Slashdot Log In
Obama Looking At Open Source?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jan 21, 2009 08:48 AM
from the looking-isn't-doing dept.
from the looking-isn't-doing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "'The secret to a more secure and cost effective government is through Open Source technologies and products.'
The claim comes from one of Silicon Valley's most respected business leaders Scott McNealy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems.
He revealed he has been asked to prepare a paper on the subject for the new administration."
Related Stories
Submission: Obama looking at opensource!? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
In just the Intelligence Community alone, there is great support for open source software and open standards and protocols.
As part of Community-wide tools and services, the Intelligence Community takes advantage of:
- MediaWiki for Intellipedia [wikipedia.org]
- WordPress for blogs
- Jabber (XMPP) for instant messaging
- Zimbra for enterprise email
- Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP to support and provide many of these services
- LDAP backends for single signon and other authentication tasks
- RSS for blogs, social bookmarking, news feeds, realtime information, etc
- Open APIs and standards whenever possible
All of these services and tools are available via a suite called Intelink, and are available to all 16 Intelligence Community components, the military, federal government, and law enforcement and homeland security partners at the state and local levels. They are accredited for use for information anywhere from UNCLASSIFIED to TOP SECRET/SCI, and everything in between.
For the last few years, the Intelligence Community has not only "looked at" open source, but has embraced it with open arms. In fact, the information sharing supported by these tools was listed as one of the major achievements during the tenure of DNI Mike McConnell [dni.gov].
Open source works, and has allowed the Intelligence Community to rapidly provide a secure and robust suite of tools to its personnel, easily respond to changing requirements and requests, and all for far less money and far more flexibly than many commercial solutions. And the Intelligence Community isn't alone.
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that depending on where you are, there's certainly no question that there is a lot of Windows on the desktop. There are many reasons for this.
The main place where open source shines is in central service delivery...the client is irrelevant. The client piece is more complicated: sure, you can argue cost benefits for running Linux on the desktop, but even on the unclass side, there are still practical benefits to using a commodity OS. Some of it is management, some of it is tools. A lot of it comes back to familiarity of the user...in that setting who doesn't know Windows and Microsoft Office?
I don't think open source on the desktop is the place to start. The place that open source software can make the most impact and positively affect the most people, at present, is on the server and service end of things.
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:4, Informative)
a) cables are harder to tap/snoop/crack than wi-fi
b) cables use less power, have more bandwidth, and are less prone to interference
c) less unnecessary ambient EM radiation.
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at least with Office, it may no longer be the case.
While I've admittedly not been using MS products that much the past 3-4 years, in the past when I needed to do a quick word or excel doc, I could do it pretty quickly...like you said, you just 'know' it.
However, at my new gig...I was given a laptop with what I think is Office 2007....the one with the 'ribbon'? I swear, I'm still fairly lost on this thing...it took me an actually bit of research on the web to find the menu for a 'save as' option. I mean, it just wasn't intuitive for me to click that big round dot thing on the top left. I was looking for a normal menu option.
IMHO, this was a huge mistake for Office. I'm fairly computer literate...and it took ME some time to find things. I feel sorry for the secretary that isn't really computer savvy.
So, at this point with what MS did to Office and the complete change of menuing system, with no way to switch to classic mode...it might actually be easier to get people to use OO or something like it that more closely resembles MS Office classic..than current version of MS Office do.
Parent
That $600 toilet seat was the best for the job too (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the military got great value on their $600 toilet seats. An excretory experience second to none. But if you're asking me to foot the bill, your ass can sit on the $19.95 job.
While 'the best tool for the job' might actually provide a little extra productivity for a power user, forcing the entire population to use an expensive tool to write the occasional memo will counteract any such gains pretty quickly.
Ideally, they'd demand a fully-compliant ODF office suite and then have the choice to give hig
Fortune 500, Government, Big (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
If that's the case, then please send me all the source code to every Open Source program the "Intelligence Community" uses. I mean, it's truly Open, right?
Don't be daft. It's "open source" in that the client--- in this case the US gov't--- has complete access to the source code, not that every drooling twit with a web browser can download a tar.gz of it from the DOD. The "open" in "open source" has always been relative to the end user.
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be daft. It's "open source" in that the client--- in this case the US gov't--- has complete access to the source code, not that every drooling twit with a web browser can download a tar.gz of it from the DOD. The "open" in "open source" has always been relative to the end user.
And what's more, when they do make a solid enhancement, they have given back (at least once). Here's a damned fine contribution:
SELinux - From our NSA. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Open source has been "looked at" (Score:5, Informative)
If that's the case, then please send me all the source code to every Open Source program the "Intelligence Community" uses. I mean, it's truly Open, right?
When the Intelligence Community distributed to you software under the GNU GPL (v2), they gave you either
If you want the source, you have the means. Use them, mm'kay? ;)
If the object code you got is under a non-copyleft license (such as the X11, MIT or BSD), no one is required to give you anything.
If you want to learn more, I can recommend http://www.gnu.org/philosophy [gnu.org], http://www.gnu.org/licenses [gnu.org], http://www.opensource.org/ [opensource.org] and http://www.debian.org/social_contract [debian.org] among others.
Open Source doesn't mean you can point at anyone who uses it and say "give me that code". It means that they, in some cases, can point at the people who gave it to them and say "give me the code for that".
I hope I've cleared things up a bit, and keep on lovin' the open code :)
Parent
Eh. It was about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Good ole Gartner (Score:5, Funny)
"Do not expect to automatically save money with open source software, or OSS, or any technology without effective financial management," said analyst Mark Driver. '
Parent
Re:Eh. It was about time (Score:4, Informative)
The DoD put out several papers on using Open Source dating back several years. I believe one was mentioned on Slashdot at the time.
Here [osd.mil] is one from 2006.
I've been using almost all open source, both for architectural solutions and for custom software, in DoD since joining in 2005, and I know there are plenty of others doing the same.
Parent
Re:Eh. It was about time (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Eh. It was about time (Score:5, Informative)
The switch to metric worked just fine for the countries that did it. In fact, the only confusion that exists is a result of the fact that some countries have chosen to hold out.
Parent
Re:Eh. It was about time (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the US, Myanmar and Libya?
Since scientific and engineering literature is almost always published in SI now, even not having the Yanks on board doesn't really matter to the rest of the world.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Great Britain, which refused to give up pints even under the withering glare of EU bureaucrats.
Most of us yokels here in the US regularly use and encounter both the metric system and traditional units. Converting is not difficult. Both systems being utterly arbitrary, we just prefer to choose whichever units are most convenient to the circumstances. Rather than, say, enforcing utterly stupid laws that seek to criminalize selling goods in unsanctioned weights and measures. We're just funny that way.
Yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Next week: Steve Ballmer himself visits the White House...
Re:Yeah.To answer a request for bid... (Score:3, Funny)
The summary goes something like this:
This Whitehouse Administration is seeking a x86-64 64 bit computer operating system (OS) that is free of cumbersome and expensive licensing issues, can be secured and is not vulnerable to Windows security flaws, and which the Whitehouse Administration IT department can view, modify, and re-issue the source code in compiled form. ....
My understanding is that the maintenance staff at the Whitehouse are currently working 24/7 to secure any chairs that can be picked up by a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The summary goes something like this:
This Whitehouse Administration is seeking a x86-64 64 bit computer operating system (OS) that is free of cumbersome and expensive licensing issues, can be secured and is not vulnerable to Windows security flaws, and which the Whitehouse Administration IT department can view, modify, and re-issue the source code in compiled form. ....
Well, open source generally isn't free. Some one else generally pays for it somewhere. I do think that it is 30-40 years past to do this tho
McNealy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was starting to write here that McNealy is an odd choice for this, since he was somewhat dragged kicking-and-screaming to OSS.
But thinking about it, I actually can't think of a better choice. I can understand the administration wanting a "red blooded" businessman to write the paper rather than wild-eyed OSS advocate that might be less than objective about the pros and cons of OSS versus proprietary software. McNealy really does have a broad background... he's run a major business, he's sold proprietary software, and he's made major releases in OSS software.
He's actually a pretty good choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there really a better choice? Yes. Scott is tied to Sun, and I like Sun as a company, but you won't find another company short of RedHat that is pushing free software as much as Sun. Sun doesn't really care much about open source so much. They want whatever it takes to kill or bring down Microsoft AND perhaps more importantly sell their hardware.
I am a HUGE fan of open source software and have switched most of a business to run on it. I am also a fan of Sun, but I have to admit that there are times
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever read William James? I ask not only because of your incorrect statement about science and faith but because James is the man who came up with Pragmatism, and Obama is continually referred to as a pragmatist (in the historical rather than the pejorative sense). It is in our interest, then, to re-examine Pragmatism if we are to fully understand the decisions that President Obama will make, provided that he does in fact use the pragmatic test of truth. This isn't the place for such an undertaki
Re:McNealy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful consideration and healthy skepticism isn't really "Kicking-and-Screaming". ...
I myself take open source by a need by need basis.
I will use Photoshop over the GIMP
I use Apache over IIS
I use Linux for a server Mac OS X for a desktop.
I prefer Microsoft SQL Server over MySQL
Open Source has the Free as in Beer quality, as well they tend to have ports to multiple platforms, or soon will. Sometimes it is nice to go under the hood and add some hooks to get my job done better.
However there are also a lot of Bad Open Source apps out there which will take me more time to make good that it would be cheaper to get a closed source version and deal with stuff I cant change.
I personally don't like RMS vision of all software Free and Open Source, it has its place and its advantages. However we still need close source applications to drive the market. Running of a support model insures your software never gets easy enough to use without the support. Also close source software has the mix bag of PHB controlling the projects, which sometimes hinders it abilities, and sometime pushes people to do things they just don't want to do. "Oh that interface is difficult to use and not orders in the way that people use the app". Competition is good, competition only works well when we have an well educated consumers who can really balance the pro's and con's without falling into political nonsense.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All that looks good except I'm curious why you would choose MSSQL. Did you consider PostgreSQL in your quest for pragmatism? Was it features, reliability, ease of use or something else?
Just curious.
Re:McNealy? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McNealy? (Score:4, Informative)
You are a little out of data. Snow Leopard server has ZFS as the default. They have also indicated they intend to make this move on the client OS very soon which probably means 10.7.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure was. McNealy never claimed ZFS will be the file system for OS X. That was Jonathan Schwartz. In other news, Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) has read-only ZFS support, with a beta read/write file system module available, and a full ZFS implementation is part of the announced specification for Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard.)
Scott McNealy? Funny, that. (Score:2, Funny)
You mean, this Scott McNealy [techtarget.com]? The one who said Linux is for hobbyists, not enterprise?
Teh funny, it hurts. I even think it's called "eating crow" in U.S.
When you can't beat 'em... Right, Scott?
They are free to use it, of course. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's just hope they don't try to "help".
Obama should meet Stallman (Score:5, Funny)
Scott better include sucess stories (Score:2)
While I have no doubt that Scott will mention Open Source Software, he better include serious success stories of OSS implementations and detail how such an approach if adopted, will result in jobs created here in the USA at the same time save money.
My suggestion to Slashdotters:
Let's write to Scott informing him of these success stories with as much detail as we can. I do have a success story in the education field to write about. All I need is Scott's contact.
Let's also remember that on the other side, fo
A better first step (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh rly? (Score:4, Insightful)
...overall it has been estimated that the global loss due to proprietary software is "in excess of $1 trillion a year."
That's the same kind of lame-ass no-evidence silly figure pushing that the RIAA and MPAA uses to sell their Anti-Piracy measures. I love Linux and I'd love to see it spread even more but this way of propagating it is just retarded. You get Microsoft software for your money, be that a good investment or not is your decision. It's clearly not a "loss" it's merely a costly under-utilization of alternatives.
I tend to praise Linux and rant against Microsoft but this OSI guy Tiemann just blew the frame by using the same silly and faulty means of propaganda rhetoric. One thing I try to learn and live by is "Just because THEY do it doesn't mean we have to or even should do it too". By pulling figures out of his ass to make himself look more interesting he's not a single notch better than Microsoft with it's installbase or the supposed piracy figures by the media companies. That is just NOT the way to convince people of the right thing.
Of course he is.. (Score:4, Funny)
What do you think these calls for change were! You cannot change a proprietary program.
Obama will bring change. IDE time outs will end. Gnome will be half way functional. NetworkManager will stop dropping my wireless signal.
Change is coming my friends and I for one welcome our change bringing overlord.
Scott Mcnealy? (Score:3, Interesting)
I certainly have a great deal of respect for Mr. Mcnealy, but I'm not sure that includes expecting him to objectively comment on MS's competition.
I anxiously await his analysis. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the US Postal Service is not that it is being
treated more like a business. Infact, that is the root of it's
problem. They want to push this illusion that the Postal Service
can or is self supporting.
It is not and never was meant to be a clone of FedEx.
It was intended to be a necessary public service, not an outlet for spam.
The jokers in charge responsible for the current state of the postal
service should be strapped down Clockwork Orange style and forced to
watch "The Postman".
Re:The real secret...... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The real secret...... (Score:4, Insightful)
I work for the Postal Service as a contractor (Probably half of IT work in the USPS is done by contractors).
The USPS employs at least 1 employee in every Post Office in the country, significant amounts of administration and behind the scenes operations to support its primary function. In many rural locales, the Post Office is the only presence the Federal Government has nearby, which is why draft registrations and passports involve the Postal Service.
Now, if we get rid of the business that the Postal Service does handling junk mail, the cost of first class and package shipping will have to go up a significant amount to cover all of the costs to maintain that entire workforce. If bulk mail is half the cost of first class, and makes up 90% of the volume, then the cost of a first class stamp is going to have to go up to a $1.50 or more to make up the lost revenues. And if that happens, what will happen to the volume of first class mail and shipping packages? Would I love receiving less junk mail? Sure, but not at the cost of having to pay even more when I wanted to send something of my own.
And, I do think Open Source would help a lot. Once government computers are on non-proprietary systems, every vendor will support it, which will mean drivers for hardware, and familiarity for regular computer users. Once people are familiar with it, they'll decide to try it at home, and their kids will grow up with it. And once it starts to grow that way, software (games and the stuff you see on the shelf at Best Buy) will be written for the *nix environments. Then people will be able to choose based on the merits of the Open Source systems instead of saying, 'Oh, I can't use Linux, because it doesn't have Photoshop.' Then, Microsoft and Apple will have to do some pretty significant things to compete, and if they can't, they'll eventually become the minor players in the market. Unfortunately, if that ever comes to pass, it will be at least 15 years away.
Parent
Re:The sound you hear (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously you missed CNNs inauguration coverage yesterday.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously you missed CNNs inauguration coverage yesterday.
Every UK news channel was equally sycophantic, and he's not even our president except by proxy.
Re:The sound you hear (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well if this economy needs anything right now (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ahead mark me troll, but have any of you seriously given thought to what will happen if open source were to become the norm and all these people were out of work, being asked to volunteer the skills they once got paid for?
Who says that Open Source has to be free? Seriously. This model is still completely misunderstood. Someone wants a specialized application for whatever ... they pay you to write it. You publish it under a license and share the code. That way you get money AND free input from the community. Sure there will be competing products that base on your code but look at the distro vendors. SuSe, Canonical, RedHat they all use more or less the same code and sell their specific very individual solutions.
I can imagine what would happen if programmers were no longer bound to huge companies by NDAs and Non-Compete agreements and all code was open: We'd get a shit ton of awesome code to work with and all the brilliant results stemming from there.
The difficult part is to change the perception of open source from the one like yours "Everything is free as in Beer and the brewer goes broke" to "Everything is free as in speech and you get paid for the quality and sustainability of your work". I wouldn't mind having companies go broke that re-release the same product year after year with little to no improvements. If there are other companies that do the job better and improve over time I guess it would only be fair. The current market is based on monopolism and power struggle between the monopolies. That's what has to change for FOSS to succeed and we need to start in the heads.
Parent
Re:Well if this economy needs anything right now (Score:4, Insightful)
A significant problem with this model is that businesses with the resources to hire developers to program custom solutions often consider software, such as the custom solution they just paid for, to be competitive assets.
Businesses rightly consider it foolish to give assets that they paid for away to their competitors. As a result, they will often be reluctant to pay for a custom solution only to have their competitors receive it for free.
Consequently, they often choose to pay for custom solutions that are proprietary, so that their important IT business assets remain theirs and theirs alone. Alternatively, they will reach for proprietary, paid solutions ensuring that competitors who wish to use the same will incur the same costs. They'll then pay their own people or contractors to customize the proprietary solution, again, ensuring that the fruits of their investment in software accrue to them only and not their competitors.
Parent
Re:News at 11: (Score:4, Funny)
Martha Stewart has been asked to prepare a report on that subject for the
new administration.
Parent
Re:common misconception (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that is not the point at all. You're missing the point. Free/Open Source has the greatest potential to be better because it gets extensively peer reviewed and improved and thereby debugged and tested far more than any for profit company could ever afford to. Open source also means open standards. It means that you can watch streaming video without having to use MS Media Player but in a standards compliant MP4, AVI, or whatever other format. An open source website uses a browser agnostic and not requiring Internet Explorer in order to view it properly. Finally, and perhaps the largest advantage of open source is that hardware becomes open again. By forcing open source compliance, hardware will now be truely owned by the consumer. The consumer will not be forced into using Windows (or some NDIS wrapper) because a manufacturer, such as Broadcomm, deems open sourcing its drivers to be anti-competitive despite the fact that its drivers must be standards compliant to interoperate with other products. I hope Obama and his CIO will force the use of open source software. We are in a dawn of a new era now wherein it will take the collective effort of everyone to raise our country out of the ashes of our former president. Open source becomes one of the vehicles for large scale, rapid improvements not seen since the new deal.
Parent