Subject: Re: NYT Times on Mainstream
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:37:59 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Brian Bartholomew wrote:
> > CODE NAME: MAINSTREAM
> > The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, a
> > group of university researchers and corporate executives, will
> > issue a report advising President Clinton to support open-source
> > software as a way to meet the increasing demand for better
> > software.  The support of the federal government would be a
> > significant victory for proponents of open-source, who recently
> > have seen their ideology move from the fringe to the mainstream
> > of the computer-programming world.
> 
> The US federal government has collectivized and centrally planned
> every other sector of the economy, why shouldn't they believe they own
> software?  Does anyone else see this as a screaming horror?

How do you get the words "collectivized", "centrally planned" and
"own" from the above quote?  Or is this a knee-jerk libertarian response
to the concept of government-supported anything?

If the government is going to be spending any money on IT, it is far
better off doing so on open source solutions, so long as they answer the
gov'ts needs.  The top story in yesterday's SF Examiner was about how the
SF school system has spent $4M on a PeopleSoft implementation for managing
district-wide operations, and now (5 years in) the project is in shambles,
with another $400K-$800K necessary to even determine if the project is
salvageable or not (e.g., they throw it all away and restart).  I will
*not* state something silly, like such a thing would not have happened
with open source software; however, I do believe that if they had built
this system on top of open source software, thier options at this point
would probably have been much rosier.

	Brian