Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:28:02 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Niall Douglas wrote:
Surely you must then see that this leads inevitably to Microsoft-
style production of whatever the least standard customers will put up
with?
You are trying to engage me in an entirely different conversation that
has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Software is first and foremost an engineering solution. It cannot be
anything else.
What I am saying is that I believe this is false. It may just be
something we have to agree to disagree on.
People need to need to realize that software is a codification of many
different things. Sometimes it is an engineering solution, sometimes it
is entertainment, and sometimes it is public policy. Just as those of us
who work with software as a codification of public policy must realize
that the entertainment industry exists and different social, economic and
governance issues exist for this type of software, so must engineers
recognize that other types of software exist as well.
If you try to focus on engineering proficiency when you are coding
public policy, you will end up creating considerable and potentially
dangerous governance problems. There are many books written about this
outside of the software world. One Canadian named John Ralston Saul
writes about a managerial class taking over governance, and his warning
applies equally to engineers taking over governance software.
Just as "efficiency" is not a goal unto itself in public policy, neither
is a perfectly engineered solution. You first need to decide what
governance outcomes you wish to create as a matter of public policy, and
only as a minor implementation detail do you worry about whether it is
efficient.
I happen to believe that most government IT projects fail because of not
recognizing the full social, economic and governance implications of
software "code is law" and hand projects entirely over to software
engineers.
The single biggest way of saving on costs is to reuse as much quality
software as possible something not enabled by the GPL for the vast
majority of software production.
You believe that the vast majority of software development is
incompatible with the GPL. I have yet to see any study that proves this.
Where are your references? (Note: Quoting a Microsoft or CompTIA study
doesn't qualify as a reference ;-)
I will easily grant you the truth that "software manufacturing" business
models based on collecting royalties are incompatible with the GPL. This
is like saying that business models based on the making of candles are
incompatible with the electric light bulb. You seem to be suggesting that
the problem is the GPL rather than recognizing that the real problem are
legacy royalty-based "software manufacturing" business models.
This has nothing to do with engineering or quality software any more
than FLOSS vs Software Manufacturing is a choice of technology. To see
how this debate is shaping up internationally, see some of the articles on
the WSIS.
Here is a letter that I sent to a few Canadian MP's
http://www.canopener.ca/pipermail/discuss/2003-December/001279.html
To quote the OPEN magazine article I did in that letter:
The choice between free software, Open Source, and proprietary
software is not a technological choice. It is a social choice, and a
choice of business arrangement. It is a social choice, like deciding
you want your citizens to be able to send email, not just receive it.
It is also a business arrangement, like deciding that you want to buy
a car rather than rent one. It is a matter of sovereignty also: If the
government uses non-free software, it hands control of the
government's computing to a private party, usually foreign.
"Technological neutrality is a good principle, but it does not imply
neutrality on social issues, business arrangements, or sovereignty."
I have authored or referenced a number of articles about FLOSS at WSIS
on my weblog. Use the following search to see a list of them:
http://weblog.flora.org/search.php3?query=WSIS
As I've said before, this more than anything else makes the GPL
fundamentally broken and choosing it an act as bad as closing the
source. The GPL is bad for software.
Since I don't understand what you are trying to say here, I can't even
begin to discuss it. Sorry.
Cheers,
Niall
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than
politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/