[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A call for arms - the future of Hebrew in the digital age (fwd)




Ok, imho I have posted the most to-the-point answer to this thread, and
it was the one that got no answers. This is very much in the spirit of
this list, but I believe that the matter is way too serious to be left at
it. So WAS there a MICHRAZ, or did some bozos sign themselves into slavery
over coffee and cookies ?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:28:24 +0000 (   )
From: "Peter L. Peres" <plp@actcom.co.il>
To: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: A call for arms - the future of Hebrew in the digital age

On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> entirely on M$ products (Explorer, Outlook etc.) and using M$
> proprietary protocols (e.g. It's "logical" hebrew).

Were there any other proprietary protocols mentioned ?

> The israeli government can, of course, choose whatever company it wishes
> to do business with, but whatever protocols are used they must be, so I
> believe, open standards and NOT proprietary software belonging to a big
> american company.

What the Israeli Governement cannot do, is commit public money to purchase
technology and software for a certain public purpose without first
organizing a michraz. If there was no michraz on this, the govt., or
whoever signed the agreements is neck deep in hot water. I have not heard
or seen mention of such a michraz and you can be SURE that other players
who were better placed to fill this contract (and who just so happen to be
UNIX manufacturers/sellers) would have filled it. Perhaps even for $0, in
view of the potential market, and of the fact that they already have
technology that fills the bill (not the Bill - and we mean our trusted
UNIX-based Internet Standards etc.) and there are precedents abroad to
this too. 

As to open formats, if there is such an issue, then sooner or later there
will be pressure to make the manufacturer release a detailed description
of the standard, and he will comply or lose the contract. There are
precedents to this (for example IBM vs. the U.S. govt.). 

just my opinion,

Peter