The next big skill - Open Source?

[bobspud]

Anyone seen this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7910110.stm

Wonder if that means those of us who have had experience working with Open Source projects in the real world can see boom times coming regards government gigs?

Forget it. Most government departments have to use kit/software that forms part of the common criteria. To get on that list, the software / kit has to go through security evaluation by a dedicated team. It costs lots of money to go for this and that cash is paid by the software owner. The usual issue is that by the time things make it on the menu they are out of support with the vendors...

Any benefit in free software would be lost in accreditation and third party support costs. Open source just cannot work for governments in the current guise...

[OwlHoot]

Bugzilla blows. Can name a few closed source ones that do as well.

I'm not sure whether "blows" is good or bad, although I suppose if it's the opposite of "sucks" that means you think it's good.

Also, I wasn't able to parse your second sentence, at least with any certainty, although I think I understood what you may have meant (with the word "a" omitted?)

[expat]

I'm not sure whether "blows" is good or bad, although I suppose if it's the opposite of "sucks" that means you think it's good.

Also, I wasn't able to parse your second sentence, at least with any certainty, although I think I understood what you may have meant (with the word "a" omitted?)

Ahem. When you give someone a "blow-job" you "suck" them, hence blow = suck, in this context.

I would interpret "Can name a few closed source ones that do as well" to mean "I can name a few closed-source programs that also blow". I can't really see another interpretation; and parsing it was no problem, once I realised that I had to provide the implied subject "I".

I suppose that it is possible that the poster may have meant "I can name a few closed-source programs that do (i.e. perform) (some action) equally well". But I don't think so.

HTH

[darmstadt]

Well I'm working on big government projects at the moment and there is a fair bit of open source being used such as Debian, Apache, Derby, etc. but the real backbone is still very expensive stuff such as zOS, zVM, DB2, WAS, etc. but a lot of products that you'll buy from software companies include open source software now. When you get something from IBM and install it you'll nowadays see 2 license agreements, one for the propreitary stuff and one for the open source stuff. If you look at the Rational line of products, their nearly all based on Eclipse and a lot of their products have stuff like Ant, Derby, etc. bundled in. In some ways, its the way to go, in others I think its still too much in its infancy and only for testing/development work.

[scooterscot]

A defence project I'm working on makes use of open source for one of it's key functions....

It's cheaper, supportable, and yes... more reliable.

[OwlHoot]

Ahem. When you give someone a "blow-job" you "suck" them, hence blow = suck, in this context.

True, but then you blow air outward and suck inward.

I would interpret "Can name a few closed source ones that do as well" to mean "I can name a few closed-source programs that also blow". I can't really see another interpretation; and parsing it was no problem, once I realised that I had to provide the implied subject "I".

I suppose that it is possible that the poster may have meant "I can name a few closed-source programs that do (i.e. perform) (some action) equally well". But I don't think so.

HTH

I interpreted the OP to mean "Bugzilla rocks (is good), and I can name few closed source ones that do as well".

But the very fact that we're having this discussion means that either the OP is a muddleheaded nitwit and/or their first language isn't English.

[expat]

True, but then you blow air outward and suck inward.



I interpreted the OP to mean "Bugzilla rocks (is good), and I can name few closed source ones that do as well".

But the very fact that we're having this discussion means that either the OP is a muddleheaded nitwit and/or their first language isn't English.

I don't agree. You misunderstood the slang usage of "blow", and hammered the rest of the post to fit. All your difficulty of comprehension came from one misunderstanding on your part, one word whose meaning you thought was diametrically opposed to what it really is. Had you got "Bugzilla blows" = "Bugzilla sucks", then you would have had no problem reading the post.