[PLUG] The house bill, a possible problem...

[Cliff Wells]

On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 12:43, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> Where are all the Microsoft techies going to go?  Employed people are
> constituents, especially in a flat economy.  Linux works so well that
> it could reduce the number of jobs needed at a time when already there
> aren't enough jobs in the high tech sector.

I think this is a bogus argument.  I can tell you what people will do:
they'll start *adding* capabilities to systems rather than spending all
their time keeping a b0rken system limping along.

>   There's no training budget right now to teach Microsoft techs Linux.  

Hm.  I don't recall whose budget trained me to use Linux.  It might have
been my own initiative or something odd like that.  If some MS techs
can't transition, they can pump gas for those that can.

> Face it, most of the cuts
> have been to education.  I think there is broad support for the bill.
> Unfortunately, goliath is so large that toppling him now will cause a 
> lot of damage. 

I'm sorry, I just don't agree.  You make it sound as if any transition
for the entire state would happen overnight leaving thousands
unemployed.  I can assure you that *if* the bill ever gets passed, it
will be several years before MS is unrooted from state IT centers. 
Those MS techies will have plenty of time to familiarize themselves with
OSS.

>  What is needed is a school funding bill, and the taxes
> needed to be lowered back to normal.  The only way to create revenue
> is to create jobs.  Maybe Linux needs to grow more while Microsoft is
> still big stuff.  A transition is needed before a major change.
> This was as true with Jefferson's difficulties releasing his slaves as
> it is today.

No it isn't.  Any technology transition will be gradual.  Anyone with
any real capability will be able to struggle through the learning curve
and continue to do their job.  If they can't then they probably weren't
doing a good job anyway.

> The arguments for this bill need to address the job displacement issue. 

There is no issue.

> Why is open source better than closed, and don't argue savings.

That's just silly.  Explain to me why we need to control pollution but
don't argue breathing.

Anyway, I'll tell you why: because *my* tax dollars pay for it.  Because
public information needs to be stored in non-proprietary formats. 
Because public officials need to *not* agree to EULA's that grant
companies the right to forage through their system when that system
contains confidential citizen information.  Because state agencies need
to not be forced into upgrading systems in order to communicate with
each other.

> Why shouldn't the legislature favor competition between multiple closed
> source companies instead?  Nobody wants to be accused of destroying
> jobs.  

I still don't see the validity of this argument.  Please substantiate it
before I'll address it further.


Regards,

-- 
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726  (800) 735-0555