From psema4 at gmail.com Tue Feb 3 16:01:34 2009 From: psema4 at gmail.com (Scott Elcomb) Date: Tue Feb 3 15:54:10 2009 Subject: [discuss] Linux Community Begins Crafting Radio Ad Message-ID: <99a6c38f0902031301i56eda8e4vba1505e0729fc815@mail.gmail.com> http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2009/01/linux-community-begins-crafting-radio.html FTA: "It's been discussed to distraction...whether advertising Linux would do any good or not. Well, we are not far from finding out. Our "Voice of Linux", we'll call him George...simply because that's his name; has given us some raw audio to work with. It is awesome...truly it is. Now we simply need to form and polish it. Cut it, splice it, add music, voice-overs...whatever you want to do...redo it in your own voice or make your own...we are going to showcase the Linux Community talent on this project." Thanks for pointing this one out AB! PS - Earlier today I posted a link on my Reader feed to a list of audio software for Linux; may be useful to some wanting to get in on the effort: http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/freeware/linux/ PSS - Please forgive the cross-post. (Please? ;-) -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ From psema4 at gmail.com Tue Feb 3 21:05:04 2009 From: psema4 at gmail.com (Scott Elcomb) Date: Tue Feb 3 20:57:38 2009 Subject: [discuss] GoC Requests Information about Open Source Software Message-ID: <99a6c38f0902031805o1e965005l58b9ae54d73bbe0c@mail.gmail.com> Michael Giest is reporting that the Federal Government is seeking information about Open Source software. His blog entry (at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3659/196/ ) points to the RFI. Note that the request closes February 19th. -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ From evan at telly.org Tue Feb 3 22:27:04 2009 From: evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Date: Tue Feb 3 22:19:56 2009 Subject: [discuss] GoC Requests Information about Open Source Software In-Reply-To: <99a6c38f0902031805o1e965005l58b9ae54d73bbe0c@mail.gmail.com> References: <99a6c38f0902031805o1e965005l58b9ae54d73bbe0c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49890B08.8090205@telly.org> Scott Elcomb wrote: > Michael Giest is reporting that the Federal Government is seeking > information about Open Source software. His blog entry (at > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3659/196/ ) points to the RFI. > > Note that the request closes February 19th. > > The direct link to the RFI is at http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3d%3d I'd be interested in helping draft a CLUE response. At the top of my list of answers is working to set out a clear distinction between FOSS and no-charge proprietary downloads. Right now the feds seem to be lumping them in together and there are problems with this approach. - Evan From hub at figuiere.net Wed Feb 4 00:37:39 2009 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Wed Feb 4 00:30:17 2009 Subject: [discuss] GoC Requests Information about Open Source Software In-Reply-To: <49890B08.8090205@telly.org> References: <99a6c38f0902031805o1e965005l58b9ae54d73bbe0c@mail.gmail.com> <49890B08.8090205@telly.org> Message-ID: <1233725859.26462.13.camel@quagmire> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 22:27 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > The direct link to the RFI is at > http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3d%3d > > I'd be interested in helping draft a CLUE response. At the top of my > list of answers is working to set out a clear distinction between > FOSS > and no-charge proprietary downloads. Right now the feds seem to be > lumping them in together and there are problems with this approach. The worse is that the French version http://www.merx.com/French/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3D%3D Isn't better phrased as it clearly call "Logiciel Libre" these non-Free software you can get gratis. I would have given the benefit of the doubt if they were confusing the word "Free" with its two English meanings but no. They really get a 'F'ail on that. Hub From marc at lijour.net Wed Feb 4 01:37:03 2009 From: marc at lijour.net (Marc Lijour) Date: Wed Feb 4 01:29:41 2009 Subject: [discuss] GoC Requests Information about Open Source Software In-Reply-To: <1233725859.26462.13.camel@quagmire> References: <99a6c38f0902031805o1e965005l58b9ae54d73bbe0c@mail.gmail.com> <49890B08.8090205@telly.org> <1233725859.26462.13.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <200902040137.03532.marc@lijour.net> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 00:37:39 Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 22:27 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > The direct link to the RFI is at > > http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX& > >State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3 > >d%3d > > > > I'd be interested in helping draft a CLUE response. At the top of my > > list of answers is working to set out a clear distinction between > > FOSS > > and no-charge proprietary downloads. Right now the feds seem to be > > lumping them in together and there are problems with this approach. > > The worse is that the French version > http://www.merx.com/French/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&Sta >te=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3D%3D > > Isn't better phrased as it clearly call "Logiciel Libre" these non-Free > software you can get gratis. I would have given the benefit of the doubt > if they were confusing the word "Free" with its two English meanings but > no. They really get a 'F'ail on that. Thanks for the link but I don't agree with you. Right in the first sentence, the text distinguishes clearly FLOSS (logiciel libre) and freeware (graticiel) under the big umbrella of software under licence that you can get for free (logiciels sous licence sans frais). Where they possibly fail is by obviously being confused by the concept of monetary value (vs the freedom value which comes from the protection of the rights of the users). Getting software for free saves tax payers money and secures some value, but letting them use it, learn from it, customize it and share it multiplies this value. May be we are moving towards a world of open standards, a world where my government would not ask me to pay a foreign company before I can read the documents they produce with my tax money... Marc From matt at starnix.com Wed Feb 4 16:17:27 2009 From: matt at starnix.com (G. Matthew Rice) Date: Wed Feb 4 16:06:14 2009 Subject: [discuss] Linux Community Begins Crafting Radio Ad In-Reply-To: <99a6c38f0902031301i56eda8e4vba1505e0729fc815@mail.gmail.com> References: <99a6c38f0902031301i56eda8e4vba1505e0729fc815@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Scott Elcomb writes: > http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2009/01/linux-community-begins-crafting-radio.html > > FTA: > > "It's been discussed to distraction...whether advertising Linux would > do any good or not. Well, we are not far from finding out. Our "Voice > of Linux", we'll call him George...simply because that's his name; has > given us some raw audio to work with. > > It is awesome...truly it is. David, Can you get more info on this? CLUE should do it's commercials, too (or use these) and put them on the website and then do a fund raising drive to air them. Waddya think? TTYL, -- g. matthew rice starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20 http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products From evan at telly.org Thu Feb 19 04:46:44 2009 From: evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Date: Thu Feb 19 04:46:36 2009 Subject: [discuss] Second draft of RFI response] Message-ID: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_24g9jf57kn I've tried to incorporate many of the responses that I have (thankfully!) received. Any other comments are welcome, but it needs to be sent today. - Evan From bjonkman at sobac.com Thu Feb 19 13:41:17 2009 From: bjonkman at sobac.com (Bob Jonkman) Date: Thu Feb 19 13:41:57 2009 Subject: [discuss] Second draft of RFI response] In-Reply-To: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> References: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> Message-ID: <499DA7CD.22462.85B08C@bjonkman.sobac.com> Excellent document. I have no substantive contribution, but a few rewordings to clarify what I think is the intended meaning, as well as fixing some spelling errors. I would make an addition for Q2: Open source alternatives will not always be the superior choice in regards to features and performance *at the time of acquisition*; however, *open source software can always be modified to provide the features and performance required. T*he phenomenal flexibility, transparency and adaptability of open source software should also be a consideration in tenders and RFPs. Spelling error in Q2.1 - integrataion -> integration Reword: *If high quality Canadian service providers are prepared to support it, then a package should not be demoted merely for listing a foreign source or having an undetermined origin.* Add: [...] procurement policies must primarily focus on the suitability *of the software* and suitability of the proposed local service providers. Spelling error in Q2.3 - Incoorporated -> Incorporated Q3.6 : Given the wildly different version numbering schemes, I wouldn't necessarily classify a release version less than 1.0 as unstable. Many stable projects hover around the 0.9.x version number for years, and are no less suitable for use because of it. Q5: Remove an "indeed" from "[...] no hidden costs; indeed, it is indeed a matter [...]" Spelling error in Q7 - whenver -> whenever Spelling error in Q10 - exersize -> exercise Hope you find this useful! --Bob. -- -- -- -- Bob Jonkman http://sobac.com/sobac/ SOBAC Microcomputer Services Voice: +1-519-669-0388 6 James Street, Elmira ON Canada N3B 1L5 Cel: +1-519-635-9413 Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting On 19 Feb 2009 at 4:46 Evan Leibovitch wrote about "[discuss] Second draft of RFI respo[...]" >http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_24g9jf57kn > >I've tried to incorporate many of the responses that I have >(thankfully!) received. Any other comments are welcome, but it needs to >be sent today. > >- Evan > > >_______________________________________________ >discuss mailing list >discuss@cluecan.ca >http://www.linux.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090219/bbc568d2/attachment.htm From russell at flora.ca Sat Feb 21 10:46:46 2009 From: russell at flora.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Sat Feb 21 10:45:43 2009 Subject: [discuss] My RFI response... In-Reply-To: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> References: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> Message-ID: <49A021E6.4040209@flora.ca> Evan Leibovitch wrote: > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_24g9jf57kn > > I've tried to incorporate many of the responses that I have > (thankfully!) received. Any other comments are welcome, but it needs to > be sent today. I didn't have much of a chance to participate in discussions, and authored a separate submission on Wednesday. I took Wednesday off work in order to attend a talk on Documentary Copyright at University of Ottawa, and to author this submission. PDF format: http://www.flora.ca/documents/RFI-NoCharge-200902.pdf OpenDocument format: http://www.flora.ca/documents/RFI-NoCharge-200902.odt I hope I'll have time this weekend to blog about the various submissions. If anyone else is willing to make their submission public, please post so that I can link to them. I hope Evan makes a regular HTML and/or PDF version of the document available in a way that is appropriate to be blogged. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" From cmacd at zeusprune.ca Sat Feb 21 21:00:54 2009 From: cmacd at zeusprune.ca (Charles MacDonald) Date: Sat Feb 21 21:01:45 2009 Subject: [discuss] My RFI response... In-Reply-To: <49A021E6.4040209@flora.ca> References: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> <49A021E6.4040209@flora.ca> Message-ID: <49A0B1D6.4070800@zeusprune.ca> HI Rusell - very through response, are you sure you have explained your POV caretly, one could interpret the problems in your second example as unreliability of the FLOSS code used by the proprietary vendor for example.. Also, their were a couple of places wher ethe spell check let you make some thinks sound funny.... In my roll as co-coordinator (you mean Role?) The price that is payed for licensing fees (paid?) Russell McOrmond wrote: > Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_24g9jf57kn >> >> I've tried to incorporate many of the responses that I have >> (thankfully!) received. Any other comments are welcome, but it needs to >> be sent today. > > I didn't have much of a chance to participate in discussions, and > authored a separate submission on Wednesday. I took Wednesday off work > in order to attend a talk on Documentary Copyright at University of > Ottawa, and to author this submission. > > > > PDF format: http://www.flora.ca/documents/RFI-NoCharge-200902.pdf > > OpenDocument format: http://www.flora.ca/documents/RFI-NoCharge-200902.odt > > > > I hope I'll have time this weekend to blog about the various > submissions. If anyone else is willing to make their submission public, > please post so that I can link to them. I hope Evan makes a regular > HTML and/or PDF version of the document available in a way that is > appropriate to be blogged. > > -- Charles MacDonald Stittsville Ontario cmacd@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe http://www.TelecomOttawa.net/~cmacd/ No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail. From russell at flora.ca Sun Feb 22 16:14:21 2009 From: russell at flora.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Sun Feb 22 16:13:05 2009 Subject: [discuss] My RFI response... In-Reply-To: <49A0B1D6.4070800@zeusprune.ca> References: <499D2A84.2070201@telly.org> <49A021E6.4040209@flora.ca> <49A0B1D6.4070800@zeusprune.ca> Message-ID: <49A1C02D.8090208@flora.ca> Charles MacDonald wrote: > HI Rusell - very through response, are you sure you have explained your > POV caretly, one could interpret the problems in your second example as > unreliability of the FLOSS code used by the proprietary vendor for example.. I only had an afternoon to author the response (took the day off work on Wednesday), and it didn't go through the review process that I try to put my other submissions through. It was a bit of a "better than nothing" response. My hope is that the door will be open to further conversation, including discussion to help clarify things. Not sure how the zlib example could be misinterpreted that way, but hope that I'll be offered the chance to clarify if it wasn't clear. Zlib has been updated to deal with any issues found, so any security problems in antiquated versions can't be attached to the FLOSS project. It is entirely ESRI's fault for not keeping up with software updates, just as everyone else must. In fact, software vendors should be expected to be more diligent than the generally less technologically literate home users (who in this case appear to do better). I did provide the following reference in my submission: http://forums.esri.com/Thread.asp?c=2&f=1718&t=212867 This is the ESRI support forum where this problem was discovered by a customer in 2007. Not only was ESRI not tracking security updates of components they incorporate, but they didn't treat the problem as serious after being alerted by a customer (and fellow developer - Howard Butler works on Mapserver/etc and was still helping fix ESRI problems). A few minutes of a developers time is all that is required, and many other updates have come from ESRI on these components in the meantime. I suspect the main reason they don't spend time on these types of security and fitness issues is because the largest of their customer base (Agriculture Canada being the largest Canadian customer from what I've heard) may not be demanding it. This goes directly to what was being asked in the RFI, and I hope that I'll be given the chance to clarify this in later discussions with PWGSC. Software is an ongoing conversation, not a one-time purchase. Anyone who thinks otherwise might believe that an unpatched version of Windows 98 (IE: software of the same era as what ESRI is still using, and used incorrectly) should be expected to be a secure operating system forever (for those who believed it was ever secure). Clearly Windows 98 with all the most recent patches is known insecure by even the most religious Microsoft fanboy, and since Microsoft no longer offers service packs one must dump Windows 98 in favour of something newer and currently supported. In this case ESRI didn't even use zlib correctly. The GDAL library http://www.gdal.org/ has an internal (and current) version of zlib which is statically compiled in (conditional configuration option - it can use an external version) and which doesn't export symbols. This way gdal will internally use the static version and not look on the dynamically linked library path, and the internal zlib won't taint any other external software. To clarify: not only is ESRI using an antiquated version of software that is known insecure, but they were using it incorrectly in the first place. In the case of this RFI I hope that the message was clear: Why should FLOSS be held to a much higher standard than non-FLOSS currently used in the government, given adequate evaluation of security and fitness isn't done on non-FLOSS. It is the more secretive non-FLOSS that needs to have far greater scrutiny applied to it. Sorry to rant like this, but I've been finding doing technical support work for ESRI products to be frustrating. In comparison, it doesn't bother me as much to be using Microsoft Outlook as my email client at work *grins* > Also, their were a couple of places wher ethe spell check let you make > some thinks sound funny.... Unfortunate, but not unexpected. I asked if I could spend time to enhance the document and resubmit later, and they said no. I could fix the document on the website, but then it wouldn't accurately reflect what I had submitted to them. I hope that other people will publicly publish their submissions. I'm hoping this is just an ongoing exchange in a conversation with and within the GoC on proper software policy, and not an end. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!"