While there may be a point that forcing open source right now on any particular group is folly, I take exception to mandating open source being a mandate of incompetence. Why does anyone need to absolutely use a JRE? This is unexplained. Rarely have I seen a type of application that runs exclusively or better under Java. This might be true in the case in question, but without specifics it feels flippant.
On another note, even if one was to assume that Java is the best case scenario, why would a mandate to switch to OSS be a bad thing? Although it might if it was forced immediately, granted. Otherwise, I’d presume the software could be replaced with something that works as well, but maybe isn’t written in Java.
And the comment about Open Document… last I checked Massachussets still had made the right choice, choosing a money saving open standard and requireing their vendors to bow to it. And they’re still on course to implement their decision.. far from a debacle.
On that note only rarely can a software company dictate to it’s bigger customers what they’ll do with their data, and Microsoft has gotten away with it for far too long. Making them eat some of what they’ve been serving and buckle to a large customers wishes would make them like every other software company for once. That doesn’t really have anything to do with code licensing, as it’s all about support for an open format.
Open Resource | InfoWorld | Mandating incompetence? | February 3, 2006 11:51 AM | By Matt Asay
