Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
one stumbling block is that government agencies (like the one i work for) shy away from products that have no old-school support structure.
from above:
"but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field"
Uhm, how bout those guys that pretty much invented the architecture of the net as we know it today?
There are TONS of highly skilled people working in the government, you just never hear about them. And, believe it or not, when the government gets its hand on a genius IT guru, he or she is VERY WELL compensated, since the government knows they can go else where at any given time.
Sent from your iPad.
When the decision is about to be made, there's always that one "credible" study which proves that open source is not only more expensive, but also doesn't deliver what is absolutely needed. Politicians base their decision on that, hence can't be held accountable for ignoring facts. There's no money in open source, we can't buy our own studies, we lose. Whatever you do, try to get filthy rich, otherwise there's no chance you could ever make people do what you want them to do on a scale that matters.
May I be the first to say Bull$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.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
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!).
"Learning, learning, learning - that is the secret of jewish survival" -- Ahad A'Ham
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.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
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.
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.
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
--- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
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.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
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.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
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.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
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.
w o r l d w i d e w e b e r
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
Elegance is for tailors. -A. Einstein
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
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?
Including incorporate it into a proprietary product?
Corporations pay taxes too....
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.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
wow - already 'eh? lets me a little more open minded here guys.
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!
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
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
> I hate page wideners! so do i, but that link is fucked.
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
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.
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.
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.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
They were all university researchers or in government researh labs. Not the sysadmin at the local DMV.
...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...
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
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.
----- rL
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!
"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.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
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?
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. :)
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
Constitutionally Correct
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.
----- rL
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.
creation science book
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Casca
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.
:) 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 :)
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
Finkployd
>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>
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
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.
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.
:) 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.
:) 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.
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.
As far as dumb IT people, it helps to know what you're talking about
"he or she is VERY WELL compensated"
:-P
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.
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).
Follow me
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.
Follow me
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 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.
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.
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.
Yeah, it's hard to see how millions of dollars of campaign contributions could possibly sway an elected official.
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.
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..."
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
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.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't burn your end of year budget on free software.
The German Government is also considering going this way. See articlep en Document&n=e&c=PC
http://pcworld.idg.com.au/idg2.nsf/p/00060DC2?O
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
:)
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.
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
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.
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...
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
"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.
null sig
"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!
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.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Spoken like a true Ayn Rand fan
What!? Ayn Rand == satan!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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...
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.