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.
Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since CAGW is allegedly concerned about federal dollars they'd probably REALLY shit to see my federal agency now switching over to open source (via Zope). And it's not just us, here's a whole list of federal agencies switching to CMSs powered by Open Source [workforce-tools.org]. CAGW better get ready with their FUD machine.
I agree.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"The state's taxpayers deserve nothing less." -CAGW President Tom Schatz
Dear Mr. Schatz,
I agree 100%, but not in the way you may think
The site www.cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 [netcraft.com]
mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I'm Wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
Romney and the State (Score:4, Interesting)
The major problem we have here is patronage and not just at the state house level. Its not uncommon to see 3 or 4 generation all working at the same state job(for example the T(commuter rail)).
My guess is someones brother must be an MCSE and too dumb to learn anything new. There is a huge "right to work" sentiment here esp. if its paid for by tax dollars. Some times we go so far left here I have to lean right. We have a huge tax problem similar to California. I think its a little worse sometimes. (Excise tax anyone?)
But I would really like to see Free Software and Linux flourish here in Mass.(Birthplace of GNU).
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Interesting)
The key is placing all potential vendors on equal ground, and not preferring one over the other because of ideology.
I want to see linux adopted in government. I write software for government agencies (public safety, police and fire specifically), and I've been pushing the bosses towards porting some of our major products towards linux.
But I want to see linux win out because of technical merit, not because of capital F free or some other jingoistic nonsense.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo. See the comments from LWN [lwn.net] (the comment titled "Money trail from Media Transparency").
CAGW gets money from the same folks ("John M. Olin Foundation" and "The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.".
Re:CAGW position reasonable and consisten (Score:2, Interesting)
This law may as well say all public employees must wear birkenstocks and all cops drive electric golf carts to help save the whales. Use the most appropriate tools for the job.
There's also usually posts along the lines of.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll leave you to ponder this for a while....
On the topic at hand: Linux is a monopoly"???
A bit of research [reference.com] (Although, they're running linux [netcraft.com], so it may be a conspiracy) :
monopoly:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
3. b. A commodity or service so controlled.
3. c. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
3. d. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
1. Maybe if SCO get's their way...
2. Maybe if Microsoft have their way...
3. Err, see above...
While I don't use Linux at present (although I have experimented with it on both x86 and PPC hardware) I favour OS X. Of Windows, OS X, and Linux, the three OS's are different in so many ways due to creation and control factors of all aspects of the product. A very small amount of research will highlight these differences, and who does exert control of development and code. When I read something like this and imagine the time and effort (and maybe cash, who knows) put into and this comes out, it really makes me wonder does sanity prevail: does the majority rule, or are all the idiots just on the same side?
My email to the group (Score:1, Interesting)
***************
Just a few comments re your press release on open source software.
(1) Open source cannot be a monopoly because anyone can write it or supply it at any price (the free market) The difference between open source and closed source software is that open source software can be changed/improved by the government in any way it likes and by hiring anyone it likes or doing the work itself (whichever is cheapest... again the free market) That is impossible with closed-source software- only the manufacturer can change it, if it wants, and at the price the manufacturer chooses.
(2) Anyone can offer support services for open source sofware. If one group charges too much, use a different group-- the free market again. You will find many different companies ranging from small ones to IBM offering such services.
In contrast, only the manufacturer of closed-source software can properly support the software because only it can fix bugs and issue enhancements to its own, secret code. Not so for open source.
Your press release was startling in missing these important facts and this unfortunately damages your group's reputation.
**************
NOTE: I am a Canadian but I feel it's worth pointing these things out to my Mass. neighbours. I hope my American friends will do the same favour should they see similar errors in Canadian hands.
Shut up (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Socialist Government (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now it hurts to say it but, I'm an American. Many people have fought (some died, many didn't) so that I could change the government without needing to start a revolution or civil war. The drawback is that every other idiot and braindead American can also change it.
NarratorDan
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the CCAGW press release regarding Massachusetts' decision to move future expentidures to Open Source-licensed software. For a long time I have been generally in agreement with CCAGW's recommendations, but this has changed my views. There are a few, well, severe problems with the claims presented.
First, it is widely known in the industry that Open Source software can often provide a much lower total cost of ownership than proprietary software. The release quotes CCAGW president Tom Schatz claming the opposite. I find this rather bizarre, since Mr. Schatz is not an information systems analyst, nor does he have any training in information technology decisionmaking. He cites no field experts, nor data, nor even an anecdote, in making his claim that training and deployment costs outweigh acquisition savings.
Users only have to be trained once on a new system. Experience has shown that after training, they come to prefer Linux-based solutions due to the greater stability and security of the platform. End-users no longer need worry about viruses, and the operating system no longer crashes. This improves productivity and overall satisfaction with the technology.
Schatz reveals a fundamental ignorance of Open Source technology with a second claim: that Massachusetts is creating a "monopoly" through this mandate. Had CCAGW done even *five minutes* of research into Linux and Open Souce application software, it would have become unbelievably obvious that the Linux operating system is distributed by no less than six major organizations worldwide, and over a hundred smaller ones. Open Source application software is provided by -- literally -- thousands upon thousands of different, competing vendors.
Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, SuSE, and Gentoo are all under different ownership. Debian is a non-profit organization. I haven't even spoken of the myriad vendors of individual applications. Anyone who has read, say, the front page of http://www.linux.org would find the monopoly claim, well, laughable.
Finally, Open Source software offers critical functionality for government applications. The superior security record of Linux-based systems means a near-zero risk of data theft or security compromises when systems are properly deployed. In contrast to closed-source solutions, Open Source software can be subjected to a security audit with ease. When vulnerabilities are discovered, the Open Source development model generally makes a patch available in under 12 hours (in contrast to the usual 36-72 hours, or more, from proprietary vendors).
While Windows users scrambled during the initial attacks by the Blaster, Sobig, Welchia, and Swen worms (all just last month!), Linux users continued working, disturbed only by the excessive network traffic pumped out by their infected Windows colleagues.
If I were a resident of Massachusetts, I would hope that my personal information were protected by the security of a Linux platform, rather than the virus-ridden, exploit-perforated wasteland of Windows 2000.
Open Source offers a savings. But CCAGW already knows that: "The site cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD." (from netcraft.com)
Why not share CCAGW's own rationale in selecting Open Source solutions in another press release? It would help to persuade me, and others, that CCAGW hasn't been paid off by a proprietary software vendor.
CR
Re:Socialist Government (Score:3, Interesting)
My feeling is that it's largely because the US is such a large country with many diverse ethnic groups and geographic areas. With this situation, you almost guarantee that some people are going to feel shafted if they see their tax money being spent on some other group that they don't relate to. They start complaining very loudly about freeloaders grabbing their cash. In this kind of environment where most people aren't bought in, socialism doesn't really work.
In contrast, many European countries have historically had a smaller, more homogenous culture. In that situation, the majority of people can feel that they are benefiting equally from various socialist government programs, becuase they're all in the same boat. In many cases, this system can work just fine.
The US does have many strongly socialist programs, but mostly to benefit groups that most people get all teary-eyed and sentimental over, like old folks and farmers.
My expectation is that if the EU continues to add more countries and centralize its federal power, then people may start to see tax funds transferred across cultural boundaries. This would likely cause a backlash against socialism in Europe as well.
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like. The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
Re:Socialist Government (Score:1, Interesting)
Because rewarding people based on intelligence and hard work will inevitably produce a society where people are unequal in wealth and power.
Re:PACs (Score:1, Interesting)
CAGW Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson.
Would that be this [seekgod.ca] J. Peter Grace? If so be afraid..be very very afraid.
CAGW is corporate funded (Score:1, Interesting)
Dear Tom (copy FYI) (Score:3, Interesting)
From: Leon Brooks
Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication
To: Tom Schatz
Subject: What a waste!
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: CAGW Media, Peter Quinn, ESR, RMS
I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article:
Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts.
I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen.
The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait.
Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software".
If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you?
Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares.
Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do.
Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair?
Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market"?
Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on.
Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to.
You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose.
If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as
Exposing Their Own Ignorance (Score:1, Interesting)
Dear Sirs,
I would simply like to help better inform you about the MA strategy to move toward "open standards".
First of all let me say that I make my living selling software in the traditional manner. I sell licenses to use my company's proprietary software. I have founded and sold one software company and am currently employed by another. At all times I have been heavily dependent on open source software, though I have very rarely made any open source software myself.
There are two points of clarification I would like to make about your press release criticizing the state of MA.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename= news_ NewsRelease_09302003b
First, your characterization of this policy as something the Soviet Union would attempt shows that you completely misunderstand what open source software is about and what the MA plan for adopting open source software is about.
Second, your focus on the costs of "free" software may be debated by reasonable people, but you completely miss the other meaning of the word "free" that the open source software community is built on. To paraphrase the open source community, you have focused on "free as in beer" but have completely missed the boat regarding "free as in speech".
Governments collect and manage data about people. The data they collect and manage is generally considered to be public data and should be freely accessible to all. As such, the format in which the data is held must be open, that is, in the public domain. Only in this way are all citizens able to freely access the data without paying a tax to the one convicted monopolist company in our country, namely, Microsoft. Open source software saves data in file formats that are also open. Proprietary software sometimes saves data in formats that are open, though most proprietary software vendors do not or only as a secondary and usually somewhat restricted option. The state of MA rightly points out that public data should not be stored in proprietary formats that require fees paid to private companies to access.
Similarly, the data governments collect about their citizens, their businesses, and their interactions with the state are used to affect people's lives. If this data had no affect on people's lives, then that would really be some waste that your agency should root out. If the data does affect people's lives and if the software the gov't uses affects the data, then again the state of MA rightly points out that that software should itself, be open to inspection by the public. Proprietary software is almost never open to inspection by anyone. How can the public be convinced that the software their government is using to store their personal data is secure? Is performing accurately? Only with open source software can this be done.
You compare MA proposal with policies of the former Soviet Union. As far as I know, the Soviet Union was not the poster child for making information and the processes of government systems openly accessible to all of its citizens. If this characterization was made because you feel the state of MA is forcing decisions to a single "monopoly" solution, you are again completely misinformed about open source software. There are typically more open source solutions for any software need than there are proprietary ones. In addition to Linux as an operating system, for example, there are also several different versions of the BSD operating system available as open source as well as BeOS and others. All of these are highly advanced solutions used in industry today. Beyond the operating system, there are choices in web and application servers. While Apache is the most commonly known open source web server, there are dozens of others including Tomcat, Zope, JBoss, Jetty most of which are full application servers. In my experience, there are generally as many or more open source choices than there are proprietary choices for any software category. The stat
Re:CAGW is PRO-Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Also they immediately lose all credibiliy with their links page [cagw.org]. Under 'Technology Reform Links' they list 'Microsoft Corporation - Visit the Microsoft website to examine the future of cyber technology!'. Riiight.
Here was my response. (Score:4, Interesting)
-----
This message is in direct response to this article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/10/01/22
Linux is the absolute opposite of waste in government. As I type this,
I sit at a Linux workstation, sending mail through a Linux mailserver.
I have an email client, a web browser, instant messenger and an office
suite. Not only that, but about $600 worth of educational software I
plan to share with my kids when I have have some.
Cost of this software: $0. Not because of piracy- because the creators
of the software choose to give it away for free. I should know- I am
also an open source developer.
Each Massachusetts computer using linux is $200+ that is not shipped out
of state to a large corporate sinkhole. This money can be spent on
important things like rebuilding roads and schools. If however you feel
that the schools are over fiananced, I'm afraid there is little I can do
to convice you otherwise.
Shame on you for speaking on a subject you know little of. Perhaps you
should check news.google.com. Count the positive number of Linux
articles in comparison to negative articles on other operating systems.
Keep a tally over the course of a month.
As I mentioned before, I am an open source developer. I, along with my
friend john, wrote the program GatGui.
http://morgajel.com/index.php?GPMID=5&PM
GatGui is a cancer research tool. It helps identify which genes are
most likely to be involved with certain forms of cancer. John and I
give this program away for free. Why? Because damnit, PEOPLE NEED IT.
It's not about the money, it's about helping people. Before you deride
my effort, I should mention that GAT (previous version of GatGui) is
being used by the Van Andel Institute for cancer research.
I suppose my program is evil and wasteful now, as well, huh?
My point is that you shouldn't complain about a product BEFORE you know
what it is about. Do not let corporate sponsors, or those that are
sponsored by them, make your decisions. If someone is Microsoft
Certified, chances are they will support the decision to stay with
Microsoft. Don't let ignorance blind you.
I apologize for typos- I was up late trying to find the cure for cancer.
-Jesse Morgan
How I responded (Score:3, Interesting)
Subject: Linux is not a 'boondoggle'
Dear sirs,
I would like to respond to your press release 'Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly'. In that press release, you claim that by requiring open source techonolgies, such as Linux, costs to taxpayers will increase. I strongly disagree with that assessment, and I wish that my own state, Minnesota, would take similarly bold cost-saving measures.
Linux and open source are not monopolies-- there are many companies that compete to sell Linux products and support-- and they are by no means boondoggles. Linux and open source software are used prominantly by such high-tech companies as Yahoo, Amazon, Google, and Apple Computer. Even Microsoft has been known to use open source software (including BSD Unix, a Windows and Linux competitor) in its operations.
I work for a five-person high-tech service-oriented company as the guy who writes our support software. We're a start up with very little money, so every employee constantly looks at ways to cut costs and reduce waste. All of our furniture, plus our printer and copier, was purchased used, at eBay, garage sales, or local auctions. If government can cut waste by emulating the private sector, they should follow our lead!
We have one desktop or laptop computer for each employee: the CEO has his personal Apple Powerbook, two employees have low-end Windows laptops, and the two techies (myself and the system administrator) have the cheapest desktops we could find, with Windows ripped out and replaced with Linux.
Our server room houses five computers, three of which run Linux. We plan to get rid of one of our non-Linux machines and put its functionality on one of the Linux machines. We also own two iMacs we use for trade shows. (These were chosen because they are eye-catching; the price of both computers was less than the cost of running a booth at one trade show.)
For us, Linux has been a big win in keeping costs down. In the server room, we can do more on cheaper harware. On desktops, nearly all of our support problems have been related to viruses, worms, spyware, and trojan horses on our two Windows computers. We can keep most of it out with anti-virus software, but not all. We've considered switching the Windows laptops over to a commercial version of Linux (ApplixWare), but we're holding off for now because the change would be as disruptive as upgrading to a new version of Windows.
Granted, we're not a typical organization. Three-fifths of the company is tech savvy enough to diagnose their own desktop problems, and support costs are built into salaries we can't avoid. However, we know exactly how much time we're spending on desktop support, and we know exactly how much money we're spending on software. Linux and open source software has three major advantages: up-front cost, ease of support, and predictability of upgrade costs. It's a big win on all three.
I've studied the issues and have come to the conclusion that open source software is no more expensive to support, and often far cheaper. An entry-level Linux administrator often demands a higher wage than an entry-level Windows administrator, but employers demand more from the Linux administrator. Linux desktops can be administered remotely more effectively than Windows, so a Linux administrator can take care of an entire company's computers without leaving his/her office. Thus, far more machines can be serviced per administrator. Also, Linux machines can be locked down far more effectively, so damage from employees customizing their computers (either deliberately or due to email viruses, if they were to exist on Linux) can be minimized.
As you're aware, governments sometimes make really dumb decisions. To minimize this, they often make policy decisions to limit decision-making. These aren't always perfect. For example, when times are tough they might implement a hiring free