CCAGW Misreads Mass. Policy, Open Standards Generally 534
mhrivnak writes "The Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste made this press
release blasting the Massachusetts policy decision to move to Open Source. They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,' how this policy is
'socialist' and why 'The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better.' The CCAGW has been previously informed about the benefits of open source software in
government. Tell them what you think!" The CCAGW is at least not completely one-dimensional; the group
is also opposed to mandatory embedded
snoopware.
Maybe they don't realize that conventional
closed-source software
has
big costs worth avoiding.
"Monopoly" description slightly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The actual quote is:
"It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software."
So, while misguided, the CCAGW isn't exactly calling Linux a monopoly, but rather the government of Massachussets.
Re:Misread? (Score:5, Informative)
This means that no-one is excluded from competing for the software contracts, as long as their software uses open data formats.
It's not unfair, and it is indeed the least that the people deserve. Proprietary data formats will become very expensive in the future. The Slashdot-post example of this is the proverbial Word 95 document that is hard to import into a newer version of MS Word without loss of something. (Note: I haven't checked that myself, I just see it posted here over and over again.)
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks CCAGW, I needed a good laugh.
It's clear that you didn't RTFA.
I would like to point out that the only time the word "monopoly" appears in the press release was in the following sentence:
It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software.
For the others of you who did not RTFA, I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself, but rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process. If they were excluding all competitors to the benefit of a for-profit corporation (Microsoft would be a good example), the criticism would be the same, and the process would be unethical at best, illegal at worst. Why is it suddenly alright to do the same thing with open-source vendors and projects?
Here's the sum-up of the press release for those of you who still refuse to RTFA:
Open-source software = good, admirable
state mandated zero-competition = bad, socialist
CAWG may have little to do with citizens (Score:5, Informative)
Y'all ought to check out how CAWG seems to applaud the death of any and all MS Antitrust work. In fact, it appears to be a group founded by the Reagan administration.
Sounds like a shill to me.
what is the "Freeware Initiative"? (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously, the only reference I can find on Google is another rant against it.
I'm inclined to believe that the press release is misrepresenting the facts. In fact, the other press release that I found here [softwarechoice.org] [www.softwarechoice.org] says that it will be "an effor requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linus software/platforms if possible." This seems a little different that requiring that all systems be open source, which seemed to be implied by the CCAGW press release.
I found this [miami.com][www.miami.com], which gives a very little bit more information, talking about "open standards".
andy
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to point out that requiring the government to purchase only open source software does not exclude _any_ vendors from the process. It may cause some vendors to decide that they don't want to satisfy the government's requirements. But if MS were to produce products that were open source, they could bid for a project along with IBM, HP and all of the other companies that can bid on delivering open source systems.
Re:Boondoggler (Score:4, Informative)
I might just use RHN or Red Carpet, or one of many others to patch and upgrade a few hundred Linux boxes in 10 minutes.
But that's just me.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
It turns out that the government actually spent several million dollars on this major case taking on one of the wealtiest corporations in the US! Who would've imagined such a thing!
CAGW also seems to believe that the entire notion of a microsoft monopoly is some sort of hoax [cagw.org]
See also:
CAGW CHEERS MICROSOFT VERDICT [cagw.org]
CAGW is PRO-Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Dec. 3, 2002: West Virginia will join Massachusetts as the only states to continue the courtroom antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp., pressing a U.S. appeals court to reconsider tougher sanctions against the world's largest software company.
A pro-Microsoft group, the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste, quickly attacked West Virginia's decision as improper given that state's economic conditions. The group said the state faces a $200 million deficit and teachers have been warned they may not receive raises next year.
"The taxpayers of West Virginia have every right to question the attorney general's priorities," said the group's president, Tom Schatz. "What is Darrell McGraw thinking by using scarce tax dollars to pursue costly litigation? This appeal is unrealistic, imprudent and irrational."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/ma
June 28, 2001: an appellate court's decision to overturn the order to split Microsoft in two
Citizens Against Government Waste, though, took a position much closer to Microsoft. "This decision marks a return to rational antitrust jurisprudence and is a victory for taxpayers, investors, and the entire information economy," CAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-269198.html [com.com]
Conservative organizations will always choose industry self regulation over government regulation, even if it's a monopoly.
Open Bidding in the Gov is a joke. (Score:3, Informative)
Often, the specs will be written in such a way that only one company can fill them. The specs are written by the reps for the company and then given to the IT guys at the Bureau of Whatever. ("Hey Joe. This will fit your needs perfectly. Just insist on these specs in your RFP.")
Multiple Award Schedule contracts like GSA contracts are just as big a joke. If you sell commodity products, like washers, nails, or computers, then there are 500 other companies that have a GSA contract to sell the exact same thing. Who do the buyers buy from? In the computer hardware scene- The usual suspects: Dell, IBM, HP (Or, its bought from the company that has the rep that actually wrote the RFP. Depends on particular product)
Low cost doesn't matter. They go with what they see in the Gvt Buyer trade rags. Government buyers LIVE by the axiom "Never ever got fired for buying
Another point:
These people that are in charge of buying 5000 desktop computers for the Dept of Whatever are also the same people that are in charge of buying 500000 rolls of TP every 6 months.
I guarantee they are more concerned about their own ass, than they are about the computer that the peon on the frontline is using.
----
Okay. Personal plug time.
Now that I've said my piece, and probably killed any chance for a career in my preferred field... let me back up and say that Contracts Admin was a GREAT job. I liked doing it. And, I would like to do it again. I can fix your problems, whether you are business-to-government or government-to-business.
Hire me.
(Go to my journal and say something. I'll see it)
Re:CAGW is PRO-Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
One of their press releases [prnewswire.com] released last year looks very similar to the recent MA complaints. The president of CAGW seems to have somewhat good intentions as a whole, but does not seem to have enough knowledge of the commercial software industry to justify his postion on this issue. Saving taxpayers money is one thing and consistant with what CAGW stands for [cagw.org], the theory he has I quoted below is good, but his final conclusion on how this can actually save taxpayer money is very misguided and provides the opposite of what he is trying to point out. Spoon fed?
When purchasing software, the government should examine which
products are the most compatible, efficient, technologically advanced, and
cost-effective on the market. Purchasing source codes would provide no
inducement for software makers to become competitive and would hinder the
development of new products.
I wonder if he could explain what he means by that or who is he looking out for there.
Maybe someone should ask him how far in the future he is looking or if he is aware of Microsoft's save some now but pay later and forever method of licensing through "software assurance" and their long standing history of making sure just enough information is held back to make any true competition is hard to find. Add in the cost of getting everything MS so it works just right or to ensure compatibility and it looks much worse.
Re:I ahve NO problem whatsoever with their release (Score:3, Informative)
What is soo wrong with them asking the government of Mass to keep open the choice to use other OS's than Linux?
Maybe it's the fact that Massachussetts was't mandating Linux, it was mandating open standards, which isn't exactly the same as mandating open source, and is definitely not the same as mandating Linux.