[Linux-aus] Re: [Osia-discuss] Re: ATO - Software Compatibility

[Alex Ferrara]

Not sure if you guys know about this, but the ATO have submitted 
instructions on getting their java based CSI working under linux, and it 
is really easy. As a business owner, I can now do anything I need using 
the business portal native under linux. You can look at 
http://itmaze.com.au/articles/ato/ for a good document on that.

I am pretty sure that the ECI is written in java, but was written for 
MS-JAVA, and therefore not compatible with sun java. Since MS-JAVA is no 
longer distributable, there must be something in the pipeline to write 
this using some standard.

As far as the e-tax software, it works fine under wine. The trick is to 
install IE under wine so it can actually submit a completed return.

aF

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 11:03:43PM +1030, David Lloyd wrote:
> 
> 
>>>When asked...
>>>"Do you believe that the Australian Taxation Office's Windows-Only
>>>policy is a roadblock to the adoption of open source in Australia?" 
>>>72% of respondents to OSIA's industry survey said Yes.
>>
>>Yeah, and any competent statistician would be able throw that statistic
>>out the window. That's beside the point.
> 
> 
> ??? 
> 
> Are you suggesting that 72% of respondents *didn't* say Yes?
> 
> 
> 
>>What does your company do? Clearly it's not development or you wouldn't
>>make such bizarre statements as "I doubt it would cost the ATO much to
>>provide a linux ECI client".
>>
>>How about:
>>
>> * testing time
>> * regression testing time
>> * project management
>> * extra support (considering there's six trillion linuxes vs 3 Windows
>>   and 1-2 OS X)
> 
> 
> I think that, in general, if Linux users trusted the ATO to give us a fair
> go and make an honest attempt at writing a Linux compatible client, we'd
> be satisfied with support for one distro only (Red Hat probably), or even
> no support at all.
> 
> "We've done our best, here it is, now you're on your own" would be
> satisfactory to many people if we thought that ATO really had done their
> best and not just cobbled together a broken piece of junk so they can 
> claim they tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Not to mention that others have pointed out that it is possible to write
>>Java code which is specific to a particular platform or platforms.
> 
> 
> With sufficient time, ingenuity and expense, it is possible to create a 
> grey-lead pencil that will only write if held at precisely thirty degrees 
> from the horizontal.
> 
> I suggest the question is not "Is it possible to write platform-specific
> Java code?" but "How hard is it to write platform-independent Java code
> compared to platform-dependent code?", and according to my Java
> developers, the answer to that question is "Not especially hard".
> 
> That's not to say that we will get anywhere by publically telling the ATO 
> their developers (or more likely, sub-contractors) are a bunch of luser 
> Windows weenies who can't write decent code and aren't using best 
> practice. Even if it is true.
> 
> But we are free to think it among ourselves. Especially if it is true 
> *wink*
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>I have a product written in RealBasic which in theory should be portable
>>to Windows (it's an OS X product). Yeah, it displays but it certainly
>>doesn't do ANYTHING it's meant to do...
> 
> 
> But it does do *something* it is meant to do: it is meant to display, and 
> it does that.
> 
> But seriously, is there relevance to that factoid? We all know that a 
> sufficiently bad developer can write platform-dependent code even with a 
> platform-independent language, and some languages that claim to be 
> platform agnostic are actually not.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not it is feasible to expect your RB app to
> work under Windows -- without knowing what the app does, that is
> impossible to answer -- but whether it is feasible to expect the ATO's EDI
> Client to work cross-platform. Nothing I've seen suggests to me that it
> isn't feasible.
> 
> 
> 
>>So let's drop the "It's easy part" and start to give them a reason to
>>help us. Putting it bluntly it would be EASIER FOR THE ATO TO NOT
>>COLLECT TAXES AT ALL (think of the money they'd save not having to
>>process tax returns); they've said it's not easy so let's just accept
>>the fact it's not.
> 
> 
> But in fact they do have a Linux version, which they trialled, and they 
> were innundated with folks wanting to trial it. That demonstrates both 
> demand and supply.
> 
>  
> 
>>Noone who programs cross platform ANYTHING says it is easy, so why are
>>we presuming this ECI (garbage) is?
> 
> 
> That depends on what you mean by "easy", and what your software does. I've 
> written dozens of Python scripts that will run on any platform which has 
> Python. That's not the same thing, I understand that, but you've got to 
> learn not to make sweeping generalisations around here :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Concentrate on what the ATO thinks is the main concern: THEY DON'T HAVE
>>A KNOWN MARKET FOR IT. Whether or not it is "easy" to port or not is
>>beside the point - that's not addressing their concerns.
> 
> 
> That's a good point. There are a number of ways of doing that.
> 
> Firstly, the ATO has inertia on their side. Even though they have a 
> (partially/mostly) working Linux client, they won't want to do anything 
> with it unless they know there is demand. Lots of demand.
> 
> We need to politely tell them we want to use it, and then we want to 
> actually use it.
> 
> Secondly, we want to make them understand that the average Linux user has
> a far higher level of technical expertise than they are used to. They will
> not be getting terribly many calls asking "Where is the any key?". That's
> both good and bad, because it means fewer support calls but the ones that
> come in won't be fixed by the usual "restart, reboot, reinstall". But in
> our favour, Linux users are more likely to provide good quality
> information to the ATO, making bugs easier to track down.
> 
> Thirdly, there is another option. It probably isn't one bureaucrats will 
> like, but you never know... we, by which I mean some group of volunteers, 
> could potentially volunteer to support the Linux EDI client for the ATO. 
> Of course they are subcontracting out the client already, but only the 
> Windows and Mac versions. We could take on the burden of technical support 
> for a nominal fee during a trial period, because _we_want_a_Linux_client_ 
> and that's the only way to get it.
> 
> That's the rub: is there anyone here who wants a Linux EDI client badly 
> enough to support it themselves?
> 
> Question: will the Windows client run under WINE?
> 
> Ultimately, we want the ATO to stop treating Linux users as third-class 
> citizens. That's a chicken-and-egg problem: they won't take us seriously 
> until we're significantly in their radar, and we won't be in their radar 
> until they take us seriously.
> 
> 
>