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.
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=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
one stumbling block is that government agencies (like the one i work for) shy away from products that have no old-school support structure.
from above:
"but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field"
Uhm, how bout those guys that pretty much invented the architecture of the net as we know it today?
There are TONS of highly skilled people working in the government, you just never hear about them. And, believe it or not, when the government gets its hand on a genius IT guru, he or she is VERY WELL compensated, since the government knows they can go else where at any given time.
Sent from your iPad.
May I be the first to say Bull$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.
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?
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Where in the Constitution are corporations granted
any rights at all?
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
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.
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!
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.