Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix United States Your Rights Online

Mass. Backs Down From Open Source Stance 35

Posted by timothy from the commonwealth-no-less dept.
MeanMF writes "eWeek reports that the state of Massachusetts has moved away from specifying that open source software be given preferential treatment over proprietary systems. Instead, they have chosen to focus on software that provides the best value and flexibility. This is a major reversal from their previous direction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mass. Backs Down From Open Source Stance More

Mass. Backs Down From Open Source Stance

Comments Filter:

  • Not bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <.psx. .at. .fimble.com.> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:43PM (#7978401) Homepage
    I don't see this as being bad for Open Source - because if Open Source is truly the best option for the state, they will choose it. It won't force the state to use it if it isn't right. That will make the software better in the long run - if it needs to improve to compete.

    • Re:Not bad (Score:3, Interesting)

      by El ( 94934 )
      Right, 'cause state officials always make purchases based on what is best for the state, and are never influenced by those all-expense paid vacations to the bahamas that some of their suppliers buy them... here's a lollipop, stop botherin' me, kid!

    • I don't see this as being bad for Open Source - because if Open Source is truly the best option for the state, they will choose it. It won't force the state to use it if it isn't right. That will make the software better in the long run - if it needs to improve to compete.

      Exactly. No software, open or closed source, should be given preferential treatment. Honestly look at what it does, what it costs, and what it will take to implement and make the decision from there.

      Ah, if only companies were willing to

      • Honestly look at what it does, what it costs, and what it will take to implement and make the decision from there.
        But part of "what it costs" is determining what happens if the closed-source company goes out of business or decides to stop supporting the product after a while.
        How much will it cost to migrate data or upgrade to a newer version?
        Unfortunately, governments (like most organizations) rarely are able to look that far ahead.

    • Re:Not bad (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sure, but keep in mind: closed-source software allows the possibility of lock-in. They might be using a certain closed-source package simply because it would cost too much to move all the data or otherwise re-implement. It's not entirely about "best tool for the job".

      Specifing open-source-only is an easy (but not entirely practical) way to avoid the hidden danger of lock-in.
      • Of course, lock-in is also possible with open-source software. Just because the source code is available, doesn't mean that users have the knowledge, desire, or money to make their own modifications if the leaders of the open source project take it in a direction they don't like.
  • My guess is that microsoft gave them a great deal and the whole announcement was just a means to gain leverage over microsoft.

  • Huzzah! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Your_Mom ( 94238 ) <slashdot@inNETBSDnismir.net minus bsd> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:52PM (#7978511) Homepage
    This is a good thing. Yes. I said /GOOD/ thing

    Why is this a good thing? Because /lots/ of software projects were put on hold since this opensource intitiative started. Everyone had to drop everything and start reviewing whether or not they could reimplement their projects on Linux. EVERYONE. Including projects that were ready to go out the door.

    Plus, the 2nd problem is the person who suggested this is the head beancounter, who has no idea how stuff worked in the trenches. He was asking why people could implement a Multi-Terabye Oracle DB (which was already purchased and filled with data) onto MySQL. It just grates me.

    Instead, they came to their senses and are now wanting to use the best tool for the job. *phew*

    (FYI: I work for Commonwealth. I am not speaking for the Commonwealth, and all the things said above are purely scuttlebutt that I overheard.)
    • Oh no somebody was going to make you think a little before pulling out our wallets. Well my friend my heart bleeds purple piss for you. You and everyone else that works for the govt should always ask yourself if you can implement your project on Linux. You should ask this because you are spending MY money and YOURS. The very next thing you should be asking yourself is why I should be buying a application and or programming a application that is not cross platform to make future migration at least possible.
      • Wow, you're basicly accusing me of being a windows drone. First time for everything I guess...

        Wake up buddy, Linux isn't perfect for everything. For a long time, we couldn't consider Linux, and lo, I implemented stuff for days on Windows NT/IIS that could take me a couple of hours to get under Apache. Then, Linux approached a Don't ask/Don't tell type policy, and I quietly implemented some projects on a couple of Linux boxes I installed in the shadows of the server room. Now, Linux is approaching a viable

  • Umm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:54PM (#7978537) Homepage Journal
    "This is a major reversal from their previous direction."

    A major reversal would be if they said to avoid OSS altogether. Instead, they just made it fair to all involved. For all the benefits of OSS to be worth anything, the software has to do its job. If OSS is ready, you all have nothing to worry about. If it's not, then start coding.

    • Re:Umm (Score:1)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      Also, the original policy was nowhere near as sweeping as it was made out to be. People read it as an absolute directive for the use of open-source software everywhere, which was simply not true.

  • yeah, this is a no brainer. Everyone should use the best software for the job. Not use something BECAUSE it's OSS.

    • Re:Duh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shaitand ( 626655 )
      Of course. However they damn well better not spend my tax dollars on something I can't review.

      • You can't review a lot of things the military does. Are you against that too?

        • One of the major reasons for the Militaries use of OSS is that it is auditable. Anyone who has worked for a government agency knows how important it is once in a while to explain and demonstrate how and why of what they do.

          A substantial sore point for closed source software is that it cannot be reviewed. That is why the Military writes so much of its own code.

          Now with the faucet running full-on with OSS, they can and do examine the code, build from source, and even make desired changes. Because They Can.
        • Yes as a matter of fact I am. Besides that the military contributes BILLIONS to research with no immediate use. The military has at least spent SOME of my tax dollars developing software I can review and which is available to everyone.

          Security through obscurity DOES NOT WORK. I wish people would get that through their heads.

          The state of mass however does NOT work on issues of national security at all. If they have software developed it should be open source and available to the public. It should also

  • Not a reversal at all (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:06PM (#7978634)

    It seems more like a clarification to me:

    The state's new Enterprise Open Standards Policy defines open standards as: "Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body."

    While open standards aren't the same as open source, it certainly leans away from a Microsoft-style, vendor lock-in.

  • Hmmm (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I guess you could say "Mass. weighs their options."

  • makes sense (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Basically they are focusing on the important aspect of open source: Freedom. If you have closed-source software which does the job, but costs an arm and a leg to replace, you've got lock-in.. but if you have closed-source software that is begin used simply because it's BETTER, then you've excercised your choice, and are still free to choose a different solution in the future. This is good. It makes the closed-source software work hard to stay competitive.

    Demand freedom and open standards. Open source softw
    • That's not what defines lock in at all. It has nothing to do with price or capability whatsoever.

      Vendor lockin means that something is proprietary and locking in your data in it's own proprietary formats/protocols and/or it fails to function if replaced by something else.

      Basically how locked in your are is ENTIRELY dependent on your REALISTIC ability to toss it in the trash. You can always throw away a piece of software, if your willing ot lose all of your critical data and throw a billion in the trash

  • BSA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by frobber ( 708393 )
    Sounds like they've given in to lobbying from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) who believes:

    The continued vitality of all software development models depends on the merits of their respective products, and not the method of development chosen. [pdf] [bsa.org]

    Which sounds great, but this is an organization that also supports evils such as the DMCA and DRM.

    As for choice, I never understood why IT managers haven't been fired en masse when they've commited a business or university to Microsoft products. MS has a

  • Happy With This (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:41PM (#7979722) Homepage

    I'm glad they've backed down from their earlier "FLOSS everywhere" policy because it was simply impractical while also being completely unfair to NFCSS (non-free closed source software) companies. I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job. It seems Massachusetts has now chosen a similarly balanced policy and that makes me happy.

    Another motivation is practicality. I know of and sometimes work in certain areas where moving to FLOSS would be a significant step backwards. I am not talking about office automation, but areas like scientific software and certain limit cases (eg, terabyte databases). These are niches where the NFCSS companies have had several decades head start. It will take a very long time for FLOSS to catchup to NFCSS in those niche fields, if that's even possible.

    BTW: my real motivation for supporting "choice" over "mandate" is partly fairness, partly common sense, but also partly smugness. I have no doubt that FLOSS software will win on its own merits, given enough time. I definitely don't want FLOSS to be govt-mandated now and 10 years later have a bunch of disgruntled ex-Microsofties bitch about how "FLOSS would never have won if the govt didn't make it compulsory".

    • I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job.

      The croweaters' law says words to the effect of "thou shalt not buy lockin risks". That is aimed straight at the heart of everything opposed to FLOSS, and it's a very difficult approach to attack without coming across as a selfish cad. (-:

      It's especially interesting because this has wider implications tha

      • For example, science tells us and we all agree that craters are formed either by meteorite impacts or vulcanism. What? all of them? I think not. But as long as we hang onto that obsolete idea, we're blind to any other possibilities.

        Science doesn't tell us anything. People tell us things. Sometimes they use science to come to those conclusions, and sometimes they don't use science but claim that they did.

        If you have evidence that some craters didn't come from vulcanism or meteors then guess what... y

        • You used science to correct a false belief.

          Not quite. I made a scientific (if general) statement against a widely held belief which I regard to be false. The belief is still widely held, ergo I have not corrected it.

          I'm not at all surprised to see you talking about "blind scientists" holding onto "obsolete ideas" on a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with science.

          Lame, lame, lame! At least get the quoted text right. (-:

          See you next year, if not before.

  • 'The state of Massachusetts has moved away from specifying that open source software be given preferential treatment over proprietary systems. Instead, they have chosen to focus on software that provides the best value and flexibility.'

    'Nuff said.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close