Slashdot Mirror
German Governmental Agency Says: Use Open Source
belbo writes "An official team of the German Ministry of the Interior has released a statement which examines the possible use of Open Source software in the German administration.
The statement concludes: "Linux and FreeBSD and accompanying Free or commercial software provide a stable, cheap, low-on-resources, safe and sufficiently supported environment even for professional offices."
Does this mean I can write my next tax declaration in Vi? ;-) "
Stable, low-on-resources, safe. These are key words, folks. These comments reinforce the point that many in the open source community make that, rather than chase Microsoft, we must "stay the course" - continuing to produce tools that are of the highest quality in all respects.
Kudos go to the multitude of open source contributors (and let's not forget the folks who document the stuff, as well!) whose efforts have resulted in such high praise from the German Ministry of the Interior!
I'll certainly miss the open and liberal minds of our politicians. The old government was crying for more control of the Internet while the new one gives money to Open Source cryptology projects and even recommends the use of encrypted communication channels.
Why the hell do I have to leave for the puritan US government. ;-(
> I'll paint with a broad brush here.
> A religious orginization wanting world
> domination? Shocking!
I knew that my original comment wasn't quite as clear as it should have been (sorry, English is not my first language).
Anyway, sure, almost every religion believes to be the only true source of wisdom. Nevertheless, there's a difference (although we are going way off-topic now): Scientology has, by its deepest core, an unethical and questionable background. Read some background info about Scientology (both pro and contra) and make up your own mind.
It is, of course, always left to one's own opinion what is ethical or not. Nevertheless, Scientology isn't (IMHO) a good idea gone wrong, it doesn't have some "jerks in it". It is a bad idea right from the start.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
I didn't meantion that because it's debateable whether or not proprietary formats are "bad". You wouldnt want your encryption algorithms open sourced. A single "proprietary" document format would be much better than a free spec, that way everyone could build a reader/parser/manipulator that would behave in the same fashion as someone else's with a standard document spec.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Government agencies really ought to take note of GNU software. One of the biggest reasons is price, an office of FreeBSD or Linux boxes is going to be ten times cheaper than the same office with M$ products. Besides initial cost, the same hardware will be competitive for many years (many of the government computers in my city are old Sun machines from back when it was SunOS). Besides price there's the benefit of having third parties do the development and programming. A 50,000$ grant to an Open Source project goes alot farther than 50,000$ in software licenses. I think it's a great idea for government agencies to push Open Source, workstations and servers is what Linux and the BSDs do best.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Did anybody mirror/cache the page in question. It's dissapeared! If you follow the link now you get 'Not Found'
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
This is interesting in light of the German government's recent decision to consider blocking mp3 servers from the router. Now, all of a sudden, freedom means something to them?
Sigh... Why do people always assume that because a government behaves in some ways like a single entity that it in fact is? Governments are composed of many, many, individuals; they perform many, many jobs. Some people in the German government have the job of recommending the ways in which technology, specifically computers, should be used within federal offices. These ones are recommending Open Source.
Of course not. Methinks they chose Linux/BSD because of the stability and price (beer not speech). All of this without realizing that it is the freedom and openness that actually make Linux/BSD good.
Well, I understand, you probably didn't read the article, since it's a bit much for Babelfish, but you should have realised they're saying a lot more than: 'Use Linux/BSD 'cuz they're cheap!' As a matter of fact, they present a very detailed accounting of the advantages of OSS, including the key arguments of better security (through transparency) and freedom from control by any one corporation (never named, but in my opinion implied), as well as a detailed plan of how Linux and friends could be installed at all levels of the government. I don't know if this document carries any weight with the decision-makers, but it is a ringing endorsement of free(speech) software of all stripes. The authors are clearly OSS geeks.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
It comes very close to real democracy, in contrary to what most governments try to make of it ...
;-)
Actually open source is more like a meritocracy, or do I suddenly have a much say as Linus, as to what goes in the next kernel? Not that I want it, mind you, I'm much more interested in working kernel that one which is voted on
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
> As long as you can convince the congressmen from the state of Washington or Virginia or any of these places that it's worthwhile not to give lots of money to lots of American companies, you have my support.
Remember: all America was in favor of the SuperCollider until the decision came down about where it would go, at which point everyone but the winning state turned against it.
Personally, I think that's a bad way to manage science, but at least it tells us a lot about state-oriented politicians and money. Perhaps we could mobilize the same sentiment here? What's good for Washington and Virginia is bad for the rest of the country, at least if you look at it in terms of sources and sinks for a megawad of cash.
If the politicos are willing to fuck science over that kind of parochialism, surely they should be willing to ditch MS&AOL over even larger sums of money?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Religion began when the first rogue met the first fool.
So it was, so it is, so it ever shall be.
"You must use NT" specifies a single product from a single vendor.
"You must use OSS" specifies a whole class of products from many different vendors/sources.
So I don't think the latter is two-faced. If they said "you must use Linux" then I would call it two-faced, and if they said "You must use SuSE Linux" I'd strongly consider it to be two-faced.
I wonder if SuSE/Redhat/... are all out because they are not 100% open-source? If so then Stampede, Debian and *BSD will get a sudden surge in popularity :-)
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
A bit back, I submitted an article that the Norwegian was also seriously considering moving to Linux. If I remember correctly, their decision was not only based on the fact that Linux is free, but that, in switching to Linux, they would be reducing or eliminating their dependence on Microsoft, a U.S. company.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
As far as I could pick out from what has been going on at /. and from Bruce Schenier's (I hope I spelled it correctly) book on the DDJ CD, the real security is in the keys. The algorithm should be public, and subject to public (at least peer) review. Closed source algorithms are merely security through obscurity, not good enough when it counts most.
And with respect to the spec, if your implementation is consistent with the specifications, then any program should be able to read the document properly. If the implementation is inconsistent, then its a situation like having a new proprietary format, bad for all of us.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
The other obvious format is bitmap, e.g. G3 Fax or GIF (if they've fixed the patent silliness), or PBM/PNM/etc.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I would have posted the entire article but my boss would kill me if I /.'d our server ;-)
Open SOURCE software in the federal administration
Summary
In the area of the public administration to a large extent workstation PC in the office area as Clients, more efficient systems are used also than servers. Many authorities are at present before the function of the separation of old systems. In the industry open SOURCE software (OSS) wins increasingly in meaning for the moment. OSS is used into authorities in the server area already the longer one and proved there than extremely reliable solution (aspect of the availability).
During the processing of classified materials the aspect of the privacy is the center of attention. Here OS self-service impulse systems offer prerequisites by their special possibilities of configuring, on which in the Federal Office for security in the information technology (BSI) projects were already begun, which have the development secured PC and its safe on and integration into networks as a goal.
In the office surrounding field with its special requirements at user friendliness open SOURCE software was however so far only meagerly used. With the development of graphic surfaces, which are not constituent of the actual OS self-service impulse systems such as Linux or FreeBSD, the open SOURCE page drew even however with commercial products. At application software, which puts to a graphic surface on such, there are in the meantime several Office packages as OSS. Among other things the package StarOffice of the company SUN for the commercial application is available and free of charge available for the OS self-service realm.
Besides providers of commercial Office software portiert such as Corel, Oracle, Informix or SAP their products on OS self-service impulse systems, so that in the meantime extensive options exist.
Already today the possibility exists of covering the office request completely by means of open SOURCE often commodity. A successful migration strategy must be directed with consideration of the available configuration toward a coexistence of the software of different manufacturers.
Situation within the authority area
The situation within the office area of the federal administration is coined/shaped by the application of officecommunication packages of a manufacturer. Besides is the information technology before substantial challenges and high requirements from the political area, whereby on a noticeable increase of the budgetary provisions cannot be counted at the same time. Under this edgeconditions shrink from many IT responsible person transferred into another IT world. Indicated as reason frequently to high costs of conversion, in particular too hightraining courses spends. The present situation is intensified still by the fact that for the application of the current in each case software packages usually new hardware is necessary, since the available hardware the performance requirements of the new software does not become fair.
The disadvantages which are due from this dependency are various. The products are often expensive and of frequent release change characterized. Documents will usually stored in proprietaerem format, can by older program versions not satisfying documents of newer versions be processed. The use of proprietaerer interfaces makes more difficult or prevents the application of competitive software. User can not surely to be that the product range, on which it created itself is continued also in the future.
In the past there were numerous occurrences, which questioned the reliability of commercial operating systems and hardware particularly also regarding the privacy. A deficiency of such operating systems and also commercial Office packages is that the program code cannot be seen. During the 57. The federation andthe countries formulated the commisioners for data protection assigned conference the data security therefore a resolution about " transparency hard and Software"[3 ]. They recommend to use the users of modern technique " only such products, whatever ensure a transparency of the operational sequences ".
Also interesting:
Is open SOURCE software safe?
The disclosure of software alone means still no security. Because usually users, in addition, programmers, at all will not be able to determine whether a certain program is safe. Only a small set of specialists will be after detailed study in addition able. All different are thus dependent on information second-hand.
Despite at present still open questions their disclosure is however the in any case fundamental prerequisite for the evaluation of the security of software.
With open SOURCE software is fulfilled this. In addition it comes that the creators are always in particular well-known and attainable. For problems in the technical literature and in the Internet solutions offered [ 1.2 ].
It's not the first time they're saying OSS is good (which of course is a good thing), but they don't ever act on it.
Every time I get a new passport or something I look at their screens, and they're still running on SuckOS (NT 3.51 last time I was there).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Of course they should use open source instead of commercial software since it's saving tax payer money and is ultimately more reliable (which means more efficient employees).
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just forgot to put the smileys at the right places, but this undoubtedly there are some of us here that actually think this statement has any truth in it.
The fact that one uses open or closed source software doesn't mean anything in itself when it comes to costs. True, with open source there is generally no fee that needs to be payed, but to see this as a major cost saver is incorrect. The costs in any IT-related project within organisations is generally not associated with software nor hardware, but with the amount of man hours needed to complete the project. Espescially when specialist knowledge needs to be hired from third parties the costs are rising like the amount of Guinness in an Irishman on Saint Patricks day. After the roll-out of a project the cost is in the ease of use for the user and in the cost of keeping everything up and running.
At the moment the cost of running open source based software on server(-like) configurations is probably tied with that of various closed source alternatives. It all depends on what you want, who you have working for you and what kind of other systems you use. The cost of open source on user-systems is probably still higher then that of various closed source alternatives. Most notably MS-Windows based products, but for some uses the Mac comes to mind. Even if one accounts for BSOD's and related stress issues, loss of working hours etc. A properly configured system is still a cheaper option then Open Source because the money for an organisation is in the applications and in the added value that a worker gets from those apps.
Yup, it all boils down to apps again. Though i must say that in certain areas this gap could be bridged quite easily. Espescially there where users are doing data entry, where all data goes to a large database(eg: call-centers), most screens are designed espescially for that database. With that in mind, new systems in this area could be as easily build to work with an open as a closed source environment.
Use Adsense for Charity
If they did, then they'd know how "insecure" Open Source is. :)
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Is anyone out there actively lobbying the government to officially endorse OSS solutions rather than proprietary software? It seems to me as a taxpayer that I would like to see the vast number of government projects out there actively evaluate Linux as well as Solaris and NT as platforms.
Alot of us are trying, believe me.   Most of us have OSS snuck in the background but contributing none the less...   The more "public" uses are seen at NASA with their Beowulf cluster and at NIST.
There's a FOSE conference coming up next month and one of the seminar tracks includes a session on Linux.   However I wish that more on OSS was scheduled to be discussed at this.   The timing of FOSE is really good considering all that's going on right now, but seems no one in the D.C./MD/VA area appeared to push it for this year's conference...
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
Maybe the reason is that the german govt. is afraid that microsoft will put in backdoors for the CIA and NSA to exploit Cant do that with open source
**Life is too short to be serious**
French gov have also a law proposal for *exclusive* use of free software (logiciel libre, in french). If it is accepted, no french administration could use commercial or closed source software after 2002. It seems the OSS is beginning to take over the world...
sigmentation fault
AFAIK Scientology is classified as a cult / sect here, and not as a religion. In fact, I think they are registered as a company. Furthermore, scientology is under observation by the internal intelligence agency (Verfassungsschutz) for allegations of plotting to overthrow the democratic system and for trying to infiltrate the government.
Executive Software is not only run by a Scientologist; it is a member of WISE, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. WISE member corporations are operated for the benefit of the Church of Scientology, even though the CoS is supposedly a "nonprofit religious organization" and the WISE orgs are for-profit corporations.
Babelfish said that it means that the German Federal offices can use Open Source products. Not you, just the office workers. Which jibes with my rusty German understanding of the document.
So, if you work for the German Federal government, you can go ahead and use Open Source software now.
Will in Seattle
usually, when the government spends money on a project, only one group in the population benefits. Although this is often a large group, there are almost always some people who are left out.
But with OSS, when the government works on a special program designed for one group, the whole community benefits, because the whole community gets free source. And more, since in the course of the project it's highly likely that the government-employed programmers will contribute patches, code, ideas, etc. to other projects.
So, not only is OSS good for government, it also constitutes good government.
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?
When I was a govt contractor, we were using the GNU tools and perl on several Department of Defense projects because the were the most portable around. Of course these were Unix based projects.
Is anyone out there actively lobbying the government to officially endorse OSS solutions rather than proprietary software? It seems to me as a taxpayer that I would like to see the vast number of government projects out there actively evaluate Linux as well as Solaris and NT as platforms.
Not only would they be getting a high quality, low cost platform, the code that the government contractors develop could be fed back into the community. The govt develops a considerable amount of software and while much of it is specific to its needs, there are other areas such as infrastructure where having an OSS solution makes sense.
If they used OSS software as the basis of building their systems, it would prevent a lot of the reinventing of the wheel and proprietary lock-in that occurs now.
In a somewhat off-topic note, Wired News ran a story yesterday about MS's problems introducing Win2K in Germany. It seems that Win2K comes bundled with an defragmentation utility called DisKeeper; now, this utility was written by a company called Executive Software and the German government has a problem with this because Executive's CEO is a member of the Church of Scientology. Under German Law, state and federal governments can't do business with a member of the Church of Scientology (maybe someone knows exactly why, I don't). So there were rumors over the weekend that MS was disclosing (parts of) the Win2K code for the German Govt to examine. Just thought this might be interesting.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti