[LinuxBusinessHawaii] Re: [luau] OpenSourceAdvocates

[Jimen Ching]

On 13 Oct 2002, Eric Hattemer wrote:
>However, it is also true that even without having the source handy, an
>organization with enough resources can do stack traces and network
>monitoring to make sure no spyware or anything exists in a product.

Would this be the best way to approach security?  It seems to me that free
software would be the better way.

>1.  If every worker had to adopt open source software, the retraining
>costs would be horrendous.  I work essentially taking calls from people
>with computer problems, and I can tell you that the average user out
>there does not learn new computer concepts easily.
>2.  If the current sysadmins of government servers are not qualified for
>unix servers, there would need to be massive restructuring and rehiring
>in every IT department.

I have no doubt this is true.  The question is, should legislation be
based on the intelligence of the governement workers or the lack thereof?

>What exactly do you believe the government cares about?

Openness and accessibility: government documents in formats anyone can
access.  Note, I use the term 'government documents' loosely.  It could
mean anything that is available to the public.

Security and privacy: prevent the exploitation of private citizens due to
untrustworthy software.

Accountability: ability to determine fault.  I.e. if something goes wrong,
the government should be in a position to take responsibility and, more
importantly, to take action.

Note, these are the things that the government SHOULD care about.  Whether
they actually do is another debate.

>I don't see why the govt. wouldn't want to run the best software possible
>at the lowest cost (as long as their cousin can still get a job in their
>department).

Should this be the most important issue?  It seems this is the only issue
brought up so far.

>And I'm confused as to the last sentence, as though this discussion has
>taken up so much of our time is troubling to you.

It troubles me that we spend so much time on issues that are not the goals
of the legislations of those other governments.  We should be spending
time discussing other ways we can improve the government and the
legislation that advocates freedom.  We should be discussing how we could
also be doing the same thing locally.  It seems to me that the more vocal
members of the LUAU organization are condemning the effort before it has a
chance to get off the ground.

>Really, if this is wasting your time, you can ignore it and stop reading.

Let me consider it...

>I was figuring that by considering all viewpoints and expertise of the
>list members, that we might all learn something and gain a firm and
>educated view on how legislation and policy should go.  I would hope the
>issue is as carefully considered by the government and does in fact take
>up some of their time.

Yes.  But Warren and Scott is saying these legislations are a waste of
time and is in some way, harming the open source effort.  I hope the other
members of this list reading that will not agree because Warren and Scott
were the only ones speaking up on this issue.  This is why I felt I had to
respond.  I was disappointed that the Linux/Open Source/Free Software
advocates of Hawaii are not assisting in such efforts, but instead, are
moving in the opposite direction.

I tried to pursuad them by challenging them to look deeper and consider
bigger issues.  But that only caused them to re-iterate their original
opinions.  It is rather frustrating.  Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps I
should ignore this issue and stop reading.  It seems like every time
something important comes up, and things get a little (or a lot) heated,
the consensus is to ignore it.  Somehow, I don't find this surprising,
considering the state of our government.  Though this is not the way I do
things, I am never the one to go against consensus.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org