[Linux-aus] The Great Debate 28 May 2007 - Linux vs Windows

[Brent Wallis]

Hi,

Quoting Brenda:

> BTW There are no vested interests in any particular software development
> model commercial or non-commercial, proprietary or open source software,
> its just that the proprietary systems are more familiar to most ACS
> members at the present time.  If one is to level that accusation at ACS
> then we better also take aim at the Higher Education Sector, the
> universities are big users of proprietary software including apple software.

Perhaps I should clarify.

I am not talking about using one piece of software over another. My
comments were referring to the fact that the ACS, as a professional
body, because of this reason:

>"...the proprietary systems are more familiar to most ACS
> members at the present time.

...should not call themselves a professional institution that
represents the industry.

IMHO, ICT professionals must keep themselves updated in all
technologies relating to their field, both open AND closed,and , be
assisted to do this by their professional representatives....

IMHO part of the problem with adoption has been the promotion of IT as
being this or that, this OS ...or THAT OS....

IMHO FLOSS practitioners who preach Open Source to the detriment or
exclusion of MS software can be just as bad as MS...we live in a world
of burgeoning opportunities for choice....Open Source is choice
personified. To exclude or hold up one vendor over another IMHO is at
odds with what FLOSS represents.

There is a more important and compelling issue at hand however:
The "this or that" paradigm promotes the grossly overweighted
marketshare that MS have on desktops. The question posed in this
debate accelerates and promotes the idea that its us OR them. If the
"us" has 94% of the desktop market then the "this or that" method of
salesmanship works for the largest market share holder almost
everytime.

The ACS should be representative of the whole ICT sector, and should
not promote or participate in debates like those that have been put
forward.

Imagine if a specialist medical organisation did a debate on:

"Ultrabrand (R) Stainless Steel Hip Replacements are better than the
community produced ceramic ones..."

The topic posed by the ACS debate mentions a companies name for
heavens sake, how can that be seen as a neutral question designed to
promote real debate about an important subject?

This is the vested interest I made comment on...

Heres a better debate topic:

"Real IT infrastructure choice is better for business."

If the ACS did something like that I would be:
A: Be extremely surprised
B: Fly up and attend.

Tks
BW