[FOSS] How does one respond to this line of questioning?

[Jon 'maddog' Hall]

Thomas,

>But to the original posters comments, the right solution isn't, by
>default, 'FOSS'.

I do not know what question you are trying to answer, perhaps

>How do list members respond to this line of questioning?

But the question I am trying to answer, also from the original poster
was:

>>Why do many large organizations tend to resist FOSS?  Discuss.

Since the second question was the one right before his signature, that
was the question I was trying to answer.

But if you want me to address the issue of using "standard tools inside
the corporation" vs "using FOSS tools", it takes a bit more depth of
knowledge as to what he was doing.

We will make it simple to start (ignoring for the moment other input
that has entered along the way):

If his task was to create an ASCII text document using Microsoft Windows
and notepad, but he chose to use Linux and vim because he liked them
better and felt he could do it easier and faster.  His finished product,
the text file, was delivered and could be read, updated and manipulated
just as if it had been made by Windows and Notepad, but then his op said
"you are using non-standard tools".....

Now, if he were to insist on the op supporting those "non-standard
tools", I could see an issue, as the op has to now balance two sets of
tools to do the same thing.  But if he maintains his own tool set, then
the op should not care what tools he uses.

Now, as it turns out it appears that he wrote a "tool" to do some work.
The company apparently had no tools to do this work (i.e. it was not a
company standard), and he knew of no commercial (i.e. "industrial
standard") set of tools to do the work.  So in this case there were no
"standards".  He then used FOSS programs to create his "tool".   Would
he have been able to create his tool using the company's existing
repertoire of "standards", I am not sure from what I have read so far.

Now let's say that he can prove that the FOSS tools would save the
company money in the long run, and do the job (creating the text file)
costing less money, wouldn't it be wise for management to look at using
the FOSS tools, even if they were "non-standard" for the company, or
even non-standard for the industry?

>Which 99.99% of users *never do*.

Perhaps not, but their VARs and integrators might change it before it
gets to the end user.  On the other hand:

100% of closed-source users can NEVER change the source code.

>Hey, it was simply more efficient *for the contractor building the
>garage* to build it that way.  (Again, going back to the original
>posters comments).

Unless the contractor could convince me, the owner, that the end product
was more efficient for me, which in the case of this house he probably
could not, than I would fire that contractor.

On the other hand, if the contractor built the house by using metric
tools but to English measurement standards, I do not mind they use
metric tools.

>Not all engineers are good engineers.  Some are simply ok, with a
>limited subset of skills.

Yes, there are "senior engineers", "junior engineers" and a variety of
others.

>As opposed to 5 days while desperatly *hoping* that *someone* will
>answer your technical questions.

No, I pay a good engineer to help me find the answer I need.  It is just
that *I* get to choose the engineer, not the company that hides the
source code from me.

And I did not say that I actually GOT a good answer after waiting on the
phone all that time.

>The use of FOSS doesn't resolve that issue.

No, but it ties back to the issue that I chose to answer.

md