FOSS and the election

[Evan Leibovitch]

Tony Abou-Assaleh wrote:

>Second of all, the evaluation was done by DRDC scientists (2, to be more
>exact). They developed their own evaluation criteria, and they published
>them in their report. The study took 2 or 3 years. I'll reproduce the
>criteria here (refer to the report for a description of these items):
>
>* Functionality
>* Cost
>* Required Support and Maintenance
>* Reliability
>* Quality
>* Ease of Migration for Users
>* Performance and Scalability
>* Flexibility and Scalability
>* User friendliness
>* Developer Usability
>* Legal and License Issues
>* Trustworthiness
>  
>
Thanks for the information, Tony.

I agree that the criteria above is fairly thorough, I'll read the report
before judging whether the researchers did them justice :-). I also hope
the report takes into account the pace at which OSS deficiencies are
being addressed.

Most of the above criteria can indeed be researched and measured, but
not all. While "reliability" and "quality" can be measured,
"trustworthiness" is by nature more subjective because trust is an
emotion, not a measurable attribute.

>I understand that there is a difference between the practical value of OSS vs. the philosophy behind FOSS. It is more clear to me now that the GoC policy on OSS is purely a practical consideration, while the Green Party policy is more of a philosophical one.
>  
>
And on this we're in violent agreement.

Have a good holiday,

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml