3 ms·
> Also - that PDF is incredible - things like "they lied about how flexible and suitable it was for us". Aaaaargh! Can you really sue for "we did not do our hom
by rodgerd 12y ago
> Also - that PDF is incredible - things like "they lied about how flexible and suitable it was for us". Aaaaargh! Can you really sue for "we did not do our homework?!"
So what you seem to be saying, in essence, is that the minimum requirement for government (or perhaps customers in general) is to be perfect, but the acceptable practise for vendors is to be psycopathically dishonest?
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoIsn't that what caveat emptor means? No it's not to be perfect, it's to basically be part of the great hollowing out - either you buy commodities priced and regulated by the market or you buy to support your core competancies - that's is unless you are great at it, it should be a commodity not a complex contract. Oregon clearly are not great at software. So they should either become great at it or buy commodity (ie OSS). The fact there is no OSS solution for them is a problem but Oregon, Wisconsin and so on could club together to dove the problem or let USGDS do it.