On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 00:38, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> > replying to my own post...nobody else is.
> 
> I was going to respond, but got side tracked.  My biggest criticism is
> that you site over and over "open source" instead of "free software". 
> While you all can view me as a nazi on this subject.  
> 
> A good deal of what you are trying to "sell" them has crap to do with
> access to the source code and much more to do with the freedoms
> associated with licensing.
> 
> Someone in a response to this thread, mentioned "much of this open
> source software can run on windows (apache, php, open office, etc)".  I
> will go one step further and say for governments and non-profits, very
> soon you could see Microsoft offerring the source code.  So when you go
> in cavalier like touting "open source" good, microsoft bad.  It might
> come back to haunt you when they say microsoft is "open source" now too.
> 
> > I am totally serious about taking this non-profit completely to open
> > source - they now have 1 windows computer and about 30 Macintosh
> > computers and I don't see how they can continue on Mac's and I can't see
> > starting in with Microsoft Windows at this point.
> 
> MacOS X is running pretty strong, I would suspect they could quite
> easily continue on Mac's if they so desired.  Taking that road MacOS X
> and most of its applications are fairly "open source" as well. ;)
> 
> > Hardware is unbelievably cheap right now. I am looking at a Compaq ML
> > 530 P2 for $3250. This has 2-Xeon 2.4G processors, 1 Gb ECC RAM, 16 hot
> > swap bays and embedded U3 SCSI in a 7U rack form factor. I think it has
> > an IDE CD (big deal) and no hard drives. Wow that is a lot of iron for
> > little money.
> 
> I'm not sure what cheap high end hardware has to do with "open source"
> or even "free software".  I could see if you were making a point that
> lower end recycled hardware was in place.  Stuff that couldnt run
> windows, but maybe could be terminal server material.
> 
> Maybe that was the allusion.  That you could get a cheap large machine
> and use existing client machines.  Which would be cheaper than buying
> all new client machines?
> 
> > I plan on getting some help with custom programming (now all their data
> > resides in Filemaker Pro), and I will be inviting people on this message
> > boards to do some of the programming to replace this.
> 
> I wouldnt under estimate the cost (financial and otherwise) of replacing
> applications.  Remember most users dont care if they are using an etch a
> sketch or a super computer.  As long as they can do their job without a
> hassle.  Getting a 5 year old boy to bathe and change his underwear is a
> chore, so is getting users to change their applications. :)
> 
> > There are a lot of people giving lip service to getting government and
> > businesses on open source stuff, but I have an opportunity to make it
> > happen soon.
> 
> That's great.  We need more success stories.
> 
> > If my proposal sucks, feel free to say so, I'm not looking for
> > compliments...I want to make a rock solid proposal and plan on offering
> > it for any one else to incoporate for their use. I'm looking for people
> > to critique my proposal, make it stronger as I'm getting very little
> > help from the director & assistant director since they are not all that
> > computer savvy. They are not Microsoft enthusiasts. The board president
> > is a Microsoft enthusiast and I want to make sure that the proposal that
> > I put in front of his is as good as it can possibly be.
> 
> The biggest bad move you can make is to turn it into a "Microsoft vs
> Open Source" debate.  Especially if an Microsoft enthusiast is
> involved.  Certainly point out ills that M$ makes, just don't
> particularly attribute them to M$. :)
> 
> Make it a value proposition.  Focusing on "free software" vs
> "proprietary" software.  
> 
> > The proposal (link listed above) was the general concept. Part 2 was the
> > initial hardware purchases to create the network infrastructure, and the
> > first 4 general targets (testing open source accounting software,
> 
> There is no decent "open source" accounting software packages to date. 
> There are some good starts, but I assume being non-profit they probably
> will do fund accounting in which case I must say "good luck".
> 
> > defining the server application layer & client interface for the SQL db
> > to replace Filemaker, data conversion for all their existing data
> > currently in proprietary format and LTSP testing and if desired,
> > implementation).
> 
> Again, I must urge this is no small task.  Certainly it may not be
> insurmountable, but the worst thing you can do is shrug it off like
> Linux (sic) and open source (sic) are the solution to all the worlds
> problems and then have endless delays in moving to it, because of data
> or application issues.
> 
> > Anyway...I put the first message and my proposal online for PLUG 48
> > hours ago and not a single comment has been uttered...
> 
> Remember it was posted going into a weekend.  Traffic in general has
> been slow, I wouldnt take it as people ignoring it.
> 
> btw: the above might seem brutal, it's late, my personality is horridly
> blunt.  however, i think the original draft overall is a good start.  I
> think its great to see the community building documents like this and
> more importantly sharing them.  i hope more than anything you can turn
> this into a success story.  best of luck
------
not at all brutal and exactly the type of critique that I need. I do
need to clarify the terminology and while it may seem like hair
splitting, I fully appreciate the distinction that you are making in
terms of free software and open source and I will definitely get back
into the appropriate places in my proposal and provide further
clarification on these terms.

Are you suggesting that I didn't make it clear the long term value
benefits to a non-profit is the open source (free software) vs
proprietary software? If I failed to make the argument then I haven't
done a very good job at all.

Microsoft could release the source code but ultimately, that wouldn't
make a difference. You may recall that they have had to issue a number
of updates to IE and have now abandoned IE 5.0 and only support 5.5 &
6.0...both of which required you to assent to their revised EULA. It had
the effect of extortion...you will not obtain security updates to your
product unless/until you agree to our new licensing.

I regret making the comments about the low cost hardware and this being
a good time to make the changeover because that took your attention away
from my proposal. I would like to offer that I have verbally made an
effective point with the director, that I didn't try to condense into
the proposal (and perhaps I should)...that the open source offerings
(which I should probably refer to as free software) are a little short
of that which is available for proprietary systems but the objectives
for the non-profit agency is not to have the latest/greatest computer
system, but rather to have a cost-effective system for the long-term and
less vulnerable to the changing tides of intellectual property whims of
corporate driven margins. The overall picture was made clear when we had
a Microsoft VAR suggesting that we could go on our hands and knees
begging Microsoft for special dispensation as a non-profit for
free/cheap licenses, and likewise to Citrix and others. It made it
appear that the Windows route meant a commitment to begging. I gave them
an analogy of a rock pile, which we will continue to break into smaller
and smaller rocks and eventually, it will be sand.

Thanks Derek, that was exactly the kind of critique that I needed. I
will amplify the concept of license suitable free software in addition
to open source.

Craig