/Andersen executives; they're unrelated. (At least, I hope they are, in both cases!)

                  Paragraph 3: this is true. I was thinking

            • it is common, esp. on the left, to talk about "non-violent direct action" when in fact their actions are either violent, or worse than violence. Take this example of Greenpeace's "non-violent direct action"

              Ok - sure there are groups that use protest and more active means to try and achieve their goals. However, The NZ greens are a political party and so are obviously using a different technique to achieve political change - i.e. participating in democracy.

              It really does sound like you're ranting here -

    • To try and answer your question, while ignoring your trollish suggestion that the NZ Greens support violence...

      a quick search of the Greens website reveals that they support OSS because...

      "Open Source software embodies the Green principles of independence and of finding new ways to get around old problems."

      "It is cheaper, safer, more democratic and is not beholden to corporate software monopolies."

      "is in our best interests to move towards OS software, for financial, ethical and practical reasons

      • perhaps we should turn it around, perhaps you can argue why the Greens should not be allowed to have a position on OSS. Do you often go around telling people that they should not be allowed to have a opinion on OSS?

        WTF? Where did you get that? I was asking why the Greens are so interested in this, not that they be prevented from voicing an opinion on this!

        Any any case, the first quote is pure fluff (anything can embody independence and finding new ways...), the third provides no reason, and the second, li

  • Mute point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by canuck57 ( 662392 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:52AM (#13863816)

    What really maters is that the file formats be 100% open, 100% available to Microsoft and NON-Microsoft products alike. And without the usual closed source tricks of useless proprietary extentions, traps for proprietary lock-in and the usual antics employed my MS Office in the past.

    If it is created with OSS or OSS made proprietary or even Microsoft does it mater? If created with Suse open office, it can be viewed by all - even Microsoft users. This is the point.

    Proprietary file formats are bad for all.

    • MOOT Point, not MUTE (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a moot point. Moot. Moot moot moot.

      I'm not usually this much of a jerk, really. I have a cold, you see.

  • GPL Bug? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @09:55AM (#13863850) Homepage Journal
    How do corporations offer "proprietary versions of Open Source", more specifically closed-source versions of GPL'ed programs? Doesn't the GPL prevent a recipient of Open Source from "taking it proprietary"? Not just the sleazy technique of hiding the source so completely that its origin in GPL'ed source isn't apparent, but well-known examples. How do they get to do so?
  • Did I miss something here? Is Novell's contract under attack because they didn't specify Slackware? Gentoo? Minix? Are we too far gone to realise that there are no feasible alternatives to ZenWorks and that eDirectory is rock solid and reliable?

    It's good news for Novell that they won this contract. Jeebus knows that they need the money.
  • This whole mess just fortifies in my mind the clear lack of understanding of FOSS and licensing. I think its time some new terminology gets added/altered/adopted to allow for a more clear description, and thereby understanding, of all the options available.

  • Greens (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 )
    This does not surprise me. In my city there were plans for a power plant which would use household waste as a fuel. First there would be a multi-stage segregation process to divert glass, metal and some plastics for melting down; secondly a gasification stage converting organic matter to methane, and finally a turbo-charged, intercooled, internal combustion engine spinning an alternator at constant RPM.

    The local Friends of the Earth miscategorised this as an incinerator, claiming that it would produce d

    • Re:Greens (Score:3, Informative)

      by djmurdoch ( 306849 )
      This doesn't surprise me. Any time someone is criticized on Slashdot, even when the criticism is entirely baseless (the article summary is precisely the opposite of the truth about what is in the article), someone will chime in with "I've always said those folks were idiots/crooks/whatever".

      So, now you've been told that the article summary is wrong, and the position of the Greens is the opposite of what it says, please say, "Hey, the Greens got it right for once!"
      • ...which is also correct... twice a day.

        Seriously, although most Greens act like they've ODed on herbs at some stage of their life, that doesn't stop some of them from being very bright dazed naifs. And sometimes they get stuff right for the wrong reasons, too. (-:

        Now I want to know what everyone else's excuse is. Self-interest and ordinary stupidity, while attractive for their simplicity and abundance, can't explain it all.

    • There's no point even trying to reason with Greens, because they fundamentally don't get science.

      Well, there's probably not much point responding to a blanket statement like that, but here I go anyway...

      Just prior to the recent national election in New Zealand, a non-politically-aligned energy engineer was asked to rank the energy policies of the various parties. His findings make a pretty interesting read [publicaddress.net].

      Basically he found, to his surprise, that the more left-wing the party, the more sensible, well-rese

  • It seems that the Greens could, in this case, be shooting themselves in the foot proverbially. Microsoft bashing aside, but the a portion of revenue generated by software sales which winds up in Bill Gates' pocket ultimately winds up at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Foundation is known for its support of (generally) socially liberal causes. Although I haven't digested what they are pouring money in of late besides HIV prevention programs, they could well be a source of funding for environm

  • Open Souse? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tgeller ( 10260 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @12:15PM (#13864988) Homepage
    Open souse = free beer!

  • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by sjvn ( 11568 ) <sjvn@NOSPAm.vna1.com> on Monday October 24, 2005 @01:47PM (#13865688) Homepage
    Did anyone read this? It's just a badly done rant against the Green party and open source.

    It's got nothing to do with the Greens being ticked off at Novell. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone could get that out of the article.

    The article is really just a snarling howl against open-source, with some mindless praise for Microsoft and its software.

    Steven
    • Yup, read it. Definitely one from the "Green Bashing" camp, and tinged with frothed spittle. Totally misses the point of Open Source and Open Standards. But most of the NZ press is like that - you get used to it.

      I'm an NZ resident, and there's a funny thing going on. In the corporate backrooms, Linux is the preferred environment. But the Microsoft vendor lock-in is very powerful, and execs just don't get the concept of Open Standards. Their laptop came with Microsoft Office, so that's what everything else i
      • "But most of the NZ press is like that - you get used to it."

        Agreed, the newspapers are very pro-M$ (especially a buisness rag like NBR who are somewhere to the right of Gengis Khan), NZ PC World has long since dropped their regular Linux column, and the imported Aussie mags are either vociferously anti-Linux or just pretend it doesn't exist (except when they need to fill up their cover DVD's, in which case they'll slap on some hard-to-use distro). And M$ had nothing to do with it I'm sure...

        "In the corpo

      • In the corporate backrooms, Linux is the preferred environment.

        Shame it isn't in the universities.

  • The closed nature of the Microsoft Office ecosystem is exaggerated.

    Microsoft Office 12 -- the coming version -- will use an "open" XML code system, catchingly called the Microsoft Office Open XML Format, as a key component of its code engine.

    Sorry, I just had to laugh here. At the same time they plaud the "openness" of the XML file format, they link to an article that states:

    The company has previously declined suggestions that it should open up its file formats to an industry standards body

    Be

  • Backstabbing within Free Software Community is Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hansreiser ( 6963 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @04:23PM (#13866818) Homepage
    We need to wait until MS is defeated before we start publicly fighting among ourselves. When the audience is persons considering free vs. MS software, we need to convey that all the distros are good guys, and save the XYZ distro is evil stuff for those who are converted already. Besides, it is true, every one of the Gnu/Linux distros is staffed by far nicer human beings than MS has, even the ones that steal the credits from those who write the stuff.

    See the shades of grey please people.
    • By treating Microsoft as just another enemy, we reduce them in stature to our size. That's just gotta be humiliating for a corporation that has tens of billions of dollars in cash reserves just sitting around gathering interest.
  • The submitted story doesn't make sense. I can't find any mention of the Greens being upset about the govt Novell contract in that article. In fact the original Green Party press release praises the govt decision. Govt software deal great news for Open Source cause in NZ http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9324.html [greens.org.nz] I think a more accurate story would have been... New Zealand weekly magazine 'National Business Review' has attacked the NZ Greens for supporting open source. In a long article they reproduc
  • It doesn't supprise me really. The Green party has a nasty habbit of blowing things out of proportion. I can still remember the time a National MP played a prank of them by informing them of a dangerous chemical commonaly found and sold in NZ that was responsible for about 100 deaths each year... Well next thing you know some of them were vocally calling for the ban of this dangerous Oxygen-Dihidride.
  • For reference, the address to send feedback to Francis Till, the author of the NBR article, is ftill@nbr.co.nz.
  • Hey Axe: grind much?

    This article is heavily slanted and appears to set out to expound an anti-Green or at least fanboyishly pro-proprietary software (no surprise?) agenda.

    "failing to note that Novell is a company offering proprietary versions of OSS."

    Man, he's right. Because Novell does happen to offer "proprietary" versions of Linux, that means we should choose an even more proprietary OS vendor. While we're at it let's cut off our nose to spite our face.

    "Microsoft Office 12 -- the coming version -- will

Slashdot Top Deals

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.

Close