We Democrats practice what we preach too. Our website is built with PostNuke running on a Linux box with Apache :-)

Postnuke is run by a group of children who don't allow much of anything even remotely considered open source. It's run by a group of very closed minded individuals who don't care about it's community what-so-ever. Some might call them glory hounds.

With the large amount of dissent for the project manager and hatred for the team in charge of how that project and community is run, it's not surprising that many would rather go elsewhere and avoid the troubles that have plagued the postnuke project since vworld@postnuke.com took control.

Let's face it, postnuke is a has-been project now being whored out by those who run it, for a few dollars. Don't believe me? Visit the project managers site.

Until there is a major turnover in the management group there, you're best advised to steer clear of this has-been project.

Judging by the blow-hard diatribe above...boy, ex-PostNuke user "Duster" sure gets around... didn't even change his "style."

For shame...

Actual transcipt of what was said in parliament.

PARLIAMENT, CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Members may be interest­ed to know that a Request for Proposals for the `redevelop­ment of the parliament internet and intranet sites' is currently being handled by DAIS. From previous statements and questions in this place, members know that the Democrats are very interested in IT matters and, in particular, opportunities for open source product. However, members may not know that, in the world of the internet, the dominant product for delivering web pages is not made by Microsoft but is, in fact, an open source product known as Apache. There is also a growth of open source content management systems used to manage internet and intranet content, such as MySource, Zope and PostNuke. In our office, the Democrats use an open source solution of PostNuke on Apache on our web sites around the country.

It is of interest that, on 25 May this year, the minister to whom the question is being addressed (Hon. M.J. Wright) said (from Hansard):

As a principle, though, we support the notion of open source. We need to be about getting the best outcome in any given procurement. We need to look at a range of criteria to get the best outcome for a given procurement, and obviously open source would be one of those criteria. . . certainly, from a policy perspective, we support open source. Where possible we would support it.

Therefore, it was an expectation that the winning tender would quite likely be an open source solution—solutions that run on very high profile business sites around the world. How­ever, we find that the proposal closes the door on the whole world of open source solutions, and I will read from the request for proposal:

4.3.1 The Parliamentary Network uses a mix of technologies to deliver IT services. PNSG works with a number of vendors to select the products considered best of breed to enable the delivery of business services.

It continues (somewhat dramatically), as follows:

4.3.2 Operating System

Server software runs on Windows 2003 or Windows 2000, SP4 or later. Desktop software (including applications and browser plug-ins) runs on Windows 2000 SP4 or later and Windows XP SP1 or later.

The following is the punchline, bearing in mind the minister's strong statements about leaving the door open for open source and given that this is the invitation for people to tender for government business:

4.3.3 Programming Language

The Parliamentary Network runs under the Microsoft.NET runtime environment. The exceptions are some third party components. Thus, all developed components of the PIIP system must be written using the C# programming language to run under the Microsoft.NET runtime environment.

With this, we have carefully set aside the whole world of non-Microsoft proposals, even though they would include best-of-breed examples from around the world at significantly lower cost than proprietary software cousins. My questions are:

1. Why is the minister's department still publishing requests for proposal that clearly exclude more than half the software world?

2. Why is it still not understood that tenders should be written in terms of function and not in terms of brand loyalties?

3. When is the minister and his department going to do more than release pious platitudes about open source and actually get on with the business of IT on a par with the rest of the world?

4. How can the IT world have any confidence in state­ments of this government when such a blatant case of deception destroys its credibility?

Answer:nn:The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation): There was an awful whip in the tail of that question. I will refer the question to the minister in another place and bring back a reply.