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.
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: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
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?
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
CAGW is PRO-Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Dec. 3, 2002: West Virginia will join Massachusetts as the only states to continue the courtroom antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp., pressing a U.S. appeals court to reconsider tougher sanctions against the world's largest software company.
A pro-Microsoft group, the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste, quickly attacked West Virginia's decision as improper given that state's economic conditions. The group said the state faces a $200 million deficit and teachers have been warned they may not receive raises next year.
"The taxpayers of West Virginia have every right to question the attorney general's priorities," said the group's president, Tom Schatz. "What is Darrell McGraw thinking by using scarce tax dollars to pursue costly litigation? This appeal is unrealistic, imprudent and irrational."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/ma
June 28, 2001: an appellate court's decision to overturn the order to split Microsoft in two
Citizens Against Government Waste, though, took a position much closer to Microsoft. "This decision marks a return to rational antitrust jurisprudence and is a victory for taxpayers, investors, and the entire information economy," CAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-269198.html [com.com]
Conservative organizations will always choose industry self regulation over government regulation, even if it's a monopoly.
Re:CAGW is PRO-Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
One of their press releases [prnewswire.com] released last year looks very similar to the recent MA complaints. The president of CAGW seems to have somewhat good intentions as a whole, but does not seem to have enough knowledge of the commercial software industry to justify his postion on this
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Real Government Waste and Tocqeuville bias (Score:2)
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
It turns out that the government actually spent several million dollars on this major case taking on one of the wealtiest corporations in the US! Who would've imagined such a thing!
CAGW also seems to believe that the entire notion of a microsoft monopoly is some sort of hoax [cagw.org]
See also:
CAGW CHEERS MICROSOFT VERDICT [cagw.org]
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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. :)
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.
Boondoggler (Score:2)
What the heck is a boondoogler?
"People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Not necessarily freely altered or distributed. In fact if SCO has anything to do with it people will be paying one million... <smirks> one billion smackerooonis
Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Hrmm Expensive? I think not.
Windows reboots p
Re:Boondoggler (Score:2)
I don't know. But the subject of your post is someone who wastes time or money on a boodoggle.
Re:Boondoggler (Score:4, Informative)
I might just use RHN or Red Carpet, or one of many others to patch and upgrade a few hundred Linux boxes in 10 minutes.
But that's just me.
Re:Boondoggler (Score:2)
Re:I agree.. (Score:2)
Maybe they haven't heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh crap, now I'm confusing Clue quotes... heh
"Monopoly" description slightly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The actual quote is:
"It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software."
So, while misguided, the CCAGW isn't exactly calling Linux a monopoly, but rather the government of Massachussets.
Re:"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.
Rule of Thumb (Score:2, Offtopic)
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.
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
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
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:Misread? (Score:2)
And maximum cost. This is about taxpayers dollars. If corporations want to do such things with private cash, be my guest."
In terms of project surviving vendor failure, the two cases are the same -- no sane buyer would pay for the development of a software system without the source code and the right to continue development independently of the initial vendor.
The argument for open sourcing is that since w
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 shoul
Re:Misread? (Score:5, Informative)
This means that no-one is excluded from competing for the software contracts, as long as their software uses open data formats.
It's not unfair, and it is indeed the least that the people deserve. Proprietary data formats will become very expensive in the future. The Slashdot-post example of this is the proverbial Word 95 document that is hard to import into a newer version of MS Word without loss of something. (Note: I haven't checked that myself, I just see it posted here over and over again.)
Re:Misread? (Score:2)
Besides, I've been a Linux user and contributor far longer than almost all of the shriekers and it's not obvious to me that they're wrong.
Re:Misread? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a break, in this day and
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.
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:Misread? (Score:2)
But what exactly is the (proposed?) law? Does it say "all funding must be spent on Linux"? I've yet to see anything substantial. Instead we have to scrape around hearsay. So let's start diggin
Re:Misread? (Score:2)
Monopoly (Score:3, Funny)
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: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: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 governmen
Re:It hurts to read that nonsense. (Score:2)
So one major advantage Windows has over Linux is plain old-fashioned inertia. That's fine, but why should Microsoft profit from that situation? Who made the investment to train the state workers on Windows? Was it Microsoft? No, it wa
Come on, really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, good thing they exist! (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah - good thing they didn't have to FIRST pay for the software, and THEN have to pay to upgrade and maintain it. Sheesh. Microsoft would never make you do that...
Blowing his own T (Score:2)
Now I'm Wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
CAGW position reasonable and consisten (Score:2)
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.
PACs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PACs (Score:2)
CAGW was founded in 1984 by Peter Grace and Jack Anderson. Grace was a business exec who headed the Grace Commission, which was charged with finding ways of reducing
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
Re:PACs (Score:2)
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).
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 me
Nicely put - I disagree, though (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure their name isn't... (Score:2)
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: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 revol
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 re
Re:Socialist Government (Score:2)
Are YOU that sort of person? Actually I think it's just Calvinists who are like that; hence the fact that it's such a common opinion in the States.
Re:Socialist Government (Score:2)
I will work harder to benefit myself and my family than I will to benefit the collective. If that makes me a selfish bastard, so be it. Any socialist utopia has to deal with people like me, and traditionally that's when the guns have come out.
Nice Site (Score:2)
Theres the link Write your representatives [convio.net]
They are smoking from the same (Score:2)
How about let's do a little investigation here.
Who pads their coffers?? Could there be a few M$ bucks in the CCAGW kitty??
calling /. editors... (Score:2)
It took me
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 n
What have they done?! (Score:2)
Good grief, what have the poor taxpayers done to deserve that?!
I can't say I know all that much about this Massachussetts "Freeware Initiative," but what I did find leads me to believe that it mandates the use of freeware if possible. Now, Linux may be freeware, but freeware is not necessarily Linux. It could be Darwi
Silly Law, Silly Worries (Score:2)
This argument is like requiring that all government offices be in walking distance of all citizens - since otherwise poverty stricken citizens would have to buy a car to get to the office in question. People can use a PC in a library, use a friend's PC, rent a PC by the hour in some stores,
CAWG may have little to do with citizens (Score:5, Informative)
Y'all ought to check out how CAWG seems to applaud the death of any and all MS Antitrust work. In fact, it appears to be a group founded by the Reagan administration.
Sounds like a shill to me.
what is the "Freeware Initiative"? (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously, the only reference I can find on Google is another rant against it.
I'm inclined to believe that the press release is misrepresenting the facts. In fact, the other press release that I found here [softwarechoice.org] [www.softwarechoice.org] says that it will be "an effor requiring that al
They must have read something different than I (Score:2)
The data belongs to the people of MA not a vendor.
Microsoft == Redmond, Wastington (Score:2)
Wny Is MS Monopoly Bad, Limux Monopoly Good? (Score:2)
I thought "choice" was the cornerstone of open source. Guess some folks have been taking hypocrisy lessons.
Re:Wny Is MS Monopoly Bad, Limux Monopoly Good? (Score:2)
Odd pricing..... (Score:2)
This supposed "lack of competition" could double the cost of freeware! The horrors! That would effective raise the cost of freeware to free! Don't take it from em! Show em whose boss! Tell em you'll only pay half of free!
Really. Proprietary vendors will
When I see Microsoft lobby on this issue... (Score:2)
I don't see any policy that says all trucks bought by a particular government should be Ford, all I see is Government issuing a tender looking for best value in Truck supply.
The same should apply to software, preference legislation is a bad thing, markets will change, product availability will change... if we let Governments write this into law
More Public Attacks on Monopoly Breakers (Score:2)
However, it is clear to me that they're more interested in supporting their own unpublished agenda versus fighting government waste.
Their little rant doesn't merit a quiet, personal reply - their statement was a public, well-crafted, and baseless commentary which they can leverage to gain additional support from some of their corporate sponsors.
Their statement merits a quick and complete public reply, exposing their failure to support the principles that
Open Bidding in the Gov is a joke. (Score:3, Informative)
Often, the specs will be written in such a way that only one company can fill them. The specs are written by the reps for the company and then given to the IT guys at the Bureau of Whatever. ("Hey Joe. This will fit your needs perfectly. Just insist on these specs in your RFP.")
Multiple Award Schedule contracts like GSA contracts are just as big a joke. If you sell commodity products, like washers, nails, or computers, then there are 500 other companies that have a GSA contract to sell the exact same thing. Who do the buyers buy from? In the computer hardware scene- The usual suspects: Dell, IBM, HP (Or, its bought from the company that has the rep that actually wrote the RFP. Depends on particular product)
Low cost doesn't matter. They go with what they see in the Gvt Buyer trade rags. Government buyers LIVE by the axiom "Never ever got fired for buying
Another point:
These people that are in charge of buying 5000 desktop computers for the Dept of Whatever are also the same people that are in charge of buying 500000 rolls of TP every 6 months.
I guarantee they are more concerned about their own ass, than they are about the computer that the peon on the frontline is using.
----
Okay. Personal plug time.
Now that I've said my piece, and probably killed any chance for a career in my preferred field... let me back up and say that Contracts Admin was a GREAT job. I liked doing it. And, I would like to do it again. I can fix your problems, whether you are business-to-government or government-to-business.
Hire me.
(Go to my journal and say something. I'll see it)
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.
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
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
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
Re:In Soviet Taxachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government using linux, good. Government forcing the use of linux and ignoring sound procurement procedures, bad.
HA people? (Score:2)
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 o
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks CCAGW, I needed a good laugh.
It's clear that you didn't RTFA.
I would like to point out that the only time the word "monopoly" appears in the press release was in the following sentence:
It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software.
For the others of you who did not RTFA, I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself, but rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process. If they were excluding all competitors to the benefit of a for-profit corporation (Microsoft would be a good example), the criticism would be the same, and the process would be unethical at best, illegal at worst. Why is it suddenly alright to do the same thing with open-source vendors and projects?
Here's the sum-up of the press release for those of you who still refuse to RTFA:
Open-source software = good, admirable
state mandated zero-competition = bad, socialist
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:2, Funny)
Really? Did they say Microsoft was not allowed to bid on providing open-source software?
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to point out that requiring the government to purchase only open source software does not exclude _any_ vendors from the process. It may cause some vendors to decide that they don't want to satisfy the government's requirements. But if MS were to produce products that were open source, they could bid for a project along with IBM, HP and all of the other companies that can bid on delivering open source systems.
Re:Wanna hear a joke? (Score:3)
First of all, maybe you need to RTFA yourself, or else improve your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere does the FA say that "Open-source software = good, admirable." And they call Linux a monopoly in the same sentence that you quoted. Linux is not a monopoly, it is free software which can be sold by anybody, and is being sold by many companies. MS could roll their own distro and
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: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?
Re:There isn't anything really bad in that stateme (Score:2)
So quit all your whiny-headed yammering about "its not fair".
It is completely. You people are taking the decision out of context, and twisting it all around. If there were some critical app that only windows could handle, do you think they're going to toss that functionality out the window? Hell no. It will just mean that the state has 4 or 5 windows machines, ins
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:Brought to you by the letters... (Score:2)
Lucky Strike Means Fatal Tumors?
Lascivious Seniors Make Freshmen Tipsy?
Lynksis Switches Mangle Frame Transmission?
Re:I ahve NO problem whatsoever with their release (Score:3, Informative)
What is soo wrong with them asking the government of Mass to keep open the choice to use other OS's than Linux?
Maybe it's the fact that Massachussetts was't mandating Linux, it was mandating open standards, which isn't exactly the same as mandating open source, and is definitely not the same as mandating Linux.