Fight Over FLOSS For Document Management

"If public administrations would work together and coordinate their ICT solutions, much money could be saved."
see Swiss Canton's use of open source document management system renews dispute.

Chuckle. Of course the vendors of non-free software charge unfair competition when governments participate in sharing the load of producing software. That cuts them out of the picture unless they also work for a living… Get a clue. The world does not owe you a living simply because you know and love non-free software. The world can and does produce its own software cooperatively at a fraction of the cost.

I recommend everyone check out truly Free Software by installing and using Debian GNU/Linux. It’s a cooperative project of the world and it allows you to install software without a purchase-order or contract and you can update all your software, applications and OS, with a single command. Of course vendors of non-free software want you to do it their way with each application and the OS needing a separate means of updating and requiring a separate purchase-order and contract with onerous terms for each package. That inefficient system allows them to make tons of money without doing any work at all…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Fight Over FLOSS For Document Management

  1. ram says:

    True. Australian government procurement is based almost entirely on bribes and kickbacks.

  2. oiaohm says:

    bw Australian government medical system runs the most closed source software of any country. Even that it state run.

    Australia Government software acquirement process favours closed source.

  3. ram says:

    oiaohm is right about the Australian health system. I know I’d be dead if I “lived” in the USA. The state run health system, while it has its minor faults, works really well.

    They could stand to have more FLOSS in there, but it will spread eventually into the whole system from the medical research communities are also big FLOSS users and developers.

  4. bw says:

    “FOSS and governments controlling everything are two different things”

    Not in the instance noted. Here the “open” system is run by the courts in competition with a private system. Personally I don’t have any sympathy for the private firm here and I generally think that governments should totally run anything that affects quality of life results. That way we can vote for how much we want and what limits are to be put on services. That is called socialist medicine or worse in the US, however, and generally gets voted down.

    All I am doing is noting that the issue is a general policy matter and not a point issue regarding software. As such, it is not going to be settled with a technical argument.

  5. oiaohm says:

    –Or it could be a private enterprise free for all where many private firms or providers compete for business and partner with one another to optimize local situations, optimum being a situation where profits are to be made.–
    Or the golden skeleton model.

    This is a problem free for all model leads to people doing what is called acceptable risk calculations to lower costs at the cost of life from those who cannot complain or the most in need of medical services miss out.

    In Australia doctor writes one drug on script chemist can offer generic with same active chemical. This ensure drug companies cannot partner with Doctors to reduce competition.

    Some partnerships should not be allowed because allowing them stuffs up the complete system.

    Trial data proving or disproving drugs effectiveness this being secret really does not help anyone.

    Just to stuff you up a bit the bw the some of the biggest and oldest open source deployments medical record keeping software is the USA. So exactly why don’t they have policies like you describe.

    Reality FOSS and governments controlling everything are two different things. Foss has been deployed in a lot of places for a very long time bw.

  6. bw says:

    It is, as often said, a “slippery slope”. Where government controls a significant business and participates in that business, as is the case here, so-called “free enterprise” is at an extreme disadvantage and is well advised to not participate. It is easy to be in favor of such a thing in the guise of an open effort to collude on something like software, but what of other areas with similar philosophies?

    Take healthcare for example. The government could run the entire thing, employing doctors, nurses, and providing all physical facilities such as hospitals and labs. That is done in many of the countries that embrace open source today. Or the government could control the prices charged by otherwise private enterprise, as the single payer “insurance” model used many other places. Or it could be a private enterprise free for all where many private firms or providers compete for business and partner with one another to optimize local situations, optimum being a situation where profits are to be made.

    Most societies are split, for example, the US allows pretty much open season on healthcare although it runs the Medicare insurance plan. But it generally controls supply of prison space, even when subcontracted to private suppliers. The US once ran the mail as an exclusive right, too.

Leave a Reply