Re: [school-discuss] [Fwd: (LOSS, Mr Doug) Britannica Technical Support [No Ticket]]

[Cameron Miller <cdmiller@adams.edu>]

Matt Jezorek wrote:
>>If there is a non-proprietary project of encyclopedia software created 
>>via the port, ala mozilla and openoffice.org, then it could be a good 
>>thing.  But if they simply want to stick with only a proprietary 
>>product, they will get no help from me, and probably no help from many 
>>other folks.
>>
>>
> If proprietary is the only way to get some software ported to Linux is 
> this not the best way to go? If certian closed source software 
> applications where avaliable on Linux would that not make Linux a better 
> option. I thought the purpose of getting Linux into Schools was to better 
> education by helping cut costs and stability issues among other issues. I 
> dont think that getting Linux in Schools should depend on making sure 
> everything used is Open Source or Free. While it would be nice if it was 
> currently I think the objective should be get Linux and other alternatives 
> into the school before we try to take over the systems.
> 
> Sometimes the Open Source Mentality is the same as the Microsoft Closed 
> Source:
> 
> Open Source: IF it is not OSS then it is worthless and I wont use it.
> Close Source: IF it is OSS then it is worthless and a major breach in 
> Security and does not follow standards.
> 
> Those to me seem the same. I think we should all concern ourselves with 
> getting the software we can into the schools and not worry about total 
> domination.

There are plenty of proprietary apps for linux, and there will be plenty 
in the future as well.  If EB is looking for free developer help to do a 
proprietary port, I'm simply not gonna help them.  I might buy it, just 
like BRU, Win4lin, or some fancy games that are out there, but I'm not 
gonna invest my time to develop or test it without pay, (payment can 
take many forms).

The OSS mentality simply says OSS is better, not Closed is worthless. 
Looking at OSS, there are BSD style terms, and even LGPL for example. 
These are designed to include proprietary software.

It is the Closed Source mentality that tries to dictate that Free and 
sometimes even OSS is all worthless.

I'm all for getting Free and OSS into schools, and certainly not against 
the use of proprietary software.  Sometimes the proprietary product is 
the best or only game in town.  However, I'm gonna treat them like any 
other vendor who wants to make maximum profit at my expense, they will 
get no free lunch from me.  The moment a better or just good enough 
product comes along, be it proprietary, OSS, or Free, I will be closely 
evaluating that alternative.  And the OSS or Free product will have some 
heavy weighting in it's favor.

- cameron

-- 
- cameron miller
- UNIX Systems Administrator
- cdmiller@adams.edu