Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government? 501
Skapare writes "Linux Journal is doing a story with a roundup of who the players are that are opposing open source in governments. The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA. But I think we all need to become familiar with this round-up of special interest groups not operating in our interests (as taxpayers)."
Initiative for Software Choice & CompTIA (Score:4, Insightful)
Whew they really had me going 'huh?' until that last part.
---
Jedimom.com [jedimom.com], that "not-so-fresh" feeling.
The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's why open source is a grass roots movement. We aim to capture hearts and minds on a fundamental and righteous level. We target the wallet second.
Open source saves the government money. Open source would create more governemnt jobs, by not only keeping existing support personnel, but also by creating openings for developers that would tailor systems to the ever-evolving government technology base and needs. It makes complete sense to switch to open source. Why we don't switch is easy to see: Microsoft gives military politicians plenty of incentive not too.
Britian, France, Japan, Peru, China and Germany are all moving to Linux and open source. Hell, some are even writing up legislation that gives incentives to businesses that do so as well. Why aren't we (the United States)?
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
You answered your own question. It is because your country has a corrupt and entrenched mass of politicians who have no incentive for doing what is good for the electorate because they don't need to do so to remain in power.
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is tyranny of the majority
Capitalism is tyranny of money.
It sort of loses meaning after a while, this tyranny thing. To write off western civilization since the French Revolution as a tyranny of the rich is a bit short sighted.
Re:The world is changing (Score:4, Insightful)
The reprisal I was speaking of is the same one you fear: people responding to you personally and holding you personally accountable for your words. People like you [both online and in the real world] who are afraid to be known as the source of their own speech are the abusers of free speech. They cripple the worth of it, making a mockery of those who have honest things to fear for their speech.
If you're a woman in Egypt or Iran, and you're speaking out against sexism, then you need anonymity, or you may be scalded with acid, assaulted otherwise or murdered. If you're some petulant brat who wants to make some false-pithy comment about the degradation of American society, then the only purpose in your Anonymity is that which Slashdot already makes clear: that you are a coward.
Stand up for your words and be an adult, or shut the fuck up and sit down at the kiddy table.
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with your point, but have a minor nit to pick with one of your examples.
Actually, women in Iran have it comparatively good, for an islamic state anyway. Iranian femenists have managed to make compelling religious arguments based on the Koran that demands, if not full equality, at least a very fair and kind treatment, where fair in many cases not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Koran amounts to equality before the law. By western standardsn it is still quite lacking, but women are surprisingly far better off in fundamentalist Iran than they are in most of the rest of the islamic world.
OTOH our good friends in Saudi Arabia are the worst offendors. You should read the book "Princess" sometime for a real insite into the dirty secrets of Saudi culture and its treatment of women. Women drowned in the family swimming pool (in front of a family gathering) for sexual misconduct, women stoned to death for having been the victim of a gang rape in her own home after the "gang" united behind a story accusing her of being provactive and her own brother was too cowardly to come forward and tell her parents what really happened. Women locked up in a padded cell, with no light, no converstation, and food slid through a slat in the door, for the rest of their natural lives. The latter is so common they actually have a word for such an appalling facility: "The Women's Room." Women murdered by their families for driving a car in protest of restrictive laws at a time when women from Kuwait were doing so in droves (1991 Gulf War), and this list goes on, ad nauseum.
The damn book should be required reading. The behavior of these cultures is appalling, and our political correctness in trying to whitewash this stuff isn't helpful to anyone. And we in America have supported this disgusting system for over half a century (the American people unwittingly, the American leadership, including the Bush family, quite knowingly), while making enemies of many of the reformers.
Stand up for your words and be an adult, or shut the fuck up and sit down at the kiddy table.
I disagree with this to some degree. Anonymous speech has its place and is important, even here on slashdot. More than once I've read a telling post about an employer posted anonymously to protect the identity of the whistle blower. We would have been poorer for it had the post not been made, or been made non-anonymously resulting in the person losing their job or insider status. However, you are right to decry the abuse of anonymouty, where cowardly children say inane things without having to stand by their words, and I share your irritation with such imbecels.
Let them jabber away, but, as you say, seat them firmly at the kiddy table.
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Insightful)
You mention that Arab/Persian (redunant) traditions and gender roles might differ enough from the West that they think we have problems. This is called "cultural reletavism", and refers to the believe that cultures cannot be comparatively judged as "right" or "wrong" against one another. It was the common philosophical perspective of anthropologists/sociologists throughout the 70s and 80s, but fell out of popularity in the 90s (with the advent of social postmodern theory in anthropology.
I
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Interesting)
"Separation of the [democracy and capitalism] also depends on an unspoken deal, a nonaggression pact, between democracy's political majority and capitalism's affluent minority. The majority acknowledge that capitalism benefits all of us, even if some benefit a lot more than others. The majority also take comfort in the belief that everyone has at least a shot at scoring big. The affluent minority, meanwhile, acknowledge that their good fortune is at least in part the luck of the draw. They rec
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought that was the definition of government.
Seriously, the people of the US have a heck of alot of more important things to worry about than whether the Government chooses Linux vs. Microsoft. Do you think the CEO of General Electric gives a crap whether the OS of choice on Random Project X is Linux or Microsoft. Heck No!
Anyway, the money that would be saved by going from Microsoft to Linux is miniscule compared to the money spent on pork barrel projects by both sides of the isle. Unforunately, pork barrel projects are essentially politicans bribing their own people so they are hard to remove.
Brian Ellenberger
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The world is changing (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at what the federal government has been doing since Bush got elected in 2000. You seem to be operating under the incorrect assumption that the Bush administration cares about freedom of speech.
Actually, I don't think the Bush admin really cares either way about freedom of speech, but from his actions, I'd say Ashcroft finds this whole 1st/4st/5th amendment stuff really annoying, and would be happier without them.
Yes, I'm aware this discussion has been primarily centered on state and local government, not federal government, but you have to look at what priorities are for the people in charge. And once you start assuming corrupt politicians are running the game, you have to toss out the notion that they support freedom of speech and other nice things like that.
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't a question nationalism, but rather a test of common sense.
Re:The world is changing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The world is changing (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the wonders of "democracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the answer is to provide a dummy option on all ballots designed such that people that don't know better would be more likely to pick it.
take the slashdot polls for example:
"Whats your favorite breakfeast?"
a) cold pizza
b) cold cereal
c) cowboy neil's underpants
lots of people dont understand what cold pizza or cold cereal even are and would rather vote cowboy neil's underpants as their favorite breakfeast because they think its funny.
when using the results to determine which infact is the most popular breakfeast cowboy neil's underpants is discarded and the stupid-vote eliminated.
Re:Welcome to the wonders of "democracy" (Score:3, Funny)
If you saw, much less tried to eat, CowboyNeal's underpants...you wouldn't consider it that funny.
Soldiers just trained to do as told? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Welcome to the wonders of "democracy" (Score:3, Insightful)
So we've established two points: the parent poster wants the country run by "veterans" of the military or peace/ameri-corps , and you now want to add anyone with an accredited degree. To go out on a limb here, I'd venture that the parent has served in either the peace or ameri-corps, and you have a d
Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people greatly underestimate the amount of effort, blood, sweat, and tears it would take to "switch" (so to speak) a government agency (let alone a whole government) to Linux.
The old adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While some would no doubt argue that Windows-based systems are "broke", the fact is that government agencies somehow manage to make their computers crunch numbers and store data on Windows machines.
In general, taking down a running, working system in order to replace it with something else is always a risky move. It is never something to be taken lightly.
Hopefully, Linux can work its way into US government agencies, because it has a lot to offer. But acceptance will be necessarily slow, and we should not expect otherwise.
We can praise the nations that throw caution to the wind and roll out Linux rapidly. But we should not be so negative to those that take a more cautious stance. Linux is NOT a perfect beast, and it should surprise no rational person that it is, at this time, treated as "the devil you don't know".
Re:Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't be worse than the amount of effort, blood, sweat, and tears involved in upgrading from one Microsoft OS or Office version to the next.
The old adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It is "broke": Windows is hugely expensive, hard to administer, and unreliable. And on top of all that, its adoption by governm
Re:Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, Windows is expensive. It may indeed be hard to administer and unreliable. But get this: they're managing to use it! A certain degree of fault tolerance exists within any system, and clearly Windows does not fail often enough to make a change necessary. Perhaps one might be desirable due to potential benefits, but it is not necessary because the work *is* getting done.
Re:Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it is "necessary": money spent unneccessarily on one thing is not available for spending on other things.
It may not be "necessary" to overthrow a dictatorship, and it may be easier in the short term not to, but in the long term, it's a good idea, and it's a good idea to do so as soon as possible.
Re:Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a lot of effort, blood, sweat, and tears going from Second Generation mainframes (think 64k should be enough for anybody) to Third Generation mainframes (think MVS without the M and without the V).
One thing to realize is that the problems to be solved get trimmed and shifted based on our abilities. With a different
Re:Changing software is a Big Deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny thing: For the past year, I've been working for a little consulting company whose main contract is a big European conglomerate that's doing just that. Their management was getting more and more paranoid about the implications that their corporate data was under the control of a big American corporation. We're extracting all their data (with precious little help from that big American corporation, who know that they've lost the contract) and putting it into a flock of networked linux systems. And to do the the job, they hired an American company! But it makes sense, because our chief's main sales pitch has been to point out that we're building a system that they will control from the top to the bottom.
Linux is NOT a perfect beast, and it should surprise no rational person that it is, at this time, treated as "the devil you don't know".
One of the stories was of a big meeting at the big conglomerate's site. One of their managers brought up the subject of linux support. Our guy asked for a show of hands: How many ran linux at home. About 1/3 of the hands went up. He observed that they didn't need to hire any more linux expertise.
Linux is hardly an unknown. Anyone who says they'll have trouble finding linux expertise is simply shovelling a pile of BS. For that matter, finding BSD expertise is nearly as easy, especially now that OSX is getting rave reviews.
It makes sense to transition gradually. But it need not take many years. Especially when the inevitable happens and MS forces you to upgrade. Transitioning to linux then will be cheaper, and it won't take much more retraining. So you might as well do it, and get out from under the thumb of the American beast.
Microsoft Intentionally "breaks" their products! (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be fine and dandy if a Microsoft product was like a physical widget, but it's not.
Can you get support from Microsoft for MS-DOS? Windows 3.1? Win 95? If you want to buy 300 more licences for Windows NT, or for Word 97, can you get it? If you want Win98 but with that pesky security hole patched, can it be had for ANY price?
The Microsoft forced upgrade cycle means that the stuff "self-breaks" every few years ANYWAY. So which is worse - converting entire agencies
Re:The world is changing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The world is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose I need to ask why you think having more government jobs is somehow better than having more private industry jobs. BTW there are already people that do the tailoring you describe. Just because something isn't open source doesn't mean you can't tailor it to suit your needs. Look at the huge number of custom applications developed using excel, for example.
I'm certainly not against OSS; far from it. But, there are also cases where closed-source software can save just as much (or more) money, especially when talking about applications or systems which require a large amount of expertise to produce, and where there is plenty of competition in the market. This atmosphere leads to constant R&D and refinement of the product to the point where millions of dollars have been spent in order to keep the product competitive. Oftentimes the sticker price of such a product is more than justified by its overwhelmingly better usability, functionality, and performance. In a large organization, the number of man-hours saved using such an application over a less-efficient open-source alternative dwarfs the costs of acquisition. The only alternative is to constantly add the same funcionality, performance, and usability enhancements to the open-source version that the closed-source version offers. But, since your guys probably aren't experts in this domain, and there's not a lot of people writing open-source baking software, it is more expensive for you to develop this functionality than it is for ABC corporation. Plus, paying them means you have much fewer maintainence issues to worry about, like answering tech support questions, R&D for new features, etc.
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a common term for this: bribery
Open source saves the government money.
True but irrelevant. It doesn't save any money for the politicians who are making the decisions. Rather, it loses them their bribery income.
If you look back before the 2000 elections, you'll find a number of articles commenting on how Microsoft had suddenly increased its campaign contribution
Re:The world is changing (Score:3, Insightful)
I do a ton of work at state government level as a consultant. I could plop an open source solution into one of my customers (35 remote site WAN, multiple servers, etc) and save them a ton of money. It won't happen any time soon, though.
Consider:
An elected politician relies on the "institutional knowledge" of career bureaucrats. Fred gets elected, and checks with his department heads Bob and Sharon. They ha
Re:The world is changing (Score:2, Informative)
PS: 1%? I know that you're just trolling (because almost no one would
This isn't necessarily bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: You hit on a key point, I think! (Score:5, Informative)
From the stories he told me, it sounds to me like the U.S. military often resists change on a department by department basis. I don't doubt that politicians at the top play a big role in keeping closed source commerical products in the military -- but in many cases, it seems like the only hurdles are technical ones. (EG. A specification demands that any software or OS solution used meet a number of criteria. If a Linux installation can meet them, then fine - it can *technically* be substituted as the server platform for that department.) Where it falls apart is when a colonel decides he really likes Microsoft products (maybe simply because that's all he ever used), and he dictates that *his* staff will never use anything but Windows.
On the particular military installation my friend worked at, they had a similar situation years ago, where one group kept using Novell - despite the rest of the base running Windows. Everyone tried to put pressure on the other group to ditch the old Novell server - but for years, they insisted on sticking with it. (Everyone else ended up having to mess around with loading Novell modules and IPX stacks they didn't want to use, or else not be able to access that one department's data.) Since the Novell system technically met the (old) requirements drafted up, there wasn't any way to mandate a change.
You swollowed that hook line and sinker. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's what they say and that's why they are wrong. They ARE afraid of bills that favor open source solutions because they would then be out of sales. The problem they are trying to avoid is that open source is a legitimate criteria of selection. Trying to say that it's not is dishonest. The government, like anyone else, should take advantage of free software and all the benifits it b
As a guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government?
To a first approximation I'd guess it as "those who've been paid to do so by companies who view FOSS as competition".
Can't be true. (Score:3, Funny)
I know! (Score:3, Funny)
- a concerned consumer.
Re:I know! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I know! (Score:2, Insightful)
Please do not confuse good marketing with product quality.
Wrong Gates, numbskull! :) (Score:2)
Re:Wrong Gates, numbskull! :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone surprised by this?
Re:Wrong Gates, numbskull! :) (Score:2)
Re:Wrong Gates, numbskull! :) (Score:2)
Gates and company are morally guilty of treason (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
Your right to try to turn a profit ends where our national security is concerned. I don't give a flying fuck why Microsoft released Windows' source code to them, but that alone is grounds to punish them by shit-canning their products in the federal government. Every desktop should be switched to MacOS X and/or Linux and MS Office replaced with OpenOffice. We have to draw a line in the sand and scream at them YOUR BEHAVIOR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE YOU UNPATRIOTIC FUCKERS!
It gets worse (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
What's worse is how the FTC (under Clinton) approved the sale of several supercomputers (Crays I believe) that were on the export control list to China. This happened around the same time as the missile technology thing. The really scary thing was that the FTC asked China to let them inspect the facilities where these supercomputers were to be user for "academic research" and China said no. A major corporation with ties to China made a huge contribution to Clinton's reelection campaing, and voila, sale gets approved.
Of course nobody even noticed because the same week (or month) as all this happened the Lewinski scandal broke and Americans seemed to care more about who blew the pres in the oval office. Nobody cared that we gave away to the Chinese missile technology and the computer horsepower to be able to target us with it.
Re:It gets worse (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets tiring hearing this stuff.
Clinton's admin did not overtly or covertly approve of missile technlogy transfer (most of which was completed between 1990-1994; basically starting during Bushes era). These companies were tried and found guilty . To be honest, I suspect that this stuff is back happening again.
As to the low-end cray's, they did not even make top500.org. The question that should always be asked is, does a transer give an advantage to an enemy (or future advisory) that they will not be able to get elsewhere. If they can not get it elsewhere, then we should not sell it. If they can, then we should sell it and try to modify it so that we can use it in trying times. It is hard to embed keys or backdoors in a single (or couple of) chips or an OS (witness the NSA key in MS Windows). But in a large system that is outdated and easily beaten by Beowulf systems. To be honest, china was almost certainly not using these for computations, but most likely needed something from them (logic boards to copy,etc). By missdoing it slightly, we can then detect what they are up to.
I have no love for Clinton (but a much larger disdain for the current admin's theft of our rights), it is better to knock him for what was done wrong rather than come off sounding like Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh.
ah, you are confused. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Microsoft said it believed this was a national secruity risk. Their sale is therefore willful treason, regardless of the facts.
Second, the fact that our enemies have access to information our own government does not have compete access to really is detrimental to US security. China can and will give that code to all the people they think they have to in order to find weaknesses to exploit. The NSA can only go so far in protecting against those attacks because Microscrew continues with their "fork" and new sofware is being deployed on government desks all day long with windoze updater. It's doubtuf that the NSA or anyone besides Microsoft can keep up with all the different versions of software that gets put on those computers, so any weakenss the Chinese find will have a high probability of sucess. Windoze is fragile enough without help from professionals representing one of the world's most repressive regiems having the source code to understand exactly how random expoits found work.
It should be obvious that free software levels the playing field and alows everyone to help fix the problems. The results are already in because we know that IIS gets broken all the time, but free software is not.
Example of Government at its worst.... (Score:3, Insightful)
WRONG BILL GATES!!!! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.prestongates.com/meetpge/wGates.asp
"
Our Founders
William H. Gates
William H. Gates practiced law for nearly half a century and has always been very proud of the legal profession. He values professionalism and encourages other lawyers to take pride in every aspect of their careers. He has said, "We are indeed a heterogeneous profession, but there is both a richness and a balance that this condition produces. It is obvious that, notwith
Re:WRONG BILL GATES!!!! (Score:2, Informative)
open source vs. secured source (Score:5, Informative)
the people arguing that opensource is a security risk seem to be under the impression that compiled source is secure. its not. this is ALL about the $$$$$
Re:open source vs. secured source (Score:2)
type iexplore.cc
1://Uncomment this when Billy Boy is in office
2://if(servername=IIS)
3://{
4://
5://
6://}
Gates BSA connection (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Gates BSA connection (Score:2, Funny)
> How can Bill Gates be connected to the BSA? (Boy Scouts of America) Is Bill... trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent? I think not!
But he's not Gay, so they let him in anyway.
More important thatn OSS in .gov ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
probably just restating whats already been said... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care wether it is open or closed source (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are standards more important than having the right tool for the right job?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
TCP/IP is a standard and IPX,apple talk, etc are custom protocols. Do they do a better job for our government on our dollar? Not really. Does Office do a better job than say corel, star, or open Office? Not really. Is it worth the extra costs? No, not really.
Considering that the US Federal government is the largest buyer, it behooves the tapyer to have the follow standards or even set open standards for muh of the software. Everytime that they do not, the costs go
Legislators shouldn't be deciding this... period. (Score:5, Insightful)
bullshit, in so many ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
The technocrats are the ones pushing the bills, legislators are the ones with doubts.
Mandating the use of open source only limits choice.
No, it does not. Software companies are free to open their code at any time.
Bills that mandate that open source be considered are less damaging, but pointless, since if an open solution exists that is viable, a smart engineer will consider it.
That does not mean that he can use it. Vendors must be aproved in order for state employees to purchase things. The process of aproval is Byzantine at best and one that does not work well for free software that may not have a vendor at all. Bills that free state employees to use software they want to use would be a Godsend.
I work with government clients all the time, and as much as I like open source software, some of it just doesn't meet the needs of my client.
That's hollow. Name one thing that propriatory software does that free software does not besides interoperate with propriatory software. In those rare instances, a purchasing agency can claim "sole source vendor" and make the purchase and those are looked on with susupecion.
It's about finding the best tool for the job, not the one that best fits my political views.
This IS about finding the best tool for the job . Free software is almost always better than it's closed source counterparts. Free software, in part, helps to avoid vendor lock in, a very real goal of state purchasing laws. Legislators have already decided they don't like getting raped by vendors. Vendor lock in always results in a lack of legitimate competition and inferior goods in the end.
The only political view that you need to have is a belief in full disclosure in state afairs. From honest discource, function and trust flow. Indeed, it's the closed source view of the world that requires the most radical assumptions. It requires you to believe that you don't own your computers, that you should be so very greatful that your computer does a few things and you agree to limitations on your use of that computer, that you pay absorbedent fees instead of developing your own solution, even that you will never even attempt to understand how the program works. That kind of nonsense is not accepted in most government purchasing, where complete honesty and accountability through inspection is required. The closed source software companies, which have only existed in their current form since the early 1980s, has a lot of nerve to try to impose these conditions on the public and call it IP rights.
Open source should be mandated. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems reasonable yes? Anything that does the job should be allowed to compete. Certainly. But in the case of government the question is "what exactly is 'the job'?". The government (ostensibly) exists to service the public interest. The public interest demands that our government be independant from corporate influence. Commitment of government to a closed source solution provided by a single vendor gives this vendor undue influence over governmental process. The public interest also demands that our data be accessible now and into the future. Clearly closed data formats cannot provide this. Finally, the public interest demands that government computers be secure. Without access to the source code it cannot be proven that there are not back doors providing access to sensitive government data.
So the question when evaluating a piece of software, say, a database, for governmental use is not just "Is this the best database" but "Is this the best database that ensures data accessability and security without tying us to a single corporation." Only open source software can provide these important considerations.
Note that this is not "discrimination" against closed source vendors. Any company can provide software to the government, as long as it satisfys these requirements.
that's a simplistic reply (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening the source for inspection by the public is a minimum standard of accessibility. So long as a company is w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Level playing field? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should free software and commercial software be treated equally? What does this have to do with "fairness"?
I give my government lots of money. I have a right to expect that they don't buy commerical stuff if there are reasonable free alternatives. If they do go out and buy something commercial, they should be required to document carefully the reasons for their choices.
Even if the free software were to require larger IT staffs (which it doesn't), I'd much rather see my tax dollars go into salaries for local government employees than disappear somewhere in Microsoft's bank account up in Washington state soemwhere.
Re:I give my government lots of money (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all: if the organization chooses open source software, they don't have to justify their choice because they haven't spent any money of the software. If they choose software costing millions of dollars in licensing fees, like that from Microsoft, then they bloody well should have to document and justify that if there are free alternatives.
So, no, this doesn't generate any extra paperwor
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Why is someone called 'Software Choice' against OS (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the groups opposing the use of OSS/FS in government is Initiative for Software Choice & CompTIA of which Microsoft is a member. The guiding principles of this organisation are (from the article):
Firstly: 'the promotion of interoperability through platform-neutral standards'??? I am confused. Microsoft has become the member of a group that advocates 'platform-neutral standards'???
Secondly: Isn't the idea to check out open-source too, a way of adding more 'Software Choice', so, why would they be opposed to government adding open-source to their candidates for purchase/use???
Am I reading this wrong, or did someone start the Infinte Improbability Drive (sorry Doug)...
Thank you.
GrimReality
Municipal Use (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be interested in hearing if anybody else has convinced their municipality to consider the use of open source on a project-by-project basis and, if so, how they went about it. I'm not so naive to think that a mere speech will do the trick, so I'll need some ammunition for the follow-up.
Hey, funny -- this really follows up nicely on the Ask Slashdot on the topic that I submitted a year and a half ago [slashdot.org].
-Waldo Jaquith
How is Gates supporting the BSA bad? (Score:3, Informative)
I see no reason why anyone in government should care what software people use.
Many uses (and non uses) of OS (Score:3, Interesting)
The main thing a government unit considering open-source software wants to know is how it can save money.
Not necessarily. Another 'main thing' is...does it do what we need it to do? In many instances, yes. General office funcions can be done with OO.o, back end and server functions with various flavors of Linux, webservers with Apache. There's a whole raft of free and OS tools available for various functions.
But also, in many instances, no, it won't. For instance, there are no good quality open source tools for GIS or CAD requirements. Free or open source is good, but does not always fit the requirements of what is needed in a particular environment.
In any case, I care far more about open format, accessible documents, rather than worry about which tool is used to create that document.
Politicians are largely irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
While the NSA was granting Common Criteria Certification to Checkpoint Firewall-1 (an Israeli product), relative small-fry in multiple agencies were afraid to use it due to the classic federal urban legend about Israeli backdoors or other malware embedded into it. The US Army has a collossal site license (or at least had, some years ago) for Netscape products, so that's what they used when possible. Ultimately, the people in charge of choosing the solution do so without significant awareness or care of what politicians say, think, or feel...and this is both good and bad.
1. Republicans (Score:3, Funny)
A thought for your pennies... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can keep the two cents...
Open source in the government is a good idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course I'm only referring to the GPL licensed open source. It would be pointless if someone open sourced something and refuse to deliever the source unless you pay em a billion dollars.
But back to main point why governments should be using open source.
1. We all know that the government systems are probably just a step up more secure then university systems. Colleges have been strong supporters of *nix / open source but never truly as secure as businesses, so why bother? Well because colleges like government are big entities that are kinda very inefficient because the markets don't punish (I'm definitely dumbing down the issue... you bond/rating agency guys must forgive me) governments or colleges for inefficiencies. The cost of these inefficiencies acutally do produce savings because government employees are not paid a lot and it wouldn't be worth it to pay so much more to buy 10000 licenses when you can just buy 1 and distribute.
2. Another reason why the government should be open source is because it's tied very closely to academia. Most of the huge research labs/super computing facilities are sponsored by the government. I'd shudder to think how little work would be done with a closed source solution when the scientists are acutally intelligent enough to know how to hack the code.
3. The fact that all top secret military stuff like nukes and all that dangerous shit is definitely not open source and probably some ass backwards properitary system that you'd have to learn san script to break in.. just makes me all the more comfortable knowing the government doesn't use open source on shit like that.. which comes back to the Terry Pratchett quote... "If there was a big red button and you put a big sign next to it that said 'Don't push' some idiot is bound to push it" kind of mentality that retarded people in this world have when it comes to dealing with classified information.
So if you've read down this far congratz on listening to an old man rant.. but it wouldn't be complete with out a point.. which is PEOPLE... there are places for open source.. and there are places for closed source... the government doens't just look at MS or linux...
unlike some certain group of readers of a certain website... So instead of being hard core open source or hard core closed source..
Sit back... think about what each is good for... and choose appropriately.
Texas legislation was already dead (Score:4, Informative)
The status of SB 1579 can be found here [state.tx.us].
It was left pending in committee on 5/8/2003, before 55 Democrats fled to Oklahoma on 5/11/2003 to break the quorum and prevent Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts and replace Democrat gerrymandering of Congressional districts back in 1991.
It's not clear that the exodus actually prevented further action on the bill, but the legislative session ended on 6/2/2003. The next regular session will not start until January, 2005.
Who opposes open source in the government? (Score:5, Funny)
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do.
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do.
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do.
Who keeps Microsoft on its course?
Who opposes open source?
We do! We do.
Re:Who opposes open source in the government? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who Opposes? I Do. (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I don't oppose it totally, but I got your attention, didn't I? I oppose an ideological bent in either direction.
When the government decides what software to purchase, I want them purchasing what's best for the job. In a rapidly evolving field where improvements are still being made and maximum performance is critical, I don't want them installing OSS that's half the speed, purchasing twice the hardware, and training twice the staff just because "OSS is good".
OTOH, I don't want them mandating a "Windows only in department X" policy either; especially if department X is comprised of technicly literate people who "know how to handle their computers, thank-you very much".
I certainly don't want them installing $500 worth of MS server software when LAMP would have done just fine.
In other words, we don't need no stinkin' "you must consider OSS software" policy any more than we need a "you must use Windows" policy. They both suck equally.
And last but not least, I don't want the government developing software under GPL, EULA, or anything other than Public Domain, which is where all government works are supposed to be placed (of course, if they hired a contractor, then the contractor still gets to negotiate terms).
Actually, this is just another expression of a theme that runs through a lot of the stuff I write here: Ideological purity is always bad... except when it's good.
Re:Who opposes OS in .gov? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who opposes OS in .gov? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who opposes OS in .gov? (Score:4, Interesting)
That may be true, but that doesn't mean microsoft hasn't bought a substantial part of the government.
w00t [1-UP] (Score:2)
Re:Because of Change. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is Gates being in bed with BSA a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
On an unrelated note, Preston Gates' IIS seems to be slashdotted now. I was surprised to see that the BSA is using Apache on FreeBSD. It seems to be working fine, if a little slow.
as taxpayers!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:as taxpayers!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is BOTH a republic [reference.com] (because Dubya is an American), and a democracy [reference.com] (because the head of state is elected by the people, loosely speaking)
Don't be confused by the fact that your political parties are the Republicans and the Democrats...
Re:Maybe its some other BSA... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe its some other BSA... (Score:4, Funny)
Extortionists.
Re:our interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people realize that truly secure software is not compromised in the least when people see the code? In other words, if seeing the source gives a hacker a leg up, that code is either buggy or poorly designed. Period. It's that simple.
Is Linux perfect? No. Is any reasonably complex software perfect? No. But open source does at least as much to help the people trying to secure the code as it does for the people trying to break it.
On a separate note, the government is the last place I want to see closed-source software used. I feel that as a citizen of a democracy, I have the inherent right to see what's being done and how.
Re:our interest? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's been proven time and time again that open source software is more secure as long as it's properly managed and vigilantly kept up to date. On the other hand, the security by obscurity crowd continues to play the same, tired old message that proprietary systems are secure because people don't know about the exploits. Do you honestly think that the black hats are going to come out and say, "Umm... I found this really big gaping hole in Windows that allows me access to credit card DBs on a few major e-commerce sites. Just thought I'd tell you."? No! They're going to keep it to themselves until the damage has gone far beyond anything that open source would be vulnerable to. Not to mention the foot dragging that Microsoft tends to favor when it comes to releasing patches for security holes. Especially if it's going to mean that they are going to lose money. And THAT'S where the root of the problem is. As long as companies are in this for profit, the main focus is going to be making more money with as little expense as possible. This means ignoring security holes that haven't been made public. This means gnoring security holes in old versions of OSes and applications simply because they want to FORCE people to buy their new products. This means no longer providing updates (even if the security hole is glaring and widespread) if it will keep people from migrating to the new OS or application. I'd much rather see my government using OSS because it's safer, gets patched quickly and is FAR easier to manage than proprietary crap. Go astroturf elsewhere you Micro$oft goon. MS is losing this battle. It can't be won in any honest way.
Re:our interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
And for the record, there have been plenty of security holes in Linux and the many packages for it. The difference is they are usually fixed faster. Think sendmail or bind here. How many stupid bugs are in those?
Re:Open Source software is useless (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone would simply get on the same page and interpret FREEDOM the way I tell you to, then advocacy of freedom will be so much more effective.
Re:Open Source software is useless (Score:4, Insightful)
ESR took that same Free Software, slapped the name "Open Source" on it, and started marketing it. If it weren't for that, so called "Free/Open Source Software" wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent as it currently is.
It's simple, really. RMS appeals to your idealism, and not many businessmen/politicians are idealistic, so they don't buy into it. ESR advertises the advantages and the reduced costs, which is what people are really interested in.
In short, shut up and show them the code.
Re:in our interests (as taxpayers)? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about politics. This is about ensuring that tax payer money is used as efficiently as possible by requiring that all options have been evaluated. Legislation like this does not force a particular choice. It merely forces that all options have been considered before making a decision.
Commercial software has marketing, sales teams, and slews of paid people backing it up. Open source s
Re:Free thinkers? (Score:3, Interesting)
So you're arguing for "security through obscurity?" Get real. Security through obscurity doesn't work and
Re:Free thinkers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get that from? Please understand arguments before you comment on them.
Take the nice and sturdy security of a Unix platform, modify it heavily to your own custom needs, and KEEP THE SOURCE CLOSED and don't allow anyone not from the government (and of course the creators of the code) to access it. Just have a team of testers from the company that wrote the code working on finding vulnerabilities.
What do you get? Something a lot mor