Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: OSS Watch inaugural conference, 11 December 2003

[Kevin Donnelly]

On Friday 28 November 2003 2:49 pm, Andrew Savory wrote:
> I genuinely believe that an honest representative of proprietary 
> software would have an awful lot to contribute to any open source 
> conference, since a major part of switching to open source is 
> interoperability. Proprietary vendors are as well placed as anyone to 
> tell us how easy it is(n't) to integrate their products and OSS 
> products in a mixed economy.

Well if you're talking about interoperability virtually all the other 
companies I mentioned have more experience of this than MS, so again this is 
just nonsense.

> As I said in my reply to Jason, perhaps you need to know the remit of
> OSS Watch in order to appreciate why it makes sense to have a
> proprietary viewpoint represented. I guess the reason why all the
> alternatives aren't represented is because Microsoft is by far the most
> significant proprietary vendor in the Further/Higher Education space,
> and the one that causes the most concerns for the audience. Or maybe
> the only one brave enough to show up.

All I need to know about OSSWatch is what they tell me.  As I said, "A 
balanced and neutral source of information about Open Source software" should 
be just that - the balance should apply to OSS (eg not overselling it in 
places where it would be inappropriate), not to computing as a whole.  I 
think it would be a lot more ethical, if the latter is the aim, to call it 
something like the FHE Software Forum, and to explicitly state in the objects 
that it is there to provide info on software, both FLOSS and prop, that can 
be used in that sphere.  But OSS is now fashionable, so I suppose that's why 
they're using that name.

> > I also happen to think a presentation by MS alone is a gross insult to
> > people's intelligence  - do you think anyone likely to come to this
> > conference is  so thick that he/she doesn't know there are alternative
> > MS
> > technologies?  The whole point of such a conference should surely be to
> > provide a view of what is the REAL alternative, not to hear more of the
> > claptrap they already hear non-stop from vendors (your good self
> > excluded,
> > I'm sure).
>
> Thanks for illustrating my point about "aggressive open source
> evangelists" so beautifully! Don't try telling people what the point of
> the conference should be until you're sure you know why the conference
> is taking place. Try not to keep pointing that shotgun at your own
> foot, eh?

Er, say what?  I'm just putting a reasonable point of view as dispassionately 
as possible - it's you who's coming over all patronising.  Are you saying the 
conference has some secret purpose that isn't on the website?  I would also 
have thought you are aware of the amount MS spends in marketing as opposed to 
software development (and I'm sure the other companies I mentioned are 
similar).  Who is this spending directed at - the moon?  Or the same people 
OSSWatch hopes will come to its conference?

-- 

Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rydd yn Gymraeg