[OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us
Wed Oct 16 08:38:32 PDT 2013
I'm not sure why exactly, but the "facilitates interoperability" seems fluffy for some reason. It might be something to integrate into the original statement however. The vendor lock-in piece is definitely something that will need to be included somehow, but I'm thinking there or two things here based on the replies so far, one is for a description of the position and another would be to define some sort of policy/or, dare I say it, "best practice" document, hopefully something that is hard to refute.
All good thoughts.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:10 AM
> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or
> attmepting to . . .)
> Maybe take it from a different angle?
> - Open Source software facilitates interoperability
> - Open Source software breaks vendor lock-in
> Vendor lock-in is a tactic used to protect a vendor's licensing
> revenue stream by ensuring that customers cannot easily switch to
> another suite of software, and interoperability through open
> standards and truly open APIs is the best cure I can think of
> against that. Open Source software excels at interoperability
> because the "vendor lock-in gene" is generally absent from the DNA
> of its developers.
> P.S. I see that Arnie Shore beat me by sending something along the
> same lines a few seconds ago, but I thought I'd hit send anyway
> On 13-10-16 10:50 AM, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
> > <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following
> statement, I'm
> >> looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to
> >> yourself there :c).
> >> "Open Source software enforces standards"
> >> Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward
> enough here.
> >> I'm trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn't
> >> anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial
> packages at the same time.
> >> I'm basically thinking about going the route of data standards
> >> for archiving as well as distribution.
> >> So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument
> >> Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above
> >> statement, as if they wanted to include some specific
> >> application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end
> >> trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open
> >> approach is better than a commercial one and the standards
> piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on.
> > In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people
> > know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions),
> > usually come with:
> > * Standars aren't the better format to work with
> > * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are
> > optimized for the propietary software
> > * We already have the information on the propietary format and
> > want to migrate
> > And, of course:
> > * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is
> > tricky to fight against)
> > Good luck!
> > María.
> >> Thanks
> >> Bobb
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> Daniel Morissette
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss