Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Ignore the open source hot heads, CIOs told
[quote]
Waugh continued. "It pushes all the other CIOs the wrong way. None of
them will talk about open source because none of them want to get their
head bitten off."
[/quote]
Well they shouldn't talk utter garbage then, should they?
The Australian Tax Office's CIO (of all people) talks about preferring
proprietary software due to the ridiculous notion of "security through
obscurity", the Free Software community rightly denounces such idiotic
claims, then Waugh jumps to his defence, claiming his detractors are
being too harsh.
This isn't some sweet old granny who doesn't know any better. The man's
supposed to be a CIO for Christ's sake, and he thinks software is /more/
secure if you can't see the source. He also thinks a proprietary
software vendor's reputation is a greater security consideration than
being able to audit the software oneself (like companies like Microsoft
are so "trustworthy". Yeah, right).
Idiot.
By all means let's have "better dialogue", as Waugh puts it, but let's
first start with better CIO's with whom to have such dialogue.
Preferably ones with an IQ greater than that of a carrot.
But IMHO the /real/ problem is not a lack of dialogue between the FOSS
community and CIO's, it's the over-abundance of propaganda and FUD being
spread /against/ FOSS by companies like Microsoft and their proxies,
that needs to be stemmed. That's no easy job, considering the Vole has a
marketing division that's probably the size of a small country, and the
financial resources to match.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
00:32:33 up 90 days, 22:08, 6 users, load average: 6.34, 7.32, 7.39
|
|
