No nonsense
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| djohnston Jun 17, 2010 1:01 AM EDT |
Nellie is very astute. I like her no nonsense approach to standards.Quoting:We don’t want uniform rules everywhere: we want smart rules that are adapted to their respective fields. Standard-setting for software interoperability is not the same as setting a new standard for, say, digital television or mobile telephony. We should have the right rules in the right contexts.And Quoting:I had to fight hard and for several years until Microsoft began to license missing interoperability information. Complex anti-trust investigations followed by court proceedings are perhaps not the only way to increase interoperability. The Commission should not need to run an epic antitrust case every time software lacks interoperability. Wouldn't it be nice to solve all such problems in one go? |
| hkwint Jun 17, 2010 9:14 AM EDT |
Only few politicians understand how closed standards limit society and harm competition, but Neelie Kroes is one of them. By now, she also understands how industry tries to delay any changes the EC proposes by years. Viviane Reding - who preceded Neelie Kroes, has also showed the DC for Digital Agenda really has teeth and is able to change the rules: She stopped the unfair roaming rates imposed by telco's, by her unilateral decision for maximum tariffs on text messages between countries. So, things could really change. Nonetheless, FOSS campaigners still didn't manage to transition the EC itself from Microsoft-software to open source. There have been 'biased' reports FOSS would be more expensive to the EU-bureaucracy. That's a bit sad, one hand of the EU is thwarting the other it seems. FOSS also benefits because the EC got rid of McCreevy. McCreevy seemed to have suffered from a conflict of interest: When he was minister of finances in Ireland, Microsoft was a big sponsor, and McCreevy tried to enforce laws in favour of Microsoft. He was only stopped in an almost heroic one-of-its-kind effort by both the FOSS-community and the EP. But he's gone now, which is good news (not for the vested software industry though). |
| djohnston Jun 17, 2010 4:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:That's a bit sad, one hand of the EU is thwarting the other it seems.I don't think the EU has a monopoly on that. SELinux was issued by the NSA, yet most U.S. government agencies still cling to Microsoft. |
| hkwint Jun 17, 2010 8:12 PM EDT |
Once, there was a very interesting DoD magazine about how they were leveraging open source. Probably somewhere around in some of my old indexed / zipped far away bookmarks. It's also very much the same here at the local Dutch authority: The deputy-minister of Finance was all for open source, even visiting (mostly business-)open source meetings. but some "conservative" group of civil servants at the same department, probably those afraid to work with something different, successfully tried to 'halt' a migration. The Dutch parliament was against software patents and asked their minister to speak out against them, but the minister said he 'misunderstood', didn't speak out, and coincidentally the 'cassette tape record' of the meeting was broken, so the transcription was lost and software patents made it through that round. Even more, Toine Manders of the EP - in the same political party as Neelie Kroes - seemed to be pro-software-patents as well, though his party receives many votes from SME's (those were against it) who he should represent over in Brussels. So it might be interesting, after all of this, to ask the department Ms. Kroes is working for, how they think about software patents. After all, they changed the name of the department to 'Digital Agenda', and I certainly think software patents is an issue belonging over there. Recently, in Germany, software patents have been approved in their highest court (in Karlsruhe, if I understand correctly), while at the same time, France has national laws voiding those patents. I think that should be the most important point on the digital agenda right now, but I'm glad they're working on open standards as well. After all, the 'standards you can download and use for free, almost without restrictions" Ms. Kroes hopes to foster, imply "no use of patented methods" I suggest. |
| henke54 Jun 18, 2010 2:14 PM EDT |
>Only few politicians understand how closed standards limit society and harm competition, but Neelie Kroes is one of them. By now, she also understands how industry tries to delay any changes the EC proposes by years. @hkwint : UNIT4 is a Dutch company..... : Quoting:1,250+ Schools, 40,000 Teachers and School-Based Administrative Users to Tap Agresso Business World for Queensland Government’s Department of Education and Training, OneSchool Initiativehttp://www.unit4.com/About/News/art?AID=3629 ......, and it ´does not know´ the word ¨LINUX¨ when i searched their website .... |
| hkwint Jun 18, 2010 4:09 PM EDT |
Yes, the Dutch IT companies are probably the worst nightmare some FOSS-advocate might have. Centric, Getronics/PinkRochade, Unit4/Agresso, all of them are Microsoft-only shops. Recently the Dutch government asked them if they could deliver 'more open source', and the Microsoft-only shops told they couldn't. They have to few people competent with FOSS. But because the Dutch government only deals with 'trustworthy large Dutch companies', and those companies can't deliver FOSS, the Dutch government says 'switching is difficult'. Just because the market can't supply what their customers are demanding. Chicken and egg, it's time the Dutch government starts dealing with little companies. Otherwise, the little companies will never be big enough to deal with the government, and the large companies will never start dealing with FOSS because of their 'government protected' position. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2010 4:24 PM EDT |
> Recently the Dutch government asked them if they could deliver 'more open source', and the Microsoft-only shops told they couldn't. They have to few people competent with FOSS. Then the Dutch government needs to tell them "Fix that problem and you get a contract. Don't fix it and you don't." Dangle a several million dollar contract in front of them and see how fast they develop that competency. Oh, and I used to work for Getronics' US division, before it was sold off to someone else, so I know first hand how Microsoft centric Getronics is. |
| hkwint Jun 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT |
Problem is the "Comply or explain" policy. If they can explain no big vendor can supply FOSS, they don't have to comply to the "wish to use FOSS were possible". |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 19, 2010 5:53 PM EDT |
I don't believe that's a valid "explain". You'd have to read the exact policy text though. But I think that only technical reasons can constitute a valid "explain". |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!