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.
Misread? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that people can disagree with your pro-linux attitudes, and many do, and for good reason.
From the release.
"Governor Mitt Romney must put a stop to this boondoggle," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing. It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost."
I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
Wow.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Taxachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government using linux, good. Government forcing the use of linux and ignoring sound procurement procedures, bad.
It hurts to read that nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many companies can provide OSS solutions: many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Talk about misunderstanding (in purpose?) the meaning of the word monopoly.
Honestly, what are those people smoking? WHo are they supporters? Who advises them in IT matters? And in anticompetitive legal matters?
Can somebody send them one or two of the many fully documented cases (Amazon, Munich) in which Linux based offerings were cheaper than closed source based ones?
Please, can somebody educate them in case the barbarities they are saying come out of ignorance and not of knowing misrepresentation?
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It hurts to read that nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's metric shitloads of custom code for specific tasks written for Windows. Theres shitloads of it for unix. There's shitloads of it for other mainframe OS's.
Ideally, they'd choose the best platform and tools for the task at hand, and not bog the process down by ideology at the taxpayers expense - which is the concern, and the basis for the comparison to socialist russia.
Re:"Monopoly" description slightly misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopoly on software means that only a single person/organization may produce software and has nothing to do with who buys what.
The state of massachusets is not creating a monopoly on software because they are not decreeing that only a single person/organization may produce software.
I think in this case the CCAGW is much more misleading, than the slashdot story.
Re:Misread? (Score:3, Insightful)
But Open source is the the only software that can be independenty audited, and should be required for government work. Any thing else is a black box that could be filled with back doors or other nasty suprizes
Besides open source projects do not give the author a monolopy on any given project. If some one fails to deliver, another vendor can pick up whrer they left off with minimum disruption.
PACs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
If some one fails to deliver, another vendor can pick up whrer they left off with minimum disruption.
And maximum cost. This is about taxpayers dollars. If corporations want to do such things with private cash, be my guest.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
This view is a little simplistic, of course -- obviously, lots and lots of people make free/open source software. But I do think it has some merit.
Suppose the gov't mandated open source software, then discovered that none of the open source database software available to them could meet the standards of their applications? Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
Also, what if MS SQL Server is just the best tool for the job at hand? It's pretty darn fast. You may prefer another product yourself, but that doesn't mean there's anything really "wrong" with MS SQL. It's a totally viable contender. So why tell government organizations that they CAN NOT use it?
In fact, I'm extremely leery of the idea that the government should be allowed to single out a particular business/vendor and say "we will not consider this alternative," while considering all the others. If it's permitted to do that, what criteria should the company meet before it can be excluded? (Obligatory paranoid example: Suppose it was because the CEO was gay?)
The support issue is pretty relevant, too. This brings back the hoary old question, "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" And we're talking dollar values now. If it turns out that your average Joe Shmoe with a government job can't figure out AbiWord as easily as Microsoft Word, then what will be the cost of training those employees to use the new software?
What will be the cost to convert existing documents to file formats that the new software can support?
What will be the cost of supporting the new software, versus supporting the old? Shouldn't the people of Massachusetts be shown some figures before a decision is made?
Who's to say some support contractor won't come along and charge the government an arm and a leg for "advanced Unix experience," compared to what they'd pay to support Windows? I mean, it is the government, right? When did a contractor ever fleece the government?
I'm not trying to say that any of this proves that switching to open source is a bad idea for Massachusetts. But I do think that, if what this organization is saying is that the taxpayers should be asking questions and demanding answers, then I'd kinda tend to agree.
Socialist Government (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably don't know what it means anyway. clueless.
They seem to think socialism == communism.
Which is wrong.
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a break, in this day and age, are Americans still blinded by calls of "communist"? I realize that your Civics class cum indoctrination sessions made Communism != Democracy, Freedom and Puppies(tm), but really, havent at least SOME of you picked up a PoliSci text?
Please, next time -- EVEN If you are NOT a Communist -- next time someone misuses the idea, or does a knee-jerk 'communist/socialist' drop, PLEASE correct them.
Re:It hurts to read that nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
They argue that the costs may increase because of the change in skillset required to manage an entirely OSS based solution. They want the procurement policy to choose the best job for the task based on all factors, not just OSS versus proprietary. In addition they criticise the methods of their local government.
None of this is M$ FUD, it's simply a non-partisan, non-profit lobbying group asking government to behave in a transparent and equitable manner.
Now turning to your post.
How many companies can provide the Windows set of "solutions": 1.
How many companies can provide OSS solutions? many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Let's compare like with like here:
How many companies can provide the operating system?
Windows 1, OSS many
How many companies can provide a solution based on a particular OS, or a combination?
Windows many, OSS many.
Why is this difference important? Simple, there are many IT companies who can provide the required solution and quality of service. However, those who base it on Windows have been automatically excluded. Not a monopoly but it's still anti-competitive.
Send them the documented cases and maybe they will see the benefit of OSS. However, that still doesn't change their core argument; the new procurement policy is biased and poorly thought out.
I'm not some M$ apologist, I just believe that the best practices to find the best solution should be used.
They have some good points... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost.
Their other point is correct as well:
Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software.
While it's good to ALLOW or to PROMOTE open-source, I do not belive in the adoption of open-source by force. It's when we force people to do things that we run in to trouble. I believe in free-enterprise, the system that our nation is founded on. Massachusetts has in fact reverted to a state-sponsored monopoly on software. However, since it's LINUX, everyone on Slashdot seems to think it's ok. Why not just enact a law like Oregon, where they force the CONSIDERATION of linux. Thus, if Windoze happens to work better for a specific application, use it. If Linux or Novell or Irix work better, use them. That's true innovation and free-enterprise.
On the other hand, the article asserts that:
Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
Without giving any reference to studies or data. This is evidence that the article is in part an OPINION piece and thus the entire article should be taken(read) with a grain of salt, so to speak.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, this is a conservative, libertarianish, anti-government group. Like the de Tocqueville Institution, it gets money from the big foundations that support such groups. You think the EFF and ACLU get all their money from membership fees? These funding sources exist on the right and left -- it's useful to know about them but they're not evidence of some horrible conspiracy.
Seriously, if people have lucid, convincing cases to make about why a mandatory switch to open-source applications will save taxpayer money, go win them over! I don't see where screaming 'Vast right-wing conspiracy!" does more than preach to the choir.
Now, the issue of de Tocqueville getting money from Microsoft is different...
State Govt has obligation to set bid standards (Score:5, Insightful)
They can insist on interoperability, open protocols and document formats, etc. The Mass policy is just shorthand for that.
If MS wants to submit a linux distro, they'd qualify. But any purchaser can reasonably set standards that effectively exclude Windows and Office, just by insisting on products with the above features.
There are sound reasons for insisting on open products. Vendor lock-in is expensive. They *always* extract monopoly rent. IBM did when they could, MS has been doing so for at least 15 years.
There's the monoculture argument - mass worms. Linux on the desktop, with one of the friendlier distros, is not noticibly harder to use. It is somewhat *different* to use, but not by as much as the difference between win95 and winxp. The same amount of investment in training will yeild the same proficiency, and lower costs because the stuff is not as nightmarish.
I work at an understaffed IT dept. in an underfunded institution. I have spent the last couple of weeks fighting the nachi worm. Don't even try to tell me windows TCO is lower.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is free to roll their own Linux distro, just like RedHat and SuSE. Nice troll, though.
Nicely put - I disagree, though (Score:3, Insightful)
So, sure, the taxpayers should ask the questions. But the answer is, "This is a reasonable policy that will pay dividends for as long as state government uses computers."
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. Only liberals have pure motives, anyone who questions whether government could spend less is a right-wing extremist who wants to throw old people out in the streets. Come on.
They could do without the silly "socialist" comments, but their main point-that government should not discriminate against or in favor of free software-is entirely reasonable.
Audit = benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
What is to prevent a proprietary software company from including "features" which allow ease of access to classified government information to any hacker but not to the people who are being governed? Government should be transparent to its citizens not to its companies.
The only safe choice is OSS, preferably from a university that is funded to develop OSS for government use.
NarratorDan
Re:Misread? (Score:5, Insightful)
You say there are "plenty of specific packages for government, that wont [sic] exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them." Could you be a little more specific? Have you been paying any attention to what's been happening in the F/OSS world at all? Over and over again, people say "Well, that's all well and good, but no one will ever write F/OSS software to do X, Y, Z." And then someone does. A free operating system kernel? Preposterous. Free commercial grade databases? Out of the question. Viable free software on the desktop? It'll never happen. And on and on. Forget whatever screwed up theory you have in your head; just look at the real world around you! It's happening. I don't know what line of work you're in, but if your in the computer industry, and value your career, it's time to open your eyes.
Re:PACs (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that EVERYONE has an agenda, no matter how neutral or benevolent their cause might be. If anything, my statement was meant to encourage people to look further into these organizations and not simply assume that ANY group who has a fancy name actually equitably represents the cause they promote.
They are part of the FUD machine (Score:2, Insightful)
I seriously doubt they have any sort of real "citizen" support. They are probably getting spill-over from all the corporate money that can't go where it used to because of McCain-Feingold.
Here is the email I sent to them: (you should send one, too. Let these folks know you are on to them)
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do take issue at the silliness of their TCO arguement though -- any software will require retraining, even, in some instances, updates between versions (For instance, the last place I worked has spent good sums of money on training for techs trying to upgrade their aging Windows NT 4.0 servers to a Windows 2000 ActiveDirectory platform, and the entire staff was retrained to some degree when we upgraded from NT4 to Windows 2000), and the fact that software does, even in their worst-case theoretical model, constitute 5-10% of the total cost, make it a loss leader even before you factor in the lowered costs due to reduced virus proliferation.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saving money is not the only measure of a good solution. Mass., like many states has found its self in a position where it is so locked into propriatary software and formats that even while suing MS for antitrust violations they continue (at least in the short run) purchasing products and services from that same company. If that isn't a sign that being locked into a single vendor is dangerous then I don't know what is. What if next time there MS license is up for renewal MS puts in a clause that stipulates that Mass. will drop it's Antitrust suit or MS will pull their licenses for everything? Remember these antitrust cases are civil matters so they COULD do it without breaking any criminal laws. Could Mass really do anything but give in if this were to happen today?
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you ought to RTFA again. It appears that you missed this line: "Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software." This statement, incidentally, is a flat out lie, and is NOT backed by any reputable studies. I, offhand, question their motives for printing this.
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?
I think there's a big difference there. Mandating Open Source software or standards would not be explicitly excluding any competitors. It would only be excluding the closed-source philosophy, which, especially in the context of public affairs, is certainly a worthy cause. Being a taxpayer, I don't want my taxes being used to make some person or company richer without seeing any public benefits myself. That is what using proprietary software does. On the other hand, if a government funds or contracts Open Source development and procurement, this not only meets its own needs, but also increases the public wealth of information. Using Open Source software not only saves money but produces a better public good for the taxdollars spent.
Here's an analogy: Say a government wants to contract some scientific or medical research to help better the life of it's citizens. Would it be wrong to insist that results of that research would be freely available to the scientific community and thereby the taxpayers who paid to have that research done? That's not socialism, it's simple ethics. The technologically advanced world we live in today was made possible by the high efficiency of "Open Science" if you will--the sharing of discovery so that all may benefit. Would anyone today complain of anti-competitive practice if a government excluded from research grants those who refused to use the scientific method or properly document their findings?
As a sidenote, our nation was founded with the principle that a flourishing "public domain" of art, invention, and information was something to be desired. That's why copyrights and patents were only allowed for a very short time and were only considered as a compromise to help meet a greater goal.
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough, Microsoft DOES provide its source code(the shared source thing), just under unfavorable enough terms they might not qualify for bidding in Massachusetts.
Is that a bad thing? Does a government dictating the conditions of a particular set of bids by suppliers new in any way? No, in this case, open source falls under the same criteria as many other bids: inspectability of supplied goods. How is that bad in any way?
Here's my letter (Score:4, Insightful)
To whom it may concern:
I recently read this article (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news _NewsRelease_09302003b) describing the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and its position with regard to Free Software. I am concerned because it doesn't appear that this position has been adopted with much research into the subject.
For example,
The costs of maintaining an IT infrastructure include:
1. Procurement
2. Deployment
3. Continuing Support
4. Data protection (security)
5. Keeping software up-to-date and patched
6. Data recovery costs (especially in the case of virus infestations)
There are myriad costs associated with having and using an IT infrastructure. The most common non-Free operating system (Microsoft Windows) stands above most others in costs associated as follows:
1. Procurement (although you can get it heavily discounted, for a state government the costs are still very high)
2. Deployment (Deploying Windows XP requires a phone call to Microsoft for each and every machine installed. While the call may be toll-free, it costs a great deal of administration time to do it for every machine)
3. Upgrade costs (no upgrade is ever free with Microsoft)
4. Data protection (Windows of all flavors has the current worst track record for data protection. New exploits are literally being found every week)
5. Data recovery costs (due to frequent exploits, it becomes necessary to frequently rebuild machines and recover data)
6. Upgrade cycle (having to keep upgrading your software to become compatible with file formats that intentionally don't work with older versions of the software)
7. Personnel Costs (the ratio of administrators to users for Windows-based networks is about 20/1. Conversely, with GNU/Linux-based networks the ratio is much higher, more like 150/1. I know administrators that have even higher ratios than that, and are comfortable with it)
Furthermore, I saw that CAGW is opposed to Microsoft's DRM initiative, as told by this url:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename =get_i nv_Advocacy_Govt_Mandate_on_Tech_IssuePage
Of course, this begs the question, if you don't have access to the source code, how can you be sure there are no such measures built into your software? Microsoft has been convicted of using illegal anti-competitive measures to maintain their monopoly, measures which have frequently resulted in end-users' rights being taken away for the purpose of maintaining revenue streams. Do you really think that supporting such a company is going to reduce government waste?
A South American Congressman outlined all of the benefits of using Free Software over proprietary software in government in a very clear and concise fashion. I urge you to read this letter, posted on the internet as an open letter. I host a copy of it on my own website, and you can read it here:
http://benedict.servebeer.com/index.php?page=Fre eS oftwareInPeru
In this letter, he will address all of your concerns about what was described in your press release as the "socialistic nature" of Free Software.
I do not live in Massachussetts. Quite the contrary, I live in Bellevue, WA, approximately 10 miles away from One Redmond Way. In the Seattle Metropolitan Area, many schools have migrated to GNU/Linux-based networks when they found themselves being audited by Microsoft. Have you considered the costs of dealing with such software audits? That is money spent that cannot be recovered. There is no Return on Investment associated with software audits. There's just a big black hole that wastes the government's money and human resources just to satisfy the paranoia of a convicted monopolist.
Many competitive support vendors and software providers exist for Free Software, including RedHat Linux, Mandrake Linux, IBM, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell. With all of these com
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
If GPL'ed software gets a monopoly, then it's a monopoly of a sort wholly new to the world: a monopoly where no single group has total control over it, and nobody can take exclusive possession of it.
Um, that's not called monopoly. It's called liberation.
For the record. :)
Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
To be frank, goverments got away for far too long using closed source software. That kind of software has its place on society, but not in goverment where every single thing that is done shuld be fully accountable to anybody that wishes to see that things are done the right way.
Or at least I believe it should in democratic countries.
Reply from MA citizen (Score:2, Insightful)