Advocating Open Source Within the Gov't

There's an interesting piece running on Newsforge concerning advocacy of Open Source within the (US) Federal Government. The Feds, as we've talked about here before, are caught in an interesting cross fire - and based on personal experience, I can tell you that they are looking at it. Carpe Diem, folks.

Comments

Of course the government should use open source

[autopr0n]

But, knowing how well the government functions, I'd be surprised if they realized it.

I don't mean to be cynical, but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field. I can't imagine the 'best and brightest' out there would really be interested in working on some of the most boring code available... and at ridiculously low wages compared to what they could be earning in the IT industry.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Em Emalb]

from above:
"but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field"

Uhm, how bout those guys that pretty much invented the architecture of the net as we know it today?

There are TONS of highly skilled people working in the government, you just never hear about them. And, believe it or not, when the government gets its hand on a genius IT guru, he or she is VERY WELL compensated, since the government knows they can go else where at any given time.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Matey-O]

May I be the first to say Bull$hit!

_I_ work for state government, I'm a pretty bright bulb, and choose to do so for less pay because I LIKE the environment. I LIKE making change in a large governmental system, and I LIKE having a stable paycheck with a good retirement.

Yeah, there's a bunch of F*ck-ups in the Public sector, but they're just as prevalent in the Private Sector.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Anonymous Coward]

But closed source pays better. Beat that.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[joshjs]

I agree that coding for the government could offer some pretty dull projects. But the private sector can, too. Even in school, you can run into some very inane projects that are time-consuming and teach you little to nothing. If there was a reasearch facility, though, for the government, that was offering me a job, that's already more interesting.

Not necessarily better, but, I think, potentially so.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[a3d0a3m]

Well, if you think about it, open source might pay better. If the government office you're working for is saving money on XP licenses and MS SQL licenses, etc and instead decides to go with Linux and PostgreSQL or something of that akin, then they would have more money in their budget.
Of course, they wouldn't just hand the money over to the employees in the form of inflated paycheck, but I bet they could spend that surplus on other things which would make their job/life alot easier!

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving money results in a budget cut, spending money attracts bribes (money which YOU get...). Make your choice.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[sid_vicious]

I can't imagine the 'best and brightest' out there would really be interested in working on some of the most boring code available...

Actually, the government agencies (specifically, the "Alphabet Soup" agencies - you know who I mean) get some of the best and brightest specifically because they've got some of most exciting code to work on. Where else could you write code that deploys missiles, cracks encryption, and spies on people and not get arrested? If you're looking for the guys with the fun toys, that's who you wanna sign on with.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[AnotherBlackHat]

But, knowing how well the government functions, I'd be surprised if they realized it.

Gosh, maybe we should have an advocacy program for open source then, just like it talks about in the article.

-- Where is that "-1 didn't read article" moderator choice when you need it?

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[TheGeneration]

Spoken like a true Ayn Rand fan.

I agree with you. The best and the brightest would demand the most money for their time (that's part of being considered "the brightest.") Working for the government doesn't pay nearly as well as the private sector does. I was thinking about taking a coding position at a state univerisity here in CA but they couldn't compete with the private companies for my time.

Since it's public money if I want to alter, change, read, whatever with code developed for the government I should be able to.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Aexia]

From my experience on Capitol Hill, switching to Linux for instance, I don't think would be a huge problem as most of the people don't know how to use Windows. So, not knowing how to use Linux wouldn't be a big change.

When I was there(and it's undoubtedly improved), they had a serious lack of competent sys admins for congressional offices. The main problems were:
1. Many Congressional offices didn't see tech as a priority and have a dedicated sys admin position. Those offices had the receptionist maintain the network. You can imagine the results.
2. The pay is crap compared to the private sector. Of course, no one goes into gov't for the money... but...
3. Competent computer people who are also interested in and have the patience for politics are few and far between.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[buckeyeguy]

Boy do I smell 'troll' on this one....

I'll assume that you've never worked in a government IT shop; it would explain much of what you've typed. If you had, you'd know that many states index their pay for IT job classes to keep the people they want to keep; for certain job classes, I know that my ex-coworkers at the State of Ohio are making more than my private sector coworkers here. (Not true for me of course... like Al Pacino said in The Devils' Advocate: "Negotiate? Always!") And of course, fat benefits and real paid vacation, that you can actually *take* if you want to.

You'd also know that many government agencies utilize the latest tech to do what they need to do, especially in geological and engineering capacities. They also work, where possible, with local universities for exchange and cost-sharing of such tech. Cost-sharing and cost cutting is the prime limitation to what governments can do as far as IT goes; you'd probably be appalled to know what little hardware and software is behind the curtain, making everything run.

I could go on, but I suspect this FP troll will already have more than its share of replies.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[DorianGre]

They were all university researchers or in government researh labs. Not the sysadmin at the local DMV.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[GSloop]

I agree...

I don't work for Gvmt, and don't think I ever will... I compare this to say, Verizon or Qwest. The techs/trench people are mostly pretty great. The problems lies at the top of the food chain. If we fixed [read ELIMINATE] the stupid PHB's at the top, the organization would run lots better.

Same with Gvmt. Politics is a corrupt game. The people who ultimately make the decisions, are in turn impacted by getting elected, and generating campaign contributions. That makes for bad legislation, and general apathey for those below, as they see the mess generated.

I think Gvmt has a purpose, and an important one. I just with the political system above the Gvmt was more representative and responsive to the average joe. The one without lots of dough to give!

Cheers!

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Rude Turnip]

"I agree with you. The best and the brightest would demand the most money for their time (that's part of being considered "the brightest.")"

Spoken like a true RandDroid.

Your statement only makes sense if you assume that everyone worships money...it's simply not true. Some people go into government because, for one reason or another, they are fascinated with doing something that services or affects the public at large. By your logic, no one should be interested in entrepreneurialship (sp?) or working for small businesses either, because they can get earn more as a cog in a giant, unthinking machine.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Black Parrot]

> Where else could you write code that deploys missiles, cracks encryption, and spies on people and not get arrested?

Write Outlook viruses?

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[RagManX]

I don't mean to be cynical, but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field. I can't imagine the 'best and brightest' out there would really be interested in working on some of the most boring code available... and at ridiculously low wages compared to what they could be earning in the IT industry.

Well, you've never worked an IT job in the gov't then. I've worked as a contractor at several gov't sites, and all of them had top notch IT guys. True, there were a lot of morons, but I didn't feel the percentages were any different from the private sector jobs I've worked. And once you got past the entry level positions, almost all the IT people at the gov't sites I've worked were knowledgeable. Now the management over the IT folks has been abysmal at every gov't site I've worked, but most of the IT people have been smart enough to know that and just work on getting the job done without getting the bosses in trouble. That way, the boss leaves the IT people alone, and the IT people get to surf pr0n all day after the job is done.

And I must say, some of the coolest work I've gotten to do has been done at gov't sites (IDS and vulnerability testing stuff comes to mind).

RagManX

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[kegmaster]

Having experienced several years in the employ of state government, I have to say that they have their fair share of gurus and geniuses. Mostly because the public sector is a little more generous in giving people their first chances [or second for that matter]. It is an environment where someone who can do the work, but may not have all the degrees or certificates or stellar GPA can get their foot in the door. That breeds loyalty in many cases, and those people stay on, even if they could find better opportunity elsewhere. In my experience, working in the public sector was a lot more headache free and I know my bood pressure was lower. Quite often I wish I'd never left.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[finkployd]

I can't imagine the 'best and brightest' out there would really be interested in working on some of the most boring code available... and at ridiculously low wages compared to what they could be earning in the IT industry.

Let me set up a situation for you. I am 23. While most of my friends went to work in private industry for high wages, I chose to work for a boring university for much less pay. Working on mainframe systems no less!

Fast forward to today. Nearly all of my friends are out of work. Dot coms gone, stock options tanked, private sector hurting. I'm still working (just promoted in fact), and enjoying what I do. I don't have to worry about the changing tides of the economy (so much), I don't have to worry if what I'm doing is contributing to stock holder value, I don't even have to put up with a restrictive work environment as far as technology choices go. I get to take classes for a fourth of the price, I have great benefits, and I spend my time working with cool technology (linux on s/390 is cool to me, ok :) and I have the freedom to experiment. I could certainly "cut it" in the private sector (in fact, I have and I still get offers) but why on earth would anyone who considers themselves the "best and brightest" want to put up with that nightmare of a job market? I read Dilbert because it is funny, not because it is the life I want to lead :)

Finkployd

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Anonymous Coward]

You're "another black hat". Write the code and remotely insert it into /.'s server :)

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[jaavaaguru]

"he or she is VERY WELL compensated"

Compensated... that makes it sound like something you really don't want to happen in your life, just like you get compensated after being unfairly dismissed from your job. :-P

I agree that the guys who pretty much invented the web, the pioneers of email, etc all had really interesting jobs, but do you really think it's still like that now? I imagine around half of the people working there fix bugs, and a big number of the rest of the guyd probably have jobs that are relatively un-interesting compared to the early pioneers.

More to the point though, if the German government use open source and publish their reasons for doing so, and show everyone else how good it is and how they benefit from it, then it would make the US look bad (and probably produce some MS-style "oh no, look, we're not that bad really" literature).

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[jaavaaguru]

and that should end in "...if they didn't also use an open-source solution".

i really should use the preview option!

Of course, if the German government (which seems to be further towards actually making this choice) does not choose an open source solution, then there must be pretty good reasons for that too.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[rainwater]

I imagine around half of the people working there fix bugs, and a big number of the rest of the guyd probably have jobs that are relatively un-interesting compared to the early pioneers.

That just shows how much you really know then. Just because the government agencies don't have big glitzy websites pimping their products doesnt mean they arent creating any.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[Anonymous Coward]

...but you worked in a Congressional office. Aren't they pretty much self-exempted from all the regulations and rules they pass for the rest of the country?

They're probably the biggest cheapskates out there.

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[UsonianAutomatic]

Money is just one form of recognition for being one of the "Best and Brightest."

I'm oversimplifying here, but Ayn Rand's take on money is more about not being apologetic for any huge sums of money you might accumulate for being one of the Best and Brightest.

Being true to yourself and getting fulfillment out of whatever it is you feel you were put on this earth to do is another key component of Rand's take on things... (I.E. Where all the captains of industry go after they disappear in 'Atlas Shrugged'.)

Some government jobs may not pay as competitively as those in the private sector, but that can translate into better compensation in other forms, like not having to work 60+ hour weeks or weekends, not worrying about getting laid off so that the company stock go up 1/2 a point, and generally feeling more appreciated by your superiors because they *know* you could be making more money elsewhere- if you're doing good work, they'll let you know.

YMMV, but working as I have at a not-for-profit healthcare organization for most of the last year, I've come to realize that I would certainly consider a government job even if it didn't pay as well as a position with [insert megacorp here].

The hours are good, the benefits are good, and I don't go home stressed out of my mind anymore... so maybe I can't afford premium cable any more, but I watched too much of that anyway. :)

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[DarkRide]

"Uhm, how bout those guys that pretty much invented the architecture of the net as we know it today? "

They were mostly contractors, not employees. Almost all research undertaken by the Feds has been done by contractors with an oversight office, in this case ARPA/IPTO (which later became DARPA and still is), put together to administer the research teams (contractors).

I've been working as a Gov't Wage Slave for 15 years. I have only met a handful of 'IT gurus.' Most of the idiots screw things up, then yell loudly "I'M A MICROSOFT CERTIFIED ENGINEER, of course I didn't make a mistake!"

I went to a meeting a few months back where an officer asked about Linux, and was told by his "Microsoft Certified Engineer" that "Linux is all command line and much too difficult to use. It doesn't even have a graphical user interface!"

"Okay, kinda true," I said. "I don't think Linux has a graphical user interface, but then Linux is an operating system. It's not really supposed to. Try GNOME or KDE if you want a GUI. Runs right on top of Linux. You can even dumb it down enough to look very much like MS Windows if you like."

So much for "Microsoft Certified Engineers." As far as I can tell, their only qualification is making uninformed proclamations and protecting their jobs by misinforming their bosses about alternatives to Microsoft. (BTW, I'm putting together an old lunchbox this weekend for my new CO. He wants to take it home and see for himself what '..this Linux stuff is all about.' Boy is he in for a surprise!)

Of course, there are *some* organizations which have really interesting toys to play with. My friends at NSA are certainly not bored! Of course, they're not stuck with NT/2000 either!

Re:Of course the government should use open source

[TheGeneration]

RandDroid? LOL

Actually being an entrepreneur could make you very wealthy if you worked hard and produced a product that was in demand. Same with having a small business...

Save a fortune on licensing fees

[TrollMan 5000]

Admittedly it's not a high priority on the government's list of things to do, but it'd be nice to see them save some money on items like licensing fees, which is money spent and getting nothing tangible.

There might be an inital expense in retraining workers to use the new software, but the benefits seem to outweigh the costs in the long run.

Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees

[aridhol]

There might be an inital expense in retraining workers to use the new software, but the benefits seem to outweigh the costs in the long run.

Have you ever tried to get a beaurocracy to look beyond immediate expense?

Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees

[joshjs]

The concept being discussed is to introduce new facilities to create new jobs. (at least as I understood it -- I read the article pretty quickly, because I had to pee :-) )

So obviously, there's a new expense, but it's not in re-training the workers, but in training them to begin with, which would be necessary anyway (if that -- there are lots of unemployed, yet skilled tech people out there, no?).

The plan makes the government look good, for creating jobs, it makes "us" happy, for promoting open source development, and (IAN an economist, mind you) makes for a better economy (locally and beyond (?)), with the lower unemployment and all.

/rambling

Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees

[Jetson]

Actually, the FAA is trying to port one of their air traffic management systems to Linux for the sole purpose of saving HP/UX license fees.

Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees

[MisterBlister]

Save a fortune on licensing fees

There can be a downside to that as well. If the US Government is mainly licensing US software (and it is) that's economic stimulus.

Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the continuing expense as you have to train every new-hire on the system. It's not like you'll just hire people once, and never have to hire anyone again.

Someone needs to do a good job of pitching themselves as a HelpDesk vendor for Linux. Obviously people are trying to do this already, and heck, probably are doing it quite well in situations..

No matter what system you run, a large organization is almost always going to need a "Help Desk" of some sort..

It would be great if somehow the situation could bootstrap itself to the point where the help desk companies have bunches of paying clients, and are funding patches, gui development, hardware support, etc.

I don't see how this could happen. Until it does, it's tough for me to see how large organizations can save money initially switching to Linux (except in certain conditions).

Government should be *contributing* too

[bill_mcgonigle]

Are there any good reasons government-funded research (excepting SBIR which specifically is intended to help small businesses get going) shouldn't be required to license their code with a nice open license? I mean, we *did* pay for some of that development.

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[Anonymous Coward]

You paid for the fire brigade, too, but do you get to ride the truck?

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[the_consumer]

Are there any good reasons government-funded research (excepting SBIR which specifically is intended to help small businesses get going) shouldn't be required to license their code with a nice open license? I mean, we *did* pay for some of that development.

Yeah, I've been dying to rewrite the code for the targeting mechanism on my B-2 ;-B

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[AB3A]

Have you forgotten where the Internet came from? How about those nice folks at Goddard Spaceflight who work on Beowolf clustering technology? Did I mention NSA's Linux distro?

They do contribute more than you may realize. And once Linux gains institutional momentum, you're almost certain to see a flood of contributions. And who knows? You might be the one making them via a Government contract!

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[haruharaharu]

I pay for the fire brigade, so I get my house fire put out. That is the product of the fire brigade.

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly the point. Not everything that you wish you could do with what you pay for is what you actually paid for.

Re:Government should be *contributing* too

[mengel]

Actually, here at Fermilab, where I work, we have recently switched our Fermitools program over to a BSD-style license, and have released 26 different packages so far. So there is at least one example of your tax dollars providing Free Software.

This is due in part to Mark Edel's work on getting nedit (originally developed here at Fermilab) released under the GPL, but also to the patient efforts of folks in the Computing Division here like Ruth Pordes and Betsy Schermerhorn. I believe several other of the National Labs have similar programs.

support

[tricker]

one stumbling block is that government agencies (like the one i work for) shy away from products that have no old-school support structure.

Re:support

[infochuck]

one stumbling block is that government agencies (like the one i work for) shy away from products that have no old-school support structure.

Oh, like I can call someone at MicroSoft and get them to help me with my Windows problems...

Re:support

[Iamthefallen]

Yes, you can, you just have to pay for it. IIRC you get free help for 2 incidents, after that, better get a nightjob if you need to call a lot...

Re:support

[RagManX]

one stumbling block is that government agencies (like the one i work for) shy away from products that have no old-school support structure.

This is exactly the problem I've run in to at the gov't site where I work. I've posted about this in other open source thread discussions, but will mention it again here. At my site, the two responses I get when I want to use an open source tool (Nessus, Ethereal, and Snort being the top three I try to use) are: 1)We can't get support for those, and 2)But we can't use free software because someone might have put a trojan in there and we'll never know.

Of course, since I build the tools from source, #2 doesn't really apply as we could always check them. And I've gotten more support from various mailing lists when I've had questions about my open source tools than I've ever been able to get for commercial products. But the gov't morons here don't like those answers.

The other thing you'll run in to is that most gov't idiots like to have someone to blame if something goes wrong. With open source stuff, you can't get anything back from the creators if you have a problem, since many of the creators having nothing but their talents. On the other hand, you can't get anything from the commercial entities because of the EULA, but the gov't brainless zombies believe that because they are a business, they can be sued. Besides, we've never had a problem with my open source tools, just the commercial ones.

RagManX

Re:support

[carlos_benj]

And that differs from much of the private sector in what way?

Re:support

[RagManX]

And that differs from much of the private sector in what way?

Well, every private sector job I've had, I've been allowed to use whatever tools I deemed necessary. Only at gov't sites have I been restricted in my tools. Perhaps your private sector experience is different from mine?

RagManX

Money makes the world go 'round

[Anonymous Coward]

When the decision is about to be made, there's always that one "credible" study which proves that open source is not only more expensive, but also doesn't deliver what is absolutely needed. Politicians base their decision on that, hence can't be held accountable for ignoring facts. There's no money in open source, we can't buy our own studies, we lose. Whatever you do, try to get filthy rich, otherwise there's no chance you could ever make people do what you want them to do on a scale that matters.

Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[papo]

Other countries like Brazil, China and France are adopting open source software and ideas faster than USA. This is interesting to see because most open source developers are concentrated in the States.

Just as a pointer: Richar Stallman participated in a debate about patents and trademarks in the World Social Forum realized in Porto Alegre, Brazil. See this link: http://www.softwarelivre.rs.gov.br/ (sorry, its in portuguese!!!) and this one http://www.fsm.rs.gov.br/ing/index.php (in english!).

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[realkiwi]

Just because they are concentrated in the USA doesn't mean they are from there... The reason they are there is called a "brain drain" and that is where the best paid jobs for programmers are.

Lots of them were born AND educated elsewhere.

Lots of projects started elsewhere: SAMBA, Webmin and others spring to mind...

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[SparafucileMan]

That's because OpenSource is HUGE.

What I mean is, computers are probally the most significant, far reaching, invention that humans, and our human ancestors, have ever invented--just short of fire, in fact. Well, I guess agriculture beats out computers. But that puts em at third place. By loose logic, it follows that software and code being developed and given away for FREE on those machines has the potential to shape and transform human society more than almost anything else. You wanna start the next revolution? Think Marx was right? Stick your ass into high gear, code like mad, and trust me, you will shake the titans of industry. Some call those people tyrants. You'd be hero, you know. After all, computers programmers will control the future, I think that much is clear. Well, maybe not. The military will control the future. But programmers will get to write the history books, and if you think Bill Gates is going to go down favorably in the history books written by a bunch of programmers, you're probally quite mistaken.

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[Anonymous Coward]

This is contradictory.
If they came here because of successful IT business in US ( you said it yourself) as compared to other countries, then the claim that US is behind others ( as suggested by the original poster) cannot stand.
It simply doesn't make sense.

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[Anonymous Coward]

it does: us is behind others so they pay pretty much to catch up.

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[Andreas Rueckert]

Are you sure about the concentration in the states? I'm working on some OSS projects and it seems to me, that more and more developers are from Europe. And I consider it a problem, that it's harder to find developers in the US.

Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum

[realkiwi]

They came for money not anything else. If success is mesured by money alone the the IT industry is successful.

European IT industry died because predatory way of doing business that Microsoft was condemned for. Not because of lack of talented programmers.

Of course

[aridhol]

The government is going through so much trouble to slap down Microsoft for being a monopoly. They should look for an alternative to Microsoft, whether it's Open Source or not. But if they go Open Source, they have more chance of being able to re-use the hardware they already have.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government is going through so much trouble to slap down Microsoft for being a monopoly..."

Did we read the same proposed settlement?

Give me a break

[Wind_Walker]

You honestly think that the Microsoft lobbiests will let the Feds choose something that's open-source over their proprietary formats?

You really think that all the oil/health care/tobacco/technology industries are going to keep quiet over this type of thing? It impacts them too, you know.

The government will not change because the corporations (who own the government, figuratively speaking) will not let them change. Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns, the corporations will continue to control the government and the open-source movement (and all other movements) will get stomped on.

Re:Give me a break

[Sloppy]

I suspect it all comes down to how exposed they are. If it gets a lot of publicity and they feel like the public is watching them, they might do the right thing. If they think they aren't being watched, they will happily shovel taxpayer's money into furnaces, Microsoft's pockets, etc.

Cockroaches hate the light.

Re:Give me a break

[Mickey]

You honestly think that the Microsoft lobbiests will let the Feds choose something that's open-source over their proprietary formats?

Campaign finance reform has little to do with corporations' hold over the government. If individuals (myself included, I admit) would utilize the representative system already in place, we would be able to wield the influence we think is to be had only the the rich and the corporate.

Write your congressman. Use your right to vote. If everyone who wanted to see Linux used in the government would write to all of their local, regional, and national representatives, we would see a lot more Linux used in the government. What John Weathersby is doing is good and necessary, but that doesn't mean we should expect him to do it alone.

Write. Vote. The power is and always has been in our hands.

Re:Give me a break

[wfrp01]

I think the Feds may be our best hope. Call me chicken little, but tell me, what do you get when you combine: (1) a digital rights management OS, (2) encrypted network communications, (3) proprietary code. If you can, throw in SSSCA for good measure.

This is what you get: you have no idea what you get. What's going over that wire? Who knows? What's your OS doing in its secret private places. Giving you a wank job, for all you know.

Any government that would agree to run, or should I say "be run", by such systems would have to be nuts. Now maybe the US could pressure MS into allowing government auditors code access. Maybe they could get a backdoor, too. But I doubt that priviledge would extend to governments around the world.

I've heard said (I don't know this for sure) that the reason PC boxes are beige, is that some federal gov't standard mandated that color. The governent being the hugest customer around, the cost effective thing to do was to manufacture to their standards. Whether this is a true story or not, the fact remains that no organization has clout like the US federal government. It looks to me that unless the Feds want MS to give them a poke in the eye, that they might seriously like to consider alternatives.

Re:Give me a break

[ehackathorn]

Just an FYI,

We have run everything important under Linux and have done so for a number of years. Who exactly are the "Feds" you are refering to?

Eric

Re:Give me a break

[jamesmrankinjr]

You honestly think that the Microsoft lobbiests will let the Feds choose something that's open-source over their proprietary formats?

Just how many jobs does Microsoft create in Trent Lott's Mississippi, for example? Just how beholden to Microsoft are politicians in CA with Silicon Valley, VA and NY with AOL/TW headquarters, NC where Redhat is headquartered, etc.?

Best,
-jimbo

Re:Give me a break

[fishebulb]

actually i heard on TechTV that the original programmer of the Eniac is the reason for beige. was that a govt project, i cant remember. if it was, what you said could be tied into that. Anyone Know?

Re:Give me a break

[fishebulb]

what you said is 100% accurate. The current mindset in the US is of laziness IMHO. A rep doesnt have to worry about being voted out right now, so he/she can listen to the corps and do their bidding. If they knew that the public would not re-elect them, it would be the opposite. Campaigns contribs do not matter if the public doesnt want that person anymore. Im talking about public as the people who are not involved, besides the occasional voting. If I'm a rep, and i do what xyz company wants, but i am still re-elected, I will keep doing what the xyz company wants. It would take a considerable stand to stop this from happening. Not even a huge amount of people, just a commited group. (still needs a fair number of people). Look at the anti-abortion, hardcore family value people. They make up a small percentage of voters. They have the appearance of a large percentage, the loudest voice wins.

Wow, no sense of humor here...

[eric_aka_scooter]

You guys take things so seriously, learn to laugh a little. Enjoy life. :-)

Not only Open Source, but also Open Standards

[mdubinko]

An article on XML.com outlines the US government's new mandate to support only open standards, specifically mentioning W3C. Even cooler, the guidelines expressly forbid competing (proprietary) standards.

See the article

.micah

Re:Not only Open Source, but also Open Standards

[iomud]

I agree with that stance more than any other, support open standards and the rest will fall into place. Interoperability in the long run will be governed by how well open standards are supported. Well designed, well planned, more secure openly built upon systems.

I've said it before, I'll say it again

[dhamsaic]

The biggest problem is support. The government runs mainly on HP-UX and Solaris, and they do that because they know that if something goes wrong, it can be fixed by tomorrow at the latest. Linux needs solutions providers - one company that sells the hardware, the operating system and the support. Someone the government can call if it breaks and say "fix it!" - and have someone working on it less than 4 hours later. If some Linux company can provide that, then we have a chance.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[Anonymous Coward]

You meam VA Linu......oh wait :)

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[Anonymous Coward]

REDHAT

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[Prop]

Someone the government can call if it breaks and say "fix it!" - and have someone working on it less than 4 hours later. If some Linux company can provide that, then we have a chance.

And of course, you know that's doesn't really happen, right ?

Companies like HP or Sun don't jump because a customer says so. Much less in 4 hours.

Customers have this illusion that they call the shots, but the truth of the matter is that you can threaten "I'll dump Sun/HP if this is not fixed pronto!", but no one in their right mind actually does this. The cost of switching to another vendor is way too prohibitive. And companies know this.

And I know this because I've worked both for the goverment, and for the "Big Company"

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[joshjs]

Linux needs solutions providers - one company that sells the hardware, the operating system and the support. Someone the government can call if it breaks and say "fix it!" - and have someone working on it less than 4 hours later. If some Linux company can provide that, then we have a chance.

...if anyone's getting inspired by this...

...I'm thinking any company like that will probably be immediately and consistently assaulted by "the enemy."

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[bmarklein]

Um, what about IBM?

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[maddman75]

I believe Carly has recently promised to do just this - offer the same scale of support on large Linux servers and mainframes that they do on thier HP-UX products. Our company gets about everything from HP, and their service is quite good.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[praedor]

Hmmm. Sounds like RedHat and IBM to me.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I am not sure I wholly agree. I think there is this PERCEPTION and that is the problem.

First let me say 'larger' entities use mainframes and not HP-UX/Solaris. Let me then segway into the fact that IBM is the BIGGEST support provider for mainframes. Read government entities know IBM well.

Now look at your gripe. IBM is the BIGGEST financial backer of GNU\Linux today and they are pushing it hardest on... drum roll... thier mainframes.

IBM will gladly take the money tied to that 4 hour fix it contract.

horrible

[neilsly]

warning.. this may be a troll, but...

this has to be one of the most horribly written articles I've ever read. If people are going to take linux seriously possibly we shouldn't some guy who uses his nick name 'roblimo' and uses words like 'biddness' and 'dude'.

Re:horrible

[neilsly]

wow - already 'eh? lets me a little more open minded here guys.

Public money should equal public code.

[TheGeneration]

If my tax dollars paid for it, I should be able to use it, look at it, alter, make love to it... whatever I want.

Re:Public money should equal public code.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS. You might be able to stretch that to say that since my money supported Company X's Reaserch and Development I deserve to see their source code as well.

I know, you MUST pay taxes, I am not forced to support a company.

My point being tho, it is all supported by the same pool of money, ours, so what truly is the difference.

Re:Public money should equal public code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the US have anything like the freedom of information act? If so, what would happen if you went and demanded all of their source code?

Human Resources

[worldwideweber]

One of my biggest concerns regarding the adoption of Linux by the public sector is the availability of human resources. Having worked for several non-profits I can say that it is a lot harder for public institutions (and especially government) to hire the right people because there are always political problems. For example, how many Linux professionals come from areas outside the United States? If the government can only hire US citizens, then it will have to cut out a significant portion of its applicant pool. A pool that even on a world-wide level is not that big. As a result, it will have to step up and compete for a resource like a "Linux Systems Administrator" in the US labor market. Given the short supply of these types of people in the US, the price of labor (i.e. the salaries expected from these people) will be too high for a public institution to compete against a private one. Consequently, the public institutions will have to hire folks with lower salary expectations (probably as a result of a lack of experience). Therefore, public institutions will likely have more problems with their systems and blame it all on Linux.

This is just one scenario that I have seen played out in the government (or government sponsored) institutions that I've worked at.

Re:Human Resources

[matastas]

The possible counter to this is the fact that the government baits people with things other than money. Ample vacation, work flexibility (in some cases), massive benefits and the 'national pride' thing are a few of their trump cards. In a recessed economy, the 'iron-clad job security' angle works very well.

True, the private sector flashes green and touts strict supply/demand to get their employees, but the recent waves of down/right-sizing, plummeting employee loyality, and the recent exposing of rampant exec-level greed...shit, this has always existed, but now we can see it more clearly. Is the private sector all that great?

And don't believe the hype: no one, and I do mean *no one*, has toys like the US military. Geek heaven, once you get the right security clearance. Try that one on for bait.

Re:Human Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

Another counter is that the government contracts out a great deal of their services and those contractors don't have to be US Citizens. I know, I work as a government contractor and the guy in the next cubicle has an H1-B visa.

OSSI mailing list

[xiitone]

The OSSI has a mailing list for discussing Open Source and federal Projects.
subscribe:
opengovtprojects mailing list
or email:
opengovtprojects-request@oss-institute.org with the word subscribe as the subject

from experience

[neal n bob]

warning - this is a rare ontopic post. Do not mod up - you may accidentally give me positive karma.

as a dedicated n. virginia crapflooder and government IT slob, I can tell you that a lot of people in the gov't are giving open sores a look. New projects and things are constantly getting piled on but no money to do them - no one has money to pay the ms licenses everytime you need a new server.

the problems are that some of the people here whore themselves out to the many vendors and the vendors want everyone to buy their proprietary crap so that no one else can come in when they start slacking off on support.

I pimp open sores solutions when and where I can - a lot of the ground level tech guys use it whenever they can. As money for non homeland defense dollars get squeezed and MS keeps increasing their licensing war, more government IT people will start moving to open sores.

Re:from experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell me you are working for that sleazy bitch ?

Re:from experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick to the crapflooding.

Gov't Contracts

[Rev.LoveJoy]

Did anyone else find the discussion about how gov't contract work really fascinating? That sucessful gov't contractors spread their contracts over multiple congressional districts as a defensive maneuver against budget cuts is a bit ... creepy.

I realize that this is The Way Things Work, but is it right? or is it merely the propogation of a sucessful strategy?

Myself, I'm not sure that the way to legitmize Linux in gov't is to politic it in - 'bidness' aside. Getting in front of the policital movers and shakers and presenting facts is one thing. Using that time to pork barrel your own certification company strikes me as distinctly another, regardless of whether or not this is the way things are done.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Anything?

[lowe0]

Including incorporate it into a proprietary product?

Corporations pay taxes too....

Re:Anything?

[maddman75]

No they don't pay taxes - they simply increase the price of thier goods so that the PUBLIC ends up paying them anyway.

So many problems would go away if we just got rid of the concept of a corporation as a person.

Re:Anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the same public which gets paid by the corporations?

It's heating up in Germany, too

[wrinkledshirt]

MS trying to quell petition against closed source in Germany

Re:It's heating up in Germany, too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cooling down already. Infora recommends Windows for the clients, Linux for mailservers only. Sorry to disappoint you, game's over.

What will prevent Linux from making it!

[GSloop]

I've said this before, but here goes again...

The Linux we all know and love, the notion of free [beer/speech] Linux won't make it by itself, that's because the Political system responds to money and power. Linux won't cut it there... But pair Linux to some big biz with big bucks. and it might happen....

The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")

Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.

So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).

So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.

So, we have to pair Linux to IBM or others who will play the money political game, we can win. But that will probably end up changing Linux to some degree too.

It's sort of like a pact with the devil. I say go for it, and try to keep Linux true to its' ideals.

Cheers!

Re:What will prevent Linux from making it!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, fifteen?

Against the Linux Cynix

[Wintersmute]

The skepticism with which some of the early posts view this possibility is disheartening. Some may forget that the U.S. Government spent a fortune in the 1980s buying computer equipment from Wang in a desperate and untimately unsuccessful attempt to prop up that failing company. When Wang (inevitably) imploded in bankruptcy, Uncle Sam was left holding the bag with a lot of equipment and no support. The point? It didn't make much sense to buy Wang, and "credible" reports may argue against adopting Linux, but if powerful agents on The Hill are backing a project, deals go through in spite of conventional wisdom. To the extent that Weathersby's Machiavellian approach to Hill politics fosters the adoption of open source, his efforts are to be commended - and supported - such that for once, the log may roll in favor of diffuse interests. Winter

Re:Against the Linux Cynix

[Anonymous Coward]

People fall for the same tricks only so often. At some point, you gotta see what's going on. There may be the occasional exception to the rule, but that doesn't change the rule. Look at Microsoft's case. My Windows still has the Internet Explorer built-in, and if I recall correctly, MS hasn't been split up either, or received any punishment at all beyond telling them to behave. Open Source needs a big push if it is supposed to replace Windows on the desktop *anywhere*, and as long as MS can get away with destroying companies, that push will not come from any government which doesn't openly oppose the USA.

Re:Next post!

[posmon]

> I hate page wideners! so do i, but that link is fucked.

Craig Mundie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Craig, is that you? How ya doing, boy? Still pushing the closed source agenda, I see. Well done! Keep the propaganda going, the sheep don't even suspect the company plan of painting public employees and public officials as too stoopid to make informed choices on software and need monopolies like ours to feed them. The private sector is the only guard against total chaos, eh? Yeah, long live the private sector, we know what's best for everyone.

PS. Sorry you lost a few bucks when Enron tanked.

Critical Mass

[CSieber]

Clearly the future of Linux in the world is securing govt. contracts and other ways of making publicly known without people going out and having to put it on their desktops. Another good example of this is Red Hat's deal with the Indian govt. to put Linux on all their school computers. India is not a small country folks, and once they start pumping out computer-literate people loyal to Linux, the tide will shift.

Steps like this are key to solving the Linux Equation. Clearly Linux is superior in every way to Windows (especially for the government) but without a critical mass it will never take over. Hopefully efforts like this (and the one in Germany) will push it past the critical mass stage and Linux will become The OS and not just another OS.

Re:Critical Mass

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clearly the future of Linux in the world is securing govt"

Meaning it cannot compete on its own. Interesting.

"Clearly the future of Linux in the world is securing govt"

Clearly it is not.
Hell, with that comment you just lost all your credibility so I won't even waste my time with you anymore.

Why is it...

[avdi]

...that despite being glad someone is finally lobbying for open-source software, I felt vaguely dirty after reading this article?

ick... I need to wash my hands...

Re:Why is it...

[GSloop]

Yes, I do...but I also understand that "that's the way things work."

I think we have to play the "game" to be competitive. We don't have to be unethical. (Hard but possible) We can use the system to put better choices in front of Gvmt.

I've just come to realize that it's just the way things are...I still try to change them, but I don't hold my breath. When I have to work with a system that is corrupt, I try to do it honestly, and ethically, but inside the system where possible. Your chances of success from outside the system are distinctly limited.

Not necessarily

[rlowe69]

The government will not change because the corporations (who own the government, figuratively speaking) will not let them change. Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns, the corporations will continue to control the government and the open-source movement (and all other movements) will get stomped on.

This only prevents a global change. Individual managers can decide if they want to use a certain open source product. If enough do this, it could initiate change from the inside out, showing the reduced costs, benefits from having the code, etc.

Software is something that bigwigs in the gov't can't make a decision on without proven results relating to government, so it's a no-brainer to calve to the people that are contributing money to their compaigns or parties (and have a proven track record). If the software is going to save their department millions in licensing fees and maintainance while providing the same functionality, then they have to justify why they want the costly proprietary solution TO THE PUBLIC. As open source becomes more commonplace, this will become an increasingly difficult thing to do.

How about eminent domain instead?

[AnotherBlackHat]

I'm all for the government using open source, funding it's development, and all the other things that are mentioned in the article, but I think it should go farther than that.

The government should start buying things that have already been produced and put them in the public domain. And in the more egregious cases, it could use its power of eminent domain to buy the source whether the company wants to sell it or not.

-- where's that "-1 didn't read article" moderator choice when you need it?

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a Socialist or a Communist?
This(US) is a Capitalist society...a Democracy.

Everything in software should be supported by the government and dolled out for free? The US government doesn't have this power and should not have it. If you feel this strongly perhaps you should lobby for fundamental changes in the government that don't only support your need for free software, or perhaps move to another country(if you live in the US)

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[Ogerman]

The government should start buying things that have already been produced and put them in the public domain. And in the more egregious cases, it could use its power of eminent domain to buy the source whether the company wants to sell it or not.

For starters, they should buy Hancom Office and turn it loose unto the world.

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[ChristTrekker]

Egads, are you a socialist or something? The government's power of eminent domain is already being abused far too much for the advantage of an elite few. Private property is a fundamental right. Government can not and should not run roughshod over it.

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a Socialist or a Communist? This(US) is a Capitalist society...a Democracy.

Socialism does not preclude Democracy.
Capatalism does not garuntee Democracy.

A Democracy is a form of Goverment. Socialism, Capatlism and Communism are Economic destinctions.

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurray!

Well Said! Exactly right!

Thanks, AC!

Cheers!

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[AnotherBlackHat]

Egads, are you a socialist or something? The government's power of eminent domain is already being abused far too much for the advantage of an elite few. Private property is a fundamental right. Government can not and should not run roughshod over it.

Hmm... I'm advocating the use of government wealth to fund public works projects. If you say that's socialist, I won't argue the point.

I agree that property shouldn't be run roughshod over, but there is a big difference between /shouldn't/ and /doesn't/ The governments of the world can and do it all the time. Hell, government routinely deprives convicted criminals of their lives, confiscating stolen property isn't even blinked at these days.

Buying existing intellectual property with the consent of the owner is hardly "running roughshod" over property rights. Neither is forcing the sale of property that was obtained illegally or improperly. It sure beats taking that property with no compensation for the owner.

-- Just because there are shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white.

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[WNight]

The only fundamental rights are the laws of physics. Anything else is just a pleasant fiction.

If it would significantly aid the world, why should MS's office format be opened? Government forced rail companies to standardize on track size (in cases where they hadn't already) and it's paid off incredibly, both for the people and for the once relectant companies.

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[ChristTrekker]

First, there is no such thing as "government wealth". Wealth is produced in the private sector. Gov't confiscates it and supposedly uses it for the benefit of the nation (state, community) as a whole. Gov't has no wealth of its own; it is only a drag on the economy.

You didn't give a specific instance in which you would invoke eminent domain. In general, gov't grabbing up private property is socialist. In certain very limited cases I can see justification, because gov't does have some legitimate functions that need resources.

I agree that property shouldn't be run roughshod over, but there is a big difference between shouldn't and doesn't. The governments of the world can and do it all the time. Hell, government routinely deprives convicted criminals of their lives, confiscating stolen property isn't even blinked at these days.

Just because they do doesn't make it right.

In the case of capital punishment, it's justice. The criminal committed a crime that society feels is justified by death. Whether you agree that capital punishment is ever justified or not is another issue. Seizing someone's property without good justification - the owner has done nothing wrong - is criminal...even if you're the government. The compensation is supposed to be fair, but you can find many cases when it is not.

If the IP owner consents to sell to government, that's an entirely different matter. But then eminent domain need not be invoked. If you don't want to sell and gov't takes it anyway, that's eminent domain at work. It is supposed to compensate you fairly (i.e. market value), but if it's something you didn't want to let go of, is there really a fair compensation?

Re:How about eminent domain instead?

[ChristTrekker]

True, but both the Democratic Republican form of government and the Capitalist form of economy stem from the basic assumption that people should have Liberty. I think that's what the poster was driving at.

Government and the GPL?

[goldspider]

Would the government be held to comply with the GPL? I'm not sure it's such a good idea to compel the governmentto publicize the source code of potentially sensitive programs.

Of course I wouldn't have a problem with the government using unmodified open-source packages like Linux, but the practicality of that is an argument for another day. :)

Re:Government and the GPL?

[Teun]

I might be wrong but why would they be compelled to publicise the source of an in-house-only application they are not planning to share.

Re:Carpe Diem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was Buffy who said "Seize the fish?" Saw that episode just the other day.

just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[ChristTrekker]

Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns

That's about the worst thing that could happen. Who gets this public money? Anybody that throws his hat in the ring, including my neighbor Jim-Bob who's just doing it for the cash? How do you decide who qualifies, and how it's apportioned? If it's based on previous elections, you've just decided to keep incumbent parties in office forever, which is precisely the current problem. What about third parties? What about people (like me) who object to subsidizing views I don't agree with? Or apolitical types who don't want to fund politicians at all? Why should you steal from (tax) them for politicians' gain? Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Some of us still believe that. If I want to support X's campaign, I will...but I don't expect you to, nor would I force you to. If you want to support his opponent Y, you can go ahead, but don't expect or force me to help you.

(The Constitution and Libertarian parties refuse to accept any government money they qualify for on this principle. Rare to find a candidate that is willing to stand on principles these days.)

What we need is not campaign finance reform but electoral process reform. I should be able to give unlimited support to support the views I agree with. There should be no caps, no spending limits. However, current electoral process favors the incumbent Duopoly and discourages third parties. Why are they called "third" parties? Because plurality voting exposes a false sense of a two-party system! Ever heard of the "wasted vote" problem, or voting for "the lesser of two evils"? We should not have to choose between two evils! Condorcet voting gives every contender a fair chance, because voters' freedom of conscience is preserved.

Changing to the Condorcet method would be the single best thing that could happen to American politics. I don't see reforms like this happening any time soon. The entrenched parties have too much to lose, so they're not likely to make it easier to defeat them. But something must be done.

• Condorcet's method
• ElectionMethods.org

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[TrollForJesus]

Well I understand your desire not to fund opposing points of view... but simply put... how much would it cost to do so relative the current budget, and how much would we gain by doing so compared to the current state of politics? I'm sure it's not a perfect solution, but, in my mind, even if it only realizes part of the potential gains it will be a huge step forward from what we have right now... Plus, you're also presupposing that campaigns would have to be funded to the level they are today, which is precisely the problem (whoever has more money has an advantage)... With the internet in existence, nearly all people could find our more than they wanted to about potential candidates with a cheaply funded website detailing their views, housing movie files of their commercials etc...

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[Rupert]

Who gets this public money? Anybody that throws his hat in the ring, including my neighbor Jim-Bob who's just doing it for the cash?

What cash?

Public funding of elections generally means you get a pre-paid postage meter and an address list, and sometimes it means you get a five minute slot on TV at the same time, but on a different day, as your opponents.

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[WNight]

I have no problem in taxing you to support politicians you abhor, because I am fully willing to support politicians I abhor. Really, we're doing it right now, our tax dollars are supporting politicians that (likely) neither of us would have picked, if we had an open choice. Part of supporting free speech is supporting the rights of people whose speech offends you. The reason I think this needs tax support is that we want people who aren't independently wealthy, or backed by wealth, to be able to compete.

Really though, I'd like to end campaign financing in the way we see it today. I'd rather "fund" politicians by giving them free spots on TV, funding debates, and the like. This way nobody is supporting anyone else's ideas, they're only supporting an open forum in which people can speak. Like everyone pitching in to buy a soapbox, without limits on who can use it.

As for who got to use it, I'd say that you'd need to hit a certain number of signatures at various stages. To start, maybe 10k signatures. That'd get state-wide air-time. Maybe 30k to get nation-wide, and 250k to get time during the finals. But without as hard of a limit. And ideally based on the population of their home state, etc.

My rough steps (with some basic notes as to the reasoning) would be to ban outright all contributions to a politician (call it treason, it's essentialy an attempt to bribe government). Limit campaign spending to some small sum, $10k or so, require receipts. (Make enough things free like TV spots as required that a lot of money isn't important). Let people contribute, but only by going to a campaign office and helping (cash donations favour the rich, time is something everyone has the same ammount of in a day.)

Taking off spending caps would simply let someone like Bill Gates outright buy a candidate and likely get the elected. It's also lead to a little favoritisms once elected. (There's really no way you can give money to a politician and not be bribing them.)

However, voting reform I do agree with. A simple system where you could vote for every party you want and the number of seats given was chosen by the their percentage of total votes. Nobody would be unwilling to vote for little parties.

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[ChristTrekker]

Well I understand your desire not to fund opposing points of view... but simply put... how much would it cost to do so relative the current budget [...]

I'm not willing to sacrifice principle for pragmatism. If the principle is good and sound, it's worth sticking by. I will not steal from others to promote my personal agenda, because I respect their rights.

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[ChristTrekker]

Part of supporting free speech is supporting the rights of people whose speech offends you.

You are completely wrong. I support your right to free speech. I do not have to support the speech itself. I am free to disagree with it, and should not be compelled to support it.

This way nobody is supporting anyone else's ideas, they're only supporting an open forum in which people can speak.

The TV/newspaper/media is then forced to support them by giving up their resources. That's not right either. If a candidate can provide the means to promote their own message, he should not be prevented from doing so, but he should not be subsidized (at the public expense) in his endeavors either. He has the right to peacefully assemble a rally in a park to speak. He can negotiate a fair price for advertisements in the media. That's fair, and just.

I don't trust parties to keep accurate accounting of the donation receipts. Plus, I'm not sure it's right to require that contributor lists be open. It might be a good way to tell if a candidate was bought-out by special interests. But it might also be a good way for the party in power to find out who disfavors them. It will just lead to equal contributions to all candidates, which is counter-productive.

Proportional representation has some merits. However, regional (districted) representation has some too. While regional representation leaves certain ideologies underrepresented, proportional representation may leave areas unrepresented. I can envision the scenario where all the influential pols live in the capital city to be close to the action, and are out of touch with the rural populace. I think a combination approach would work well. Perhaps half are elected by region, and half are elected by ideology (party). Each party would have a ranked slate of candidates to fill the "at-large" positions. If your party warrants 2 seats, the top two from the slate (that weren't elected from their region, which is a possibility) are selected.

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[WNight]

Something like you suggest might work. The proportional vote picks the number of candidates, but the percentage win in various areas picks which candidates actually represent.

As the the taxed to support thing...

I wasn't saying I should take $10 from you and give it to the democrats, or the skinheads. I was saying that we should all pitch in $10 and make sure that there's a forum that anyone, who can get public support, can use.

The public access cable channels are an example. The government grants companies a monopoly on certain things (frequency with which they broadcast TV shows) and it seems reasonable that part of the deal for this spectrum would be that the station make one channel of frequency and a simple studio plus staff, available to the people.

It's an example of something I couldn't ever afford (how many million $s to buy frequency and a transmitter, and a studio, etc) and we couldn't rely on people to simply buy airtime because stations could refuse to help anyone whose policies they disagree with. However if instead of charging $100M for 10 channel of frequency, we charge $90 + (public access) for 10 channels + 1 to be used for public access, the station doesn't have to foot the bill.

The dirty little secret about the US (land of opportunity) is that fewer than 5% of all millionares (actually $10M, I think) got that way of their own merit. The rest either inherited their money, or started rich and simply increased their fortune.

Look also at groups who have been specifically disadvantaged (blacks, the American-Japanese in WW2 (put into camps), the native Indians, etc) and are, or were, poor for reasons quite unrelated to their skills and motivation.

I think it's pretty clear that while there are some poster-boy millionaries (Dave Thomas?) who are at the top because of their abilities, many people are either rich, or poor, by chance, not merit.

Sure, the poor should try to better themselves, but going from $100 to $10,000 is at least as hard as going from $1M to $100M, yet we don't look down on people who can't do the latter.

I hate the democratic welfare state, I think it's self perpetuating and punishes the workers to support the lazy. However, I can see that some welfare truly helps the economy.

If you let some crack-mom raise ten kids on welfare and she raises them all to be bums, nobody gains. However, if you let an injured man sit on welfare until he heals, at which point he goes out and gets his old job back, you've helped the economy. If he had to get a menial job he might never have healed well enough to do a decent job again, meaning he'd be stuck with crap jobs for life.

And if you fund free schools you can educate those ten children of the crack-mom and let them make something of themselves. If you say (however justified it may be) that she had em, she should support em, you'll just guarantee that they don't go anywhere.

Some taxation, even for things you dislike personally, can help tremendously.

Letting the poor (in this case, it means anyone without at least $50M) be involved in politics and have access to decent schools means that they can try to better themselves. Letting only the idle (and 95% unworthy) rich control everything only perpetuates an unbalanced system where the less rich, despite being harder and smarter workers, are penalized just because they didn't start with a ton of money.

Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns

[ChristTrekker]

I wasn't saying I should take $10 from you and give it to the democrats, or the skinheads. I was saying that we should all pitch in $10 and make sure that there's a forum that anyone, who can get public support, can use.

My point is that if I have to give $10 to be used for such a forum, and I'm behind 1 of 5 candidates, I am still giving $8 to people I don't support. I'd rather give my $10 to the guy I like, and if the other guys' views aren't good enough to get people (and their money) behind the cause, too bad.

Also, there's still the question of who gets invited to these forums. Do you have any idea how many political parties there are in America? Do we give equal platform to some fringe dude that no one's heard of (Da Vid of the Light Party for instance...bet you've never heard of him) just because he's organized a party? Say he's one of the 5 candidates...why should 20% of our tax money go to support this guy that only .0001% of us are behind? And if you don't include this guy, then his supporters (all 25 of them) are being taxed for something they get no benefit from. That's not right, either.

So I stick by the principle. Do not compel me to support views I disbelieve in, and I will not compel you to support views you disbelieve in.

I hate the democratic welfare state, I think it's self perpetuating and punishes the workers to support the lazy. However, I can see that some welfare truly helps the economy.

I'd prefer to see private charity. I think it would be more efficient, and would more likely go to those who really need it. Those who are just lazy would be told to get off their butts and get a job. Americans are about the most compassionately generous people in the world. I see no reason to force us to be generous through taxation, and then smack us in the face with the fact that the money is going to perpetuate sloth in many cases.

I'm opposed to Bush's faith-based initiative for the same reason. Either some of my money is going to a group with views I wouldn't support myself (which is wrong), or the group is told what they can or can't do by the government (which is wrong). Lose-lose situation.

Ditto for schools. I'd rather see the government removed from schools. Again, because they teach (with public funds) ideas that the parents may not agree with and would not want taught to children. For instance, if teaching of history or politics is slanted favorably toward any one religious viewpoint, it's wrong because it may not be the view the parents believe. If you secularize and avoid any reference of religion in history and politics, kids get the impression that God/religion is unimportant in life, which all devout parents would believe is wrong. Another lose-lose situation. (Add the fact that home-schoolers and private-schoolers are being taxed for services they get no benefit from.)

The best way out of this whole prickly mess is to live by principle. No public funding for things there are different views on. Limit gov't strictly to it's Constitutional functions, like defense.

Government is an MS Shop

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who wasted 10 years of their life trying to promote Open Source based solutions within a government agency, I will say that the chance of any significant use of Open Source by the government will never happen. Too many of the upper level managers (GS-13 and above) own lots of MS stock and couldn't care less about the cost savings of the alternatives. Anyone in the Federal government who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

For high-performance servers maybe, but ...

[rlowe69]

The biggest problem is support. The government runs mainly on HP-UX and Solaris, and they do that because they know that if something goes wrong, it can be fixed by tomorrow at the latest. Linux needs solutions providers - one company that sells the hardware, the operating system and the support.

For high-performance, specialized servers maybe, but you can get commercial-off-the-shelf support for x86 machines from just about anyone. As for the OS, I think RedHat has the Linux support market covered, enough at least to get IBM's attention.

So the gov't may not have ideas of replacing EVERY machine with opensource, but I don't see much of a barrier with replacing low-traffic servers, databases and desktop machines (negating the obvious MS Office file format issues). The support is already there.

Re:For high-performance servers maybe, but ...

[Sircus]

While I'm not sure I agree with the original poster's point, separate off-the-shelf support for the OS and the box probably isn't the solution.

It'll work for any problem that's clearly an OS or clearly a hardware issue (or, by extension, clearly a userland-software issue), but it's not going to help when the problem's unclear. You'll get the A: It's B's fault, B: It's A's fault situation. If everything falls under A's remit, the problem goes away. It might be an OS problem, it might be a hardware problem, it might be a software problem, but in any event, it's A's problem to solve.

just wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

this article shows everything that is wrong with the government and then some...

Seeing linux all over is important, but campaign finance reform, among other fundemental changes, is more important to me....hey! Maybe someone can make an open source/reform gov. policy combo!!

Sure they can be combined - just look at the religious Right! They combine one (out of MANY) religions with political power to put politicians in power, from school boards on up, to give bs like creationmism life...

Why can't we say that as a movement you may use free and open software provided you quit caving into special interest groups and the like??

Now back to reality - better send that check off to the Planetary Society and the Nature Conservacy...

They want support, but don't want to pay for it.

[mgkimsal2]

We find that it's a difficult thing to convince people anyway, regardless of the *claims* of support. We've got actual references that back up our claims, but it's usually not viable.

Any open source packages we install and deploy for people (Linux/Apache servers, mail servers, etc) we have 24/7 service available. You want someone to call at 3 in the morning if your machine goes down? We offer that - you can get a real callback at 3am within 10 minutes from us if they wanna pay for it. We've done it for other clients running multimillion dollar ordering systems. Most clients just don't want to pay for that.

Perhaps the government would, but I don't think it's all just about support. "Support" is somewhat a convenient buzzword to dismiss open source stuff. MOST people play up the price angle when pitching open source. But if the client needs to pay for round the clock support for something, why not just use the proprietary stuff in the first place?

I'm not dismissing this - it's a real issue that still needs to be addressed. But as someone whose company offers round the clock support on everything we install (and some things we don't) I can tell you when you actually OFFER it, they often don't buy.

Infastructure

[smannell]

All the rest of the vital infastructure required to conduct business is maintained by some form of government or another, why not a PC operating system? In the past century, a business needed electricity, plumbing, and roads to survive. In the past couple of decades, computers have become just as important as the preceeding to most businesses. I think the government should be using my tax dollars to help benifit all commerece, not to stuff Microsoft's coffers. I realize the government is full of red tape, and terribly inefficient at times; but surely they could hire enough people to maintain a Linux distrobution that contains all the basic software needed for most business or home uses. If done correctly it could do wonders for allowing small businesses to compete with the Wal-Marts of the world. Of course that means it will probably never happen, but it is a nice thought.

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Carpe Diem, folks.

And Beowulf Cluster to you, sir. Granulations chaudes à l'intérieur de votre pantalon aussi.

The fed and free software

[dyfet]

Due to some unusual circumstances, I had an oppertunity to speak before a multi-agency federal conference, held at the National Science Foundation last month. It was an interesting group as it included some fairly senior level people from several agencies.

This conference was not announced for until the Friday before, and yet was fairly well attended, for reasons that became appearent fairly appearent even by the OPEN remarks made by the by some.

To understand the context of those remarks, one must understand I have had some experiance in federal contracting in the past. Occasionally federal employees would complain about certain vendors entirely in private, and certainly some vendors achieved some level of dislike and disgust in the past, particularly telecomm vendors.

However, never before had I been in a room with federal employees showing such open and complete contempt for a given vendor. The reason became clear when one of them spoke openly of how reps of this particular vendor had targetted her and the process and methods used to harrass her and other federal employees who would consider to openly choose other products. That this would happen in front of outsiders and also in front of some senior policy people, was a complete shock to me.

To have one such person in any completely random meeting of federal employees that this might happen to would be surprising. To have this same circumstances explained to me by others, some later in private, and some in other venues since that I had known in the past because I became curious and called some people I used to know, is statistically mind boggling.

The vendor in question would use a very simple method of intimidation to those that it's reps identified. The next time they would speak to a given person they would make it clear they are watching them and are reporting any inappropriate activity to their superior, the threat implied and clear. They would state specific complaints, whether valid or not, and then that employee would find his/her manager asking about these same things a few weeks later.

Never in all my years dealing with federal employees had I ever before, personally, or even second hand, heard of ANY vendor doing anything like this, let alone on the scale and scope required for people from random agencies to have much the same story to tell. To say I was and still am very angry is an understatement.

Out of this it was clear also a grave miscalculation has occured. It became clear that for every person so harrassed, perhaps 10 others would become aware it happened, and all 11 would become rightly angry. There is a groundswell of support for free software in the fed, and really for ANY other software, and this vendor has created it!

Other things came out of this conference that were also interesting. Certainly there are some who "get" free software, who understands what it means and could do for them, who would prefer it. Certainly it was also true that there were others who would do anything to never have to purchase, install, or deploy any product ever made by such a vendor ever again. I would love to talk more about each these things, and particularly about those who understood free software.

The reaction of the more senior level agency people was most ammusing of all. For years these people had "friends" who would try to help them with their it needs. These vendor "friends" were of course paid to be such a "friend" to a key agency person, what some might call a "buddy" in the parlance of that particular vendor. For years, they would tell these people free software was not usable, would describe editing and word processing as or in terms of emacs and vi, etc.

To show these people gnome, kde, abiWord, open office, etc, this was very much an eye opening experiance for many of these senior agency people.

Clearly those that would be the enemies of free (and open source) software depend on ignore and terror to sell their products. Clearly we must respond with education, enlightenment, and make it clear they alone are the terrorists.

David

Not charging enough

[Casca]

Maybe you aren't charging enough for it? You might laugh, but I can tell you from personal experience that if you don't set the price high enough, you will get overlooked. I have seen government purchases go to a more expensive bidder based solely on the argument that the service must be better, look how much it costs.

Government funding is really wierd about maintenance too. Budgets can be really tight, and it is impossible to come up with $10K for a new box, but when it comes time to purchase maintenance they can shell out $50K without blinking every stinking year.

Other people have mentioned it already, but open source would do much better if more companies would make a big deal about their support services, and focus on that. Government people really only care about one thing when they are deciding on what software and hardware to use, who they can blame when something breaks. That is why IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, HP, CISCO and so on have such a grasp on the government market. The old saying "You don't get fired for buying IBM" is as true today as it was in 1985.

They will...but it costs $$$

[svallarian]

>And of course, you know that's doesn't really happen, right ?
>
>Companies like HP or Sun don't jump because a customer says so. Much less in 4 hours.

Nonsense. You can get under-4-hour support for most any IBM product, you just have to pay a lot for that support.

For example, one of our mainframe controllers blew both power supplies. IBM flew a lear jet from Atlanta to Mississippi and had the part installed within 2 hours of us placing the service call.

Steven V>

Re:They will...but it costs $$$

[Prop]

Swapping hardware is a hell of a lot different than fixing bug in an operating system. Which is what he was talking about.

I don't think IBM will fix bugs in AIX or Linux within 4 hour, no matter how much money you throw at them

You lied before, you can lie again

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say it all you want, and it still won't be true. I personally admin a couple of large HP-UX systems, and I also have linux and Solaris on site.

The linux systems almost never fail, so its hard to compare them to the others ;^) but when they do Dell has them up and running in less than 24 hours. ALWAYS. Meanwhile, HP can take weeks to figure out what is wrong with their proprietary bug-fest of an system, and don't even get me started on the baroque hardware that they (and Sun) use! I have to rewrite the firmware on a Seagate drive to use it in one of my HPs - or pay HP a 10,000% markup on the drive. Sun's weird connectors for standard interfaces are just another example of the same problem.

LINUX HAS BETTER SUPPORT. COMMODITY HARDWARE HAS BETTER SUPPORT. $300,000 dollars a year to IBM, $220,000 to HP, and the SUPPORT SUCKS! But Dell, RedHat, the Samba Team, Arnold Robbins (Gawk), and the Perl monks have never failed me.

Look, you made me start yelling. "It's people like you what cause unrest." I'll go soak my head now.

Communist

[ChiChiCuervo]

Eminent domain historically and specifically ONLY refers to land property, i.e. ("I'm the sovereign noble lord who gave you title to this land and i have the right to take it from you if i need to"). It is not defined in such a way that could be applied to any other form of property.

Retard.

Amazing

[RangerBob]

Yeah, I know I'll get modded down for this, but sometimes you get annoyed with all the silliness that's posted on here and you get tired of it.

While you may choose to base your personal worth on how much money you make, not everyone in the world feels the same way. For example, people who choose to become researchers and scientists don't go into those fields to become the next mega millionaires. Different people are motivated by different things. For some, it's job satisfaction and having a good stable working environment. For others, it's simply the never-ending quest for money. You should be thankful that not everyone is motivated by money, otherwise a lot of cool inventions and toys would either not exist today or would have taken a lot longer to come into being. Some of you may say that "not being motivated by money" is a cop out, and that's fine. It's your own fault you have such a narrow view of the world. :) Also, while it might be "cool" for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and say that government workers are a bunch of idiots that couldn't "cut it" in the private sector, all you're really doing is displaying ego and a extreme lack of knowledge.

As far as dumb IT people, it helps to know what you're talking about :) Believe it or not, the private sector also has its fair share of "dumb" IT people. While this may shock the belief systems of some Slashdot readers to the very core, it's true. If you don't believe this, you haven't paid any attention to the world. ANY job, be it govt or private, has its fair share of "idiots". While it's good that a lot of people who read Slashdot like to think otherwise, reality does have to set in eventually.

Yeah...and the US DOD used to "require" ADA too...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for advocating open standards and open software...but the US Government has not proven that they can stick to their own standards.

The DOD created a programming language (Ada anyone) that was to be the programming language of choice for all DOD produced software and contracted software.

Didn't happen. There's a saying in the Gov and, especially, in the DOD: "There's a waiver for everything".

Just for reference, I spent 6 years doing application programming for the Air Force. Oh, I was "taught" Ada during "training"...and that was the last time I saw it. In the entire 6 years I was an Air Force programmer, I did not meet one person who used this "standard" language.

It will take more than a "mandate" to force government agencies to use open standards. It will take managers and leaders who have the balls to support them in the face of almost certain opposition from the uninformed and the knowledge to justify their support when faced with that opposition.

Oh...and I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I just can't remember my password. :)

Sign me,

c0dem0nkey in Nebraska

You've got it backwards

[CgiJobs]

The government will not change because the corporations (who own the government, figuratively speaking) will not let them change. Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns, the corporations will continue to control the government

You've got this backwards. The reason companies feel compelled to lobby is because the federal government (of the U.S.) has exerted so much power (much of it unconstitutional) on corporations. The answer is not to restrict freedom of speech, but to reduce the reach and power of the federal government, as the founding fathers intended.

Re:You've got it backwards

[GSloop]

The powers/existance of Non-Persons [Corps] should also be reduced or even eliminated. Just like the constitution/founding fathers intended.

If power was only vested in the individual, then the imbalance and over-reaching of Gvmt could be smaller. There will still be power imbalance problems from very powerful/wealthy individuals, but it would be easier to deal with.

I find your stand that Gvmt exercises control over corps in an unconstitional manner. In fact, the constitution hardly even allows for the existance of corp entities. Esp not in their context today - so what's unconstitional? The corps themselves, or Gvmt streaching to control/milk $$ from said corp?

Cheers!

Re:You've got it backwards

[CgiJobs]

The powers/existance of Non-Persons [Corps] should also be reduced or even eliminated. Just like the constitution/founding fathers intended.

Can't say I agree with you here. The constitution was written to control the powers of the federal government and "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". I don't think the founding fathers had any intention of controlling "greedy corporations".

so what's unconstitional? The corps themselves, or Gvmt streaching to control/milk $$ from said corp?

Tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

By this standard, much of the regulation by the federal government is unconstitutional.

Re:You've got it backwards

[benedict]

Where in the Constitution are corporations granted
any rights at all?

OSS stuff is already being used.

[RangerBob]

Sorry to break the bubbles of a lot of people on here, but there is already a lot of OSS software in use in the government. Just because you might not know about it doesn't mean that there's some huge evil conspiracy to keep OSS out of the government. A lot of OSS usage just isn't that well known because there's absolutely no reason to go around telling everyone you meet about it. In my agency alone there's a huge use of OSS, from the OS level of Linux and the *BSD's to applications like apache and gcc. My own research uses a nice big Beowulf cluster that's running Linux, as is my desktop machine, as are the machines that my students use. We're also using it to build a bunch of multiterrabyte fileservers.

Other agencies are also running Linux. For example, I know NOAA uses it. In fact, if you haven't been paying attention, they're building a huge Beowulf cluster, and it's not going to be running WinXP. And, if you want to look at things like Apache usage, don't just go by what some main agency webserver uses. Many agencies are composed of a bunch of different centers. Also look to see what the centers are running.

Would you like to know more about the usage of OSS in government? For one, ASK! Don't go dreaming up wierd conspiracy theories. Don't ask the heads of the agencies. They don't know and it's not their jobs to know. Ask the IT groups in the agencies. Don't rely on statistics and check things out yourself.

Want to advocate the increased usage of OSS? Don't run around saying people can't "cut it" or that their managers are stupid. Write, don't email, a letter to your congressman. Be nice about it, don't call names. Rationally explain to them how you think it would save money and list to them HOW it would save money. Don't just go "you all suck and you should use it cause it's cheaper." Being rational and level headed will get you much more attention of politicians and agency heads.

Uninformed cynicism aside, most things in government are bought based on some very strict purchasing rules. For example, you have to find the cheapest product that fulfills the formal requirements. In the case of IT, part of that also deals with maintenance issues. And while we might all like to say that you can just post on Usenet and get an answer, that doesn't always work and it's not always an answer for an IT department. Many of these groups are have extremely low budgets, are understaffed, and desperately need the ability to call someone up to do an on-site visit to fix something.

Re:OSS stuff is already being used.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, Congress has little to do directly (although the GAO, a body of Congress, does set the federal purchasing rules) with what software the average government office worker does. It generally comes down from the parent agency. Individual units might make their own choices (as many of the technically-oriented ones seen here, NOAA, NASA, etc.), most people use what they've been given and have little say in it.

Must be nice in fantasyland.

[jslag]

Campaign finance reform has little to do with corporations' hold over the government.

Yeah, it's hard to see how millions of dollars of campaign contributions could possibly sway an elected official.

Re:Child Psychiatry is a fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away you sh*tball Scientologist FREAK!

Corporations pay taxes too, they have rights ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Including incorporate it into a proprietary product?

Corporations pay taxes too....

Absolutely. I realize some readers are warming up the flamethrowers and are about to bitch and moan about some aberrations where large companies have paid nothing (in income tax, there are other taxes) but please consider the typical case not exception. I've worked for small companies for the most part and they have paid a lot in taxes.

The majority of companies out there are as deserving as individuals. They are run by decent and fair people, they pay taxes, they deserve a fair share like you.

I.e. BSD'ish license not GPL'ish would be more fair.

Memo on the Linux Cynix

[Wintersmute]

TO: Corporate-control conspiracy theorists
From: Asst. to the Voice of Reason
Re: Demand for Linux Support

It seems to me that two strings of this conversation dovetail into the same insight, which seems to cut against the Linux doom-sayers. Those arguments are: 1) that Uncle Sam is too incompetent or salary-disadvantaged to hire good OSS support, and 2) that the Gov't is completely controlled by corporate interests...

Let's just assume for pedagogical purposes that these assertions are valid.

Both naturally suggest that if The Hill were to send out a broad mandate for inter-agency OSS adoption, that this would serve the republican (small r) process. And why the hell is that? Well, think about the following:

1) it would turn Uncle Sam's rhetorical support for non-proprietary standards into real action, so even if you're a raving federalist, OSS companies are your boys because their influence will ulimately downsize the gov't labor force, leaving more to the private sector, and popularize the market for IT support; and

2) Becuase your assuming the technocrats are too dense to hire good IT, they'll be forced to contract out the wazoo for their support. Why? Because its easier to seek funding for technical support in your Appropriations requests that it is to seek personnel increases- that's obvious, right? You're not going to Congress and saying "my agency needs more people," you're saying "my agency needs technical remedies to enforce YOUR mandates."

So even if you've got a cynical outlook on the republican (small r) process, there's concentrated corporate interests that will line up behind OSS, thereby ultimately loosening the grip of proprietary standard-mongers.

"...And the Mute, he play us a righteous dub..."

Whoa whoa whoa!

[Silver222]

Clearly Linux is superior in every way to Windows

How do you figure that? Just because you said so? Linux is not superior in every way to Windows. It's better at some things, and not as good at others. Saying that it's superior in every way just makes it sound like you are talking out of your ass.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa!

[Tony-A]

Yeah, you're right. Linux is not superior in every way to Windows.
Linux has inferior worms.

Not a problem

[MtViewGuy]

If some Linux company can provide that, then we have a chance.

Yes, that company goes by the initials I-B-M. :-)

Given IBM's heavy investment in Linux and their reputation for quick service for their biggest customers, if you have a roomful of IBM made server machines running Linux having problems an IBM technician should be on-call for service within a few hours to fix that problem.

After all, IBM wants to make Linux available on all their big iron platforms, so this could mean that IBM could end up being the larger supplier of Linux-based products and services in the world within a few years.

Re:Yeah...and the US DOD used to "require" ADA too

[Slashamatic]

About 10 years ago, I worked with some people who were doing avionics. It was all written in ADA. People liked the strong checking but the compiler was very expensive and hideously slow, even if the code generally worked.

Wrong place, should be discussed at the WEF

[Slashamatic]

The World Economic Forum was held this year in New York, however it is normally held in Switzerland. It is where the world political and business leaders get together. This is where the real meat is. The WSF is for the hangers on not the movers and shakers. Gets which one BillG goes to and makes his presentations at.

The fact is, the US Federal govt can afford to pay lots of money for support. It is almost easier for them to got to Microsoft than to deal with a myriad of companies providing support services.

In lesser developed countries there is another story. The WB will lend money to buy a system with a full house of Microsoft products. The problem is that the loan is a one off. How are the guys going to pay for support? MS support isn't that much cheaper in Pakistan. If you have source code then you have some chance of finding someone to maintain it.

To be honest, the economics of Open Source are good for Washington too, but the LDCs desperately need it. This is the message that needs to be put over at the WEF, not just the WSF.

Re:Infastructure [sic]

[s390]

I realize the government is full of red tape, and terribly inefficient at times; but surely they could hire enough people to maintain a Linux distrobution [sic] that contains all the basic software needed for most business or home uses.

Noooo! Governments are the last people you want maintaining a Linux distro. When the US Federal government defined a computing language, they came up with... ADA!

Let the government contribute patches which then compete for adoption - see the NSA Secure Linux patches for an example.

But you don't want government to control software development, because they'll get so tangled up in red tape, multi-year requirements definitions, bloated unwieldy specifications, empire building, incredibly inefficient coding and testing cycles, interagency turf wars, and cover-your-ass political posturing that they'll strangle the software but continue on inertia alone for decades before finally noticing that the systems are dead. Look at the FAA and the Air Traffic Control systems. Look at NASA and it's 5-10 year old "space-certified" hardware and software. Government can't hack big software worth shit, and they should know it by now. Don't even suggest it.

The point of using "public" (open source, or "free as in libre") software in government is that the public writes it and _gives_ it to the government "free as in beer" so the public doesn't then have to pay taxes for the government to license closed, proprietary software.

To think that everything "public" must be done by the government is a classically absurd conclusion of inverted Hegelian-Marxist socialist reasoning that assigns all powers to the State leaving The People (you know, us individuals, citizens, you and me) utterly powerless in the final reckoning.

I could go on, but I won't.

Can't Burn your End of Year Budget on Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't burn your end of year budget on free software.

Advocating Open Source Within the Gov't

[awebling]

The German Government is also considering going this way. See article
http://pcworld.idg.com.au/idg2.nsf/p/00060DC2?Op en Document&n=e&c=PC

Their main problem seems to be paranoia that Microsoft is an arm of the US Govt. I suppose for people that speak German, Linux is better because of native support for the language
:)

If It Fits The Application

[ONOIML8]

I'm with ya, open source can be a good thing. In many cases it is.

But it's not the be all, end all.

You have to pick the right tool for the job. Just as I like open source, I like monster SUV's with 5 inch lift kits and V8 engines. But I don't really advocate that for my mother who only uses her vehicle to go to the mall.

In the same way I'm sure there are lots of applications within the government for which open source would NOT be practical. One must look at the application at hand, the end goal, and the parameters that define the project. If open source code solves some or all of the challenges at hand then by all means they should consider it.

It seems that so often on this forum people forget that. Linux, open source, V8 engines, and cold beer are wonderful things but not all the time and for all people.

.

Costs way more and Incompatability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... that's a good idea. Lets convert government systems to a non-comptable, non-mainstream, non-standards compliant system OS and software that is difficult to impossible to interchange data with and costs a fortune to keep running. Let's make the computers even harder for the average joe to use, frustrate every other company and major government with the inability to interchange documents and date, and increase support costs twenty fold.

Brilliant!

Your government at work... *sigh*

Like a dog to vomit the DOD laps up MS

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERY Military service is centralizing on win2000 and active directory.

USAF just did a business case analysis (which they won't publish) to justify moving the entire USAF to AD.

The normal reply I get when suggesting Open Source Solutions is: Free software is not allowed on USAF computers.

I looked it up and there is actuall an official instruction stating that free software is more prone to bugs and security holes, so it should not be used.

Sigh.

Carpe Diem?

[wfrp01]

From www.m-w.com:

: the enjoyment of the pleasures of the moment without concern for the future

That's not exactly the phrase I'd choose...

Dangerous fallacy that keeps getting promoted

[e5z8652]

"And obviously, if there's a Windows solution running over here that costs licensing money and takes up lots of sysadmin time, and a Linux solution running over there that costs zero dollars in licenses and takes little or no sysdamin time to maintain, and the two systems are performing similar functions, the Windows solution should be tossed in favor of the Linux solution"

The big "if" up there gets author out of trouble by posing this as a possible hypothetical situation. But the 'you don't need to administer Linux' a commonly advocated fallacy.

The license aspect of the above quote is right on (if you choose not to financially support your favorite distribution - but that's voluntary, not a mandatory license fee in *most* cases).

The administration aspect is not true. A Linux admin doesn't read the log files looking for new or unusual items? Doesn't apply patches? Doesn't keep up with things like user accounts, quotas, etc. etc.? Riiight. The administration is different, but basically boils down to keeping up with security patches, and keeping up with your users. Regardless of OS.

If you go to your local government (or a local business trying to save money) and sell open source software as a solution that does not require careful, professional administration you'll end up will all sorts of nice problems that help the internet community - a hacked network of DDOS bots, that nice open relay mail server(s), Aunt June's tax records downloaded from an SQL database with the default admin password set...

Nice.

Duh

[autopr0n]

Ok, those people may have been drawing a government check, but some physicist at Sandra or a major university is not the same as someone who works for 'the government' as in, the part that actually interacts with citizens.

The US government may have paid for the internet, but they probably didn't even notice until they tried to regulate it.

Time to lose some more karma

[autopr0n]

Spoken like a true Ayn Rand fan

What!? Ayn Rand == satan!