Open Code in Public Procurement

mpawlo writes: "I wrote something on public procurement and open code that you might want to share with your readers. In my opinion, it is time that public bodies and governments look over their public procurement policies to warrant competition. I don't think free software or open source should be the only choice when it comes to public computer programs, but as of today, public bodies all over the world designs their requirements in a way that rules out all Free Software and Open Source alternatives already at the drawing table. May the best computer program and license win! That's the only way to get an effective allocation of public money when it comes to public computer programs. Maybe a good topic for discussion among Slashdotters?"

Comments

Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[3.1415926535]

I seriously don't understand why they put up with closed source.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[prizzznecious]

It is quite simple, at least in the most important case. The government is locked into using Microsoft products because they have been using the proprietary .doc format for too long. Open source solutions are nice enough, but they are almost useless if they can't read document archives or, for that matter, new documents sent by outside sources using the most popular format available. A government that crippled itself because of software ideology would be a dysfunctional one, to say the least.

That said, you'd think the government could divert a couple of millions from some other mindless project and fund a real open source project. It's not like .doc is impregnable. Then again, people would probably find fault in that, too. I certainly don't trust the government to develop software for me.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[ekrout]

Closed source programs like Office are the standard in government (just like in the private sector).

When you have committee after committee that needs to share data, it's beneficial to use one standard so that you spend less time haggling with technological problems and more time on the real work -- governmental issues.

As nice as it would be to see all governmental organizations, agencies, committees, etc. using open source or free software to get their work done, it's not something that will happen overnight (or even this year).

But if the coders keep coding and the zealots keep shouting, they'll hear the voice of reason. Perhaps even just the monetary issue is enough to get them all to switch over.

EricKrout.com :: I'm The Man Now, Dawg!

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't feel they have a choice. They will continue to do so until better, open source alternatives are properly shoved in their (collective) faces.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[prizzznecious]

This misses the point. It isn't about extemporaneous interoperability- any file format should (I would hope) be consistent with itself. So long as all government agencies use the same format, it'd suffice. The problem is that it's too late for that, because they already do use the same program; moreover, it's the same one that everyone else uses. And that format is proprietary; until full MS compatibility is attained in the open source world, the US government will remain closed source.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

It's also nice to know that the software your government is using isn't written by a "community" of 13-year old anarchist losers who hate the government. More power to closed source, I say.

No self-respecting government (well, maybe Red Communist China) would in their right mind place the reliablilty of their software to rest on the shoulders of some "zealot."

Plus, MSFT software seems "solid". Linux software seems flimsy and poorly written... but I'm specifically talking about GUI stuff here. Maybe if the linux people want better adoption and acceptance, they should ditch that POS X11 and make a solid, stable GUI, just like Apple did.

But, noooo, they'll never do that.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[quantaman]

One reason I can see is public confidence. The public probably thinks that open source means hackers , knowing how the system works, could easily break into the system and steal whatever they want. Open source simply does not have the reputation of reliability that most proprietary systems do simply to the fact that most people automatically assume that anything "professionally" designed by a company for the purpose of making money will by automatically better than something made by people in their spare time.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[prizzznecious]

Plus, MSFT software seems "solid". Linux software seems flimsy and poorly written... but I'm specifically talking about GUI stuff here. Maybe if the linux people want better adoption and acceptance, they should ditch that POS X11 and make a solid, stable GUI, just like Apple did.

Yeah. Too bad Be got kicked in its corporate balls.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea why: perhaps the Open Source software they considered wasn't up to snuff? Did you, or anyone else out there, consider that?

Open source software is a great idea, and it has produced some incredible examples of useful applications. It has also created a nightmarish melange of half documented, poorly written, and nearly unmaintainable code in some instances. Just because Open Source works well for you at home or in your small office doesn't mean it will work well in an environment where 50,000 users may need it. It's not an issue of scale or stability, or even technical aesthetics. Companies want software that they understand, that can build on existing skillsets, and that they can easily support (or have supported by third parties). Open Source works good in some of those areas, but quite pitifully in others.

Just playing the Devil's Advocate, as always...

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

Maybe the Linux "community" should ditch Linux and pick up BeOS where it left off?

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[prizzznecious]

Yes. I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean that link to be snide, in case it wasn't clear.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[zaffir]

Because open source apps and OS's aren't nearly as user friendly. For the general population to want to use something, it has to be as turnkey as possible. I can't think of one secretary that knows what a command line is, let alone wants to use one to get things done. IMHO, the whole open source community is too raw, too "low level" for Joe Sixpack. People want things to work right out of the box in a nice little window - they don't want to have to play around with XF86 configs to change their resolution.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[C.]

AFIK, not so. Having worked for in the public sector a number of years on pretty-much visible (to the public) software, what kept open-source far away was:

1. Middle-level managers aren't sensibilized to try to reduce cost using Free (beer) software; and

2. As soon as the subject arise, higher-level management are afraid to have only one person on the planet that would be able to support that infrastructure. They see MSCE or Novell-certified technicians rain everywhere, but most often only inexperienced people brag about their Unix skills. And if they do, people associate that skill with data centers, not with acting as sysadmin for a small office.

For what I saw, management doesn't care about anything else. For them, if the software doesn't cost anything to buy, then it must cost a fortune to use.

C.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

I knew there was an OSS version of it, but I was talking about allocating all the resources.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[prizzznecious]

I figured. And that would be better, I agree. I still think the project was worth linking, though.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[npietraniec]

they don't want to have to play around with XF86 configs to change their resolution.

Recent versions of Mandrake have a gui control panel which let you do such things... But I'm sure there's other examples ;)

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

hiveminds has a good article explaining why the government wants to use closed source.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Jucius Maximus]

"May the best computer program and license win! "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Linus that said that if MSFT started creating OSs with proper standards in security, stability, etc, it means that we have succeeded?

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a government environment, how many secretaries do you know that play around with the settings in Windows?? How many know how to change screen resolutions? Most of these functions are locked out anyway! In a corporate environment, things are controlled and setup via the sys admins. Setting up a user with KDE (or whatever), office package, and they should have little trouble using the system. If the sys admins configure it correctly.

The problem isn't with the software, its up to sys admins to configure it to be user friendly. So the users don't even have to see the CLI.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy answer. Government purchasing managers' job is to spend money (that's right - to spend your money) and to get tight black "percentage" envelopes. Any goods recieved as a result of said operation are a mere side effect. Now, why on earth take something that is free? Any reason, any?

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[jrexilius]

agreed! but the rub there is getting competent sys admins! how many have you come across in your professional life? I haven't found many, and have found just as few competent developers.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Xavier Shirin]

Any *nix weenie can setup a windowing system to come up at boot so that "Joe Sixpack" does not have to deal with anything like a command line. No, it won't work the exact way we want right out of the box, but that's the price that is payed

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall you have a valid point, but you break down in the second paragraph:

When you have committee after committee that needs to share data, it's beneficial to use one standard so that you spend less time haggling with technological problems and more time on the real work -- governmental issues.

This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Basically what you are saying is that they all need to use a standard file format. Who says that has to be proprietary? Even Word will accept ASCII text and RTF files...

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[filmnorthflorida]

Right, but if you want the *government* to buy into it, you are by definition catering to idiots (or at least trying to). I've done a fair amount of public-sector work. I've met *three* people who could manage a GUI FTP app without serious coaching.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[kz45]

Closed source programs like Office are the standard in government (just like in the private sector).

This is the case for one reason only: Most businesses do not care whether the standard of their documents is .doc or .opensource.

If you would like to convince them otherwise, their has to be a reason to switch. (and not just: "because it's Open Source").

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[markyd]

If you believe the recent Microsoft spin it seems they are doing that. It seems Linus has a good attitude about things like this. Perhaps some of the Linux zealots could learn something from him.

As an aside, are there any standards in reliability? I know there are loads for security, but I've never seen a reliability standard.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

People want things to work right out of the box in a nice little window

Man! Some people just have such impossibly unrealistic expectations!

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up Eric. Closed source can never be a "Standard" since a "Standard" is inheirently open. All we need is a law that states something to the effect of "All material stored in digital format must have a complete published interface that allows access by any citizen easily and for free."

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[mpe]

I can't think of one secretary that knows what a command line is,

But it's fine for Windows to puke up CPU registers and stack frames when programs crash at them?
Or they should have to know about such things as defragmenting disks
There are plenty of ways in which Windows really is "too technical" for the average user.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[mpe]

In a government environment, how many secretaries do you know that play around with the settings in Windows?? How many know how to change screen resolutions? Most of these functions are locked out anyway!
Indeed there is a whole set of third party addons specifically to deal with the "enduser is the admin" misfeature of Windows.

In a corporate environment, things are controlled and setup via the sys admins. Setting up a user with KDE (or whatever), office package, and they should have little trouble using the system.

One big problem with a lot of more recent GUI apps, especially ports from Windows or attempts to clone Windows apps is that centralised configuration is ignored.
Traditional unix apps would have a central config file and per user configs, some of the more recent stuff only has per user. Even worst expecting end users to set things up, everything from web proxies to huge forms which Star Office comes up with...

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[Snover]

When you have committee after committee that needs to share data, it's beneficial to use one standard so that you spend less time haggling with technological problems and more time on the real work -- governmental issues.

Now all we need is for the government to actually DO the real work. Boy, won't THAT be the day.

Re:Why doesn't the gov't insist on open code?

[zaffir]

All the secretary has to do is click "OK" in the error box and everything is ok.

Hate to tell you guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

Already saw this one, thanks.

Government and procurement

[base3]

public bodies all over the world designs their requirements in a way that rules out all Free Software and Open Source alternatives already at the drawing table

Could have something to do with the fact that vendors often supply "helpful" templates to procurement officers that are often so tightly written that only one vendor's product will meet the requirements, much less that any open source product would.

Re:Government and procurement

[FFFish]

The vendors would be nuts to do otherwise!

Re:Government and procurement

[Pituritus Ani]

Agreed. But purchasing managers that submit or sign off on obviously rigged bid specs should be removed from positions requiring judgement.

Re:Government and procurement

[Happy go Lucky]

Could have something to do with the fact that vendors often supply "helpful" templates to procurement officers that are often so tightly written that only one vendor's product will meet the requirements, much less that any open source product would.

Anything is possible. Here in Colorado, we have a statute prohibiting such designation of suppliers. However, that statute is so damn vague that it might as well not exist. It prohibits a supply officer from telling a contractor to "buy the carburators from my cousin's shop over in Littleton." It MIGHT prohibit a municipality from signing on to the HUD-Smith and Wesson deal of a few years ago. It doesn't prohibit our supply officer from requiring W2K because "that's the only option that most of us have any clue how to use."

We wrote our own specs for our IT system at my employer. Not a vendor. Unfortunately, there basically was no suitable non-Windows software available. And we're not going to use VMware or wine and add another unnecessary level of complexity: ten years ago, we had oficers threaten to quit over having to use computers to write reports, and that was on relatively-idiot-proof DOS systems. Now we use primarily W2K machines, and have people who can barely function. Switching to something even as easy as Mandrake Linux would probably kill us.

Believe me, I tried. But the records-tracking system is an Access front-end, and we MUST be able to import the old records. And MUST be usable for GIS purposes. And MUST be off-the-shelf with vendor support available. And we don't have the budget to commission someone to write something new and to retrain everyone.

And if there's a computer-aided dispatch system for *n?x, I've never seen it.

Re:Government and procurement

[mpe]

Here in Colorado, we have a statute prohibiting such designation of suppliers. However, that statute is so damn vague that it might as well not exist. It prohibits a supply officer from telling a contractor to "buy the carburators from my cousin's shop over in Littleton." It MIGHT prohibit a municipality from signing on to the HUD-Smith and Wesson deal of a few years ago. It doesn't prohibit our supply officer from requiring W2K because "that's the only option that most of us have any clue how to use."

It's quite possible the statute, if actually applied, would forbid buying Microsoft. But the people charged with enforcement just arn't interested when it comes to software.

Hahaha!

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

Maybe a good topic for discussion among Slashdotters?

Umm, no, my guess is that any indication of "closed source is good" will be GNU/Shot Down instantly.

If we're posting personal essays on slashdot now, why not give the following a read: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux1.html

I rate it +5 Insightful, personally.

Re:Hahaha!

[JohnBE]

I agree absolutely right up to the photos on the linked site which just cheapen the issue.

Re:Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time somebody addressed the usability issue!

Honestly, I like the KDE desktop better than Windows. And it gives me a good feeling deep inside to run software that is freely given away, rather than bought. And I do have big misgivings about supporting a company financially that has abused monopoly power to put people out of work and ruin careers.

But the problem is that installing free software is a royal PITA. Currently, I'm on my third install of Linux on my laptop. Now keep in mind, I've been running Linux on my servers for several years now, so I know quite a bit about the system. It turns out that RedHat doesn't support my LCD very well. In the past, I could get around this by altering the XF86Config file, but with this last install, I have painfully become aware that this hack no longer works. I went so far as to remove XF86Config from the system entirely, and X still comes up. So now, I will spend several more days getting this system up and running under Linux.

But guess what? This isn't even an issue with Windows! I don't have to know what hardware I'm running (and don't give me any flames about how a user should know his hardware - it's not like I can bust open my laptop and read the numbers on the video adapter chips - nor should I have to, for that matter). A Windows install will take about an hour, and it works on almost every machine. In a few hours, I've got something that's usable (albeit buggy and insecure), and compatible with the rest of the world.

There is a serious gap in understanding between Windows coders and Linux coders. The Windows folks write software to be used, whereas the Linux folks write software to be configured, as if the joy of configuring software was an added feature. In Linux, I have to know the most intimate details of my machine; not only do I have to know what I want to do, I must know how to do it. Windows makes it simple - I just select what I want it to do, and it figures out the details.

What the Linux zealots fail to recognize is that Linux is not even useable without a great deal of technical knowledge. The reason why many companies have been slow to adopt Linux is because these companies aren't in the business of installing operating systems. They exist to get work done with their machines, and from their perspective, Windows works - it requires little technical knowledge (low training costs), and is compatible with the rest of the business world.

Imagine the following scenario: You are stranded on a desert island, and discover a cellphone, modem, and boxed laptop with two CD's - one for Linux, one for Windows. You open up the laptop to discover that the battery is charged, but alas, no operating system is installed. What do you do? Install Windows, and send out an email for help? Or do you try Linux, and risk finding out a few hours later as the battery dies that it doesn't support your modem?

I like Linux better than Windows. But until the free software community does something about the abysmal installation and configuration process, Linux will only be used by geeks. An operating system shouldn't require that a person learn the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science in order to use it. What I think is saddest about the free software movement is that they have engineered their software so that the common user cannot use it - an intellectual elitism, if you will. If we in this movement were really altruistic, we'd write software that the average user could install and use. After all, why shouldn't everyone use computers?

Re:Hahaha!

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

Imagine the following scenario: You are stranded on a desert island, and discover a cellphone, modem, and boxed laptop with two CD's - one for Linux, one for Windows. You open up the laptop to discover that the battery is charged, but alas, no operating system is installed. What do you do? Install Windows, and send out an email for help? Or do you try Linux, and risk finding out a few hours later as the battery dies that it doesn't support your modem?

Although I love the analogy and agree 100%, wouldn't it just be easier to use the cell phone to call for help?

Re:Hahaha!

[Aaron Bredon]

>Install Windows, and send out an email for help?
You mean: Install Windows and find out as the battery dies that you don't have the windows driver disk for the modem, so you can't use the modem.
Or install Linux, which includes massive numbers of drivers, and have a better than zero percent chance of getting the modem working.

(the ONLY modem drivers that come on the windows CD are the standard modems which are also automatically supported with Linux)

Re:Hahaha!

[speedfreak_5]

Is that a Windows XP CD? If it is, you're not gonna be able to use it without registering it. Linux looks kinda cool at that point...

Re:Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I was thinking like a programmer again...

Notice how the Linux zealots didn't catch this. Even though it was my mistake, it's kind of telling how they missed the obvious...

Re:Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the only excuse you could come up with for using Linux, having to register Windows? Please tell me you're not still wondering why Linux has less than 10% of the share of desktop machines.

Re:Hahaha!

[Anthony]

Once upon a time, When you bought a piece of hardware, you got all the doco and specs to implement a driver for it. Then along came Windows and most manufacturers stopped including or even supplying the info.
Comparing driver support between two OSs doesn't count when one has an unfair advantage.

Re:Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is very easy. You install Linux, although it will be pain to get it going if there is anything unusual in the hardware. This is because it is impossible to install MS-Windows from the official install medium onto a blank machine, unless you have additional resources such as an already working MS-Windows box.

Re:Hahaha!

[mpe]

But guess what? This isn't even an issue with Windows! I don't have to know what hardware I'm running (and don't give me any flames about how a user should know his hardware - it's not like I can bust open my laptop and read the numbers on the video adapter chips - nor should I have to, for that matter).

Guess what there are plenty of anecdotes about Linux just working, whilst Windows required all sorts of fun. Starting with the old favourate of trying to install drivers for a CDROM drive from a CDROM...
Knowing what the hardware is is a matter for the installer/maintainer. Which isn any corporate/government type setting is not the user.

Re:Hahaha!

[markmoss]

companies aren't in the business of installing operating systems. They exist to get work done with their machines,

We used to have one "help desk" man that spent more than 20 hours/week just re-installing Windows, Office, etc., on user's desktops as the 100 users here kept developing problems for which MS tech support's recommendation was a disk wipe and re-install. I'm not talking about upgrades here, but re-installs. Win 98SE is rather more stable, 2000 is said to be better, but still, Windows is not a great solution for those that don't want to be in the OS business either.

Granted, Windows gives a complete ignoramus about a 90% chance of getting through an install on recent hardware without ever reading the instructions, while with Linux you've got to know what the hell you are doing for the initial install. But AFAIK once Linux is running right on a desktop, the only reason to ever re-install is to upgrade with new features. If you've got a few hundred desktops, maybe you could replace several guys who don't know much beyond "stick in the CD and run d:setup.exe", with one guy that actually knows how to solve the problems with Linux setup. (Servers also need constant security upgrades, just like Windows -- but does Windows still have to be re-booted for every patch? And you'd damn well better have someone knowledgeable maintain your servers, no matter what OS is used.)

Re:Hahaha!

[guisar]

Considering the quality of the other essays on Mr. Hufschmid's site I think we can safely say his essay on the future of Linux is guilty by association. Please check out his other essays- they will quickly call his objectivity and research into question.

Distributed Copyright

[ClarkEvans]

I'd like to see some discussion on open-source models that give the user freedom to choose their upgrade (libre) and gives programmers the right to fork, all while not requiring software to be free of charge (gratis). For more thoughts, see Distributed Copyright.

Re:Distributed Copyright

[radja]

The GPL does not specify a price, and does not require software to be gratis. It does allow distribution for a fee.. Ofcourse, it's probably not what you mean, since it allows re-distribution without a fee..

//rdj

Open Source isn't accepted

[ender81b]

At my university (Nebraska-Lincoln) we are currently facing budget cuts to the tune of something like 8.3 million dollars. Now, the university has a contract with Microsoft to for about a few million a year to supply all computers on campus with windows/office.

When somebody suggested not renewing the contract (Thereby saving a few mil) and instead switching over as much of campus as possible to Linux they where laughed out the door by the ITS people. They said, among other things:
1.)Cost too much to implement (retraining users, etc)
2.)Would be too hard to support
3.)Wouldn't provide students with the knowledge of computers to succeed in the real world I.E. Microsoft software is used by 99% of the business world and having everything run linux would simply not be effective in teaching students how to use 'real world' applications.

Where they right? I don't think so. But instead of cancelling the contract they are now cutting faculty raises, a number of teaching centers, and some extra programs.
Before we go and change how gov'ts contract software we must realize just how damm impossible it is to get them to get past microsoft's FUD.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[base3]

I'm on your side on this, and I work for a state university facing a budget crisis, like most of us are. I agree that we're throwing away seven figures on MS license fees.

However, Microsoft has the administrators convinced that the "total cost of ownership" for the MS products is less than it would be for a pure open source solution.

Perhaps proposing a departmental pilot of a package including Linux and Star Office for about twenty or so people, and determining how true the training deficiency theory is, might be the way to go. However, to get the full experience, someone's going to have to port the VBscript worms to Linux first.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

1.)Cost too much to implement (retraining users, etc)

This is a very valid concern that way too many OSS zealots overlook. Just because you took the time to learn how to use Linux does NOT mean the Dean of the college, or his secretary, or anyone else has the time or even WANTS to spend the time doing the same thing. They are USED to Windows, USED to Office, and USED to IE. They don't CARE that YOU like it, or even if it's free. The support costs of retraining people, not to mention the lost productivity while they come up to speed, is incredibly significant and can often add up to more than the money saved by going w/ a "free" solution.

2.)Would be too hard to support

Again, this is a very valid concern. Does the I.T. staff have anyone knowledgeable of the OS software being proposed? If not, then they'd have to hire someone or retrain someone. See the same point on #1 above -- this is not trivial, folks. Just because YOU find it easy doesn't many anyone else in the world will. Grow some perspective here.

3.)Wouldn't provide students with the knowledge of computers to succeed in the real world I.E.

Again, this is a very valid point. Unless you're aspiring to be a coder, it is much more advantageous for someone to learn Windows, Office, and IE than it would be for them to learn Linux, StarOffice, and Opera. Face facts: Windows owns the world out there, and no matter how much you despise MS, that isn't going to change anytime soon. People will, MUST acquire skillsets that are actually valuable to whatever they're planning on doing. Pie in the sky OSS stuff just isn't going to cut it when HR starts sorting through resume's.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[headchimp]

True, plus all the free/discounted software and hardware that many universities benefit from.

At a certain college in Dallas, the computer lab is filled with Dells, complete with banners on the walls; along with the usual Microsoft paraphinelia(spell?) and discount student purchase.

Those who control the purses have little computer knowledge. Those who control the computers prefer to keep their jobs and influence those with the pruses.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[ender81b]

Tried that. I work in a computer lab in the main library on campus and I suggested equipping 20-25 computers with linux and star office.

My manager wouldn't approve it - wouldn't even think of it. The best I managed to do was get StarOffice for windows installed (which is actually quite useful with all of its converters built in).

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[ender81b]

Valid counterpoints. Nobody said it would be easy. But in my view, and of many people on campus, getting rid of M$ is far preferable to losing faculty (UNL is already way below the curve for teacher pay/benefits) and teaching resources which would hurt far more than having to 'learn' how to use a new system.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume by you using "total cost of ownership" in quotes means you think it's a bunch of bunk. Have YOU ever done a TCO study? I doubt it, because if you did you'd think a bit more highly of it. Here's a newsflash: going with free software can sometimes cost you MORE than going with closed-source, proprietary stuff.

What everyone seems to forget here is that there is a training cost involved in using OSS stuff. Why? Well, in 99.9% of the cases, the existing staff is experienced in Windows and Office more than anything else. I don't care how easy you think Linux and StarOffice is, people will need to be retrained.

Lump on top of that the lost productivity while you (a) train people and (b) they start to actually figure out how it works after the training. Imagine a staff of, say, 100 people making an average of $60K per year. One day's worth of salary to put everyone in training would cost the organization ($60,000 / (52weeks x 5workdays) x 100 workers) costs them around $23,000. This doesn't include the costs of the training itself, and doesn't factor in other costs like taxes and worker benefits. Add to that an average of, oh, say, one hour per worker per day lost due to inefficiency (learning curve) for the first week and it costs you almost another $15,000 for just that week! Don't forget to add the changeover time your I.T. staff would need (computer downtime) as well as THEIR retraining (I.T. tasks neglected due to training), and you'd start to see that all this free software starts costing a shitload of money.

If things were reversed and OSS was the entrenched paradigm and Windows was trying to get a foothold, these numbers would be the same. Face it: even if you hate Windows, it's already in place and people know how to use it. It is pointless to change it unless some HUGE benefit can be realized in cost savings or productivity that can offset the HUGE costs of converting. Think about these things before you dismiss TCO.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

The costs of retraining, cutting over, and so forth for even a 100 person organization would likely come to more than $40K (see my TCO example elsewhere in this thread), and that's the LOW figure. Cutting over, whether TO or FROM any software to any software, usually costs more than it's worth to keep using what's working already. Sad but true. You cannot argue with TCO figures -- there is too much data that backs them up.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[LaTeXninja]

Laughed out the door by the ITS people? That sounds predictable. The people laughing most likely fear for their jobs because they aren't qualified to deal with such a change.

I agree that Microsoft provides a solution that works well for the majority of computer users at a University. But, I also think that Microsoft solutions are detrimental to the part of the University that actually produces the programming types. The computer science/engineering department of a University should wholeheartedly embrace nonproprietary, open, free solutions wherever possible and leave closed, underpowered, blackbox, unstudiable solutions by the wayside.

It's an overwhelming trend that I've seen: Programmers that learned in a Microsoft-centric environment, in the great majority, don't really know how to program. They just don't understand so many fundamental things that people learn from working with any given Unix variety for a short period of time. There are plenty of other reasons why learning to program with a diet of Microsoft software is bad, but I won't mention any of them because they're insignificant in comparison to the fact that windows users that want to become programmers are at a severe disadvantage---period!

How long does it take to learn how to use Windows and prepare yourself for "the real world", and how long does it take to learn how to program?

None of the cited arguments hold water when you're talking about "geeks", so geeks shouldn't be subjected to such violence as being forced to use such mind-numbing garbage when they're perfectly capable of working in a more-empowering environment.

I was saddened when I learned that the college that I graduated from has nearly eradicated any non-Microsoft stuff from their CS department. I'm saddened because it wasn't until I got to college that I learned anything about non-Microsoft software, and the poor suckers that are following in my footsteps won't have a chance.

Oh well, why not let the proletariat population of programmers expand? The next wave of dumbasses is less likely to threaten the jobs of the already established.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[base3]

I don't so much think it's a bunch of bunk as wonder where the TCO argument was with all its dire predictions of lost productivity and training costs

- in the transition from DOS to Windows 3.0/3.1

- in the transition from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95

- in the transition from Office 4.3 to Office 95

- in the transition from Office 95 to Office 97

- in the transition from Office 97 to Office 2000

- in the transition from cc:Mail to Outlook

. . . you get the idea. Hell, at least we'd only have to retrain everyone once if we picked an open source platform and weren't forced onto the MS upgrade treadmill.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[poiu]

What about Apple? The core of their OS is open source (a FreeBSD variant) and if, as your IT staff claims, their end users really really really love MS Office apps, then they could simply buy or site license MS Office for Mac.

Also, Apple's OS licenses fee's are one-time fees, and most point upgrades are free. So, unlike MS "activation" fees, you could run the current version for a relatively long time (until some new feature comes out that you "can't" live without).

Furthermore, Apple already has a huge presence in Education, so there shouldn't be any incremental costs.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Pituritus Ani]

That's better than nothing. Where I am, I can use anything that's legal and doesn't break the network. Right now, that includes the GIMP and cdrecord (with the cool graphical front end), both under Win32. I enjoy the amazed looks when I tell them these are free, and substitute (at least for my purposes) for Photoshop and EZ CD creator Pro and saved the University $500.00 in licenses.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[quantaman]

Actually the UofA where I'm attending all of the CS labs past 1st year(and formerly those) are non-MS (I've seen FreeBSD and Sun Unix and there may be others). Also where my brother works in the physics department most of the computers they use at the post-grad level are Linux.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think there's any Open Source application available right now that it's not going to be worthwhile to upgrade to the new version?

I mean, I wanted to try out KOffice. Had to upgrade my KDE. Which means upgrading my Red Hat Linux 7.0. Which ain't insignificant. And that's to try out the latest version of KOffice, which is by nowhere close to the level of MS Office.

Likewise, StarOffice 6 is going to be so much better than StarOffice 5.2 that everyone's going to upgrade. Likewise with, say, Mozilla - which isn't even version 1 yet.

Comparing today's situation to the DOS to Win95 transitions is kind of silly. The new version were demonstrably better than the old ones, and there were no real alternatives. Many companies put off upgrading from Win95 to Win98, and are putting off upgrading to Win2000 or XP because their Win98 systems are working fine. Likewise with Office upgrades after Office 97. Heck, the file format hasn't even changed.

Complaining about the Microsoft Upgrade treadmill is a bit weak from a "retraining" point of view. It's only recently that current versions of software were "good enough" - and it's arguable that current version of any Open Source desktop applications have reached the "good enough" stage. Open source has the advantage, of course, of being free to upgrade, which cuts out a lot of the cost of upgrading compared to Microsoft; but it's also not at the "you'll never have to upgrade, what you have is all you'll need, and it's stable" stage - whereas Windows 2000 + Office 97 (and up) really *is* at that stage.

Which is, of course, why Microsoft's worried. If their applications were still at the level Open Source applications are at, they wouldn't be nearly as worried about not getting upgrade sales.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[jred]

3.)Wouldn't provide students with the knowledge of computers to succeed in the real world I.E. Microsoft software is used by 99% of the business world and having everything run linux would simply not be effective in teaching students how to use 'real world' applications.

Yes & no. Most people that sit down at my Linux box have no problem using it. They've been "trained" on Windows, and they do the basic stuff. They're not gearheads, and they don't really care too much what's going on. The biggest deal is knowing what apps are comparable. The question I hear most is "I don't see Word, what can I use to type my term paper?" I point them to abi or whatever (I use vim, so I usually have to look to see what I have installed). They do their thing & are happy.

So if people have basic computing skills, they'll be able to easily translate those basic skills to other OSs. Plus, if they're used to using Linux in college, they won't be as hesitant to try it in the real world.

All this has been said before, and will be said again...

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... why don't you present some actual TCO figures then, if they cannot be argued with?

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[base3]

Do you really think there's any Open Source application available right now that it's not going to be worthwhile to upgrade to the new version?

I know that there aren't any Open Source applications for which license will expire and we'd have to upgrade whether we like it or not.

And even when things are working fine, Microsoft coerces upgrades by using network effects. Files written in new versions often can't be read by previous versions. (I'll admit they've gotten better about this--only Access and PowerPoint, IIRC, broke in the last two Office releases.)

And I don't see how it's silly to compare the DOS to Win* transitions. Look at all that money that could have been saved in retraining by just using what we had! It's the same argument that's being used against Open Source, even in the face of annual license fees. I stand by the idea that there will have to be only one major retraining, which would pay for itself once the first round of MS upgrades is skipped.

And I don't believe for a minute that there won't be some compelling reason to upgrade all those perfectly working Win98/2K/Office 97/2000 boxes. Even if that compelling reason is avoiding more and more intrusive audits or some other outright extortion as MS becomes more desparate for cash. Oh, and look for the educational license discounts to go away as schools become more firmly addicted (by the TCO argument) to the programs.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[base3]

The one place we've had luck is getting several CS labs converted. The problem is that Linux didn't displace NT/2000/XP. Oh, no. It displaced Digital Unix. Which, since DEC was bought by Compaquard Bell, is probably not all bad.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

3.)Wouldn't provide students with the knowledge of computers to succeed in the real world I.E.

Again, this is a very valid point. Unless you're aspiring to be a coder, it is much more advantageous for someone to learn Windows, Office, and IE than it would be for them to learn Linux, StarOffice, and Opera. Face facts: Windows owns the world out there, and no matter how much you despise MS, that isn't going to change anytime soon. People will, MUST acquire skillsets that are actually valuable to whatever they're planning on doing. Pie in the sky OSS stuff just isn't going to cut it when HR starts sorting through resume's.

Universities are not a place to learn how to use computers. For CS students, their education can include learning CS concepts, CS calculations, programming languages, and the hardware that applications run on. For business students, it is a place to learn the market, the economics, finance, etc. There is a reason why "using Windows" isn't a major: because there is no learning curve, esp. for the young ones, on how to use a computer. Training the youth how to use very intuitive applications is highly overrated in an era where most students have been exposed to personal computers either at dorms, or at home. It is rediculous to claim that removing Windows from Universities would impair students valuable education of Windows usage skills.

All you need is keep a small lab full of Windows.

In my school, the computer labs are split half & half with Windows PCs and iMacs. This has benefits: (a) exposing students to multiple OSes, and (b) reducing overall licensing costs.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Arandir]

Microsoft software is used by 99% of the business world and having everything run linux would simply not be effective in teaching students how to use 'real world' applications.

A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.

If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[ender81b]

I love apple personally but to switch an entire university system over to apple computers would be way too expensive. For linux you don't have to 'buy' anything (support or such yes) but for apple you have to purchase literally thousands of computers.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[An Onerous Coward]

Point 1: For 95% of what the average person does, Windows is interchangeable with GNOME, Office is interchangeable with StarOffice, and the Big Blue 'E' can be replaced with Mozilla. They're not "used to Windows," per se. They're used to being able to drag-and-drop, use familiar key sequences like Ctrl-X, and have things start when they double-click. When my Windows drive went all wahooni-shaped, my family's full "retraining" consisted of "double-click the dragon to get your web browser."

Point 2: is completely valid, and I'm not going to argue it.

Point 3: As someone already pointed out, the value of knowledge of a particular application has a half-life that can be measured in months. Going from I.E. to Mozilla is only slightly more jarring than going from Explorer 4 to Explorer 6. Further, since you correctly pointed out that Microsoft pretty much owns the world, the users are probably going to become familiar with their applications elsewhere.

I would also point out that any HR-type who would throw out a resume because someone has WordPerfect or StarOffice experience instead of MSOffice experience should be taken out and beaten with a cluestick. In many ways, an office suite is an office suite is an office suite. The vast majority of the knowledge learned from one can be transferred to another.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[jrexilius]

Hell yeah! I would love to see schools teach usefull things! ya know useless things like logic, communication, adaptive learning, resource analysis. Pumping out trained monkeys in todays horse-and-buggy technology (MSFT) is a major disservice to the community.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[10am-bedtime]

so this state / political body falls behind. that's good for the rest us non-suckers. ignorance is strength, like they say.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[iabervon]

#1 is a good point. People don't like their interfaces changed on them. I read email in Pine, because that was what my first email program was. When I went to college and couldn't use Pine, I ended up installing linux, forwarding all of my email, and running Pine there. I don't like Gnome or KDE because I'm used to fvwm. Reportedly, some of the desktop software acts like Office, and Wine is reportedly becoming useful for running Office. I haven't tried any of this, because, of course, I can't stand any interface other than the one I'm used to.

Point 2 is misinformed. If you get rid of Windows, you can get rid of the army of windows sysadmins and hire a linux sysadmin or two. Linux is much easier to administer, if only because MicroSoft support is so bad, and you can't fix anything with it. You won't, admittedly, necessarily be able to keep the same support staff without retraining, but the end result is better.

Point 3 is foolish. Nobody will use any software currently available in a year or two. The best way to acquire skills would be to use half KDE and half Gnome. That way, you can't get used to the current interfaces, which will be the out-of-date versions that won't read new documents when you get to the real world.

Win2k owns the world out there now. Pretty soon, it'll be unsupported and unavailable. There are plenty of places that use a mix of windows and linux now, and, if you want to use linux, that just means one fewer machine that breaks each month, and that will have to be bought again in a year or two.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[binner1]

Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.

Funny you should mention that...
I'm currently taking a couple MIS courses as 'outside the department' electives (I'm a CS major taking 'bird' courses). My prof (same for both classes) gets unbelievably flustered when the projector doesn't work properly.

I think he spends more time creating his PowerPoint slides (read: complete fluff) than he does preparing the actual lecture. Class is started with him wasting the first ten minutes fiddling with his laptop and projector. Then, when the projector doesn't work properly, he'll constantly refer to the (absent) slides...When the slides do work, they're not worth the time anyway...bullet form of his major points. No need for them whatsoever, aside from being a distraction!

I really get the impression that the PHB-style people pumped out of a business program are incapable of doing anything without a PP presentation to back them up.

-Ben

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[binner1]

It's been my experience that people don't really know how to perform tasks with their software anyway. If they don't do a mail merge for two months, they've forgotten and have to call the helpdesk. The more advanced users can remember small things, but overall if it's not a repetitive task, game over.

It's also been my experience that the interface doesn't really matter to users. They use what's there, regardless of the options (hence the adoption of IE as peoples browser of choice). If that browser had been Mozilla they would have used that too. Users don't care!!

Therefore, if you're still following my argument, this transition, while surely costing a couple days of retraining, won't cost that much more in the end. You're still going to have people calling the helpdesk because they can't remember how to do a mail merge with Star Office. They'll call about how to save bookmarks to that damned 'desktop cat' (glad nobody ported that one yet) in Mozilla.

Grand Finale: Users will still be clueless whether they're using Windows or Linux. After the initial frustration, they'll forget they've even switched, and continue pestering the helpdesk.

If you don't believe me, you've never been in the trenches.

-Ben

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Rinikusu]

Indeed. In 1993, I took an "intro to microcomputers" course where we learned.. Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3. That same class now teaches Access, Excel, and Word. Interesting to happen in LESS than 10 years (IIRC, Office97 is where Office started to shine, despite some bugs, and is still pretty much the only Office Suite I tell my friends to install because it does everything THEY need... I have OfficeXP, but not currently installed.. It's nice, but doesn't run on Linux... So far, the KDE office does just about everything I need/want, and I'm hearing more and more good things about StarOffice 6.0..)

Anyway, enough of that.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[filmnorthflorida]

When I was in CS, I had a few classes where the professors wouldn't accept assignments done in any IDE other than VisualStudio. so i did all my programming with bbedit & gcc, then spent an hour or so fighting with visual studio when i was done, so i could submit the zipfile the prof wanted. And yeah, we got smacked grade-wise if we turned in something non-MS, to the tune of 10%. This was for command-line simple stuff.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[filmnorthflorida]

I've actually had several professors that simply typed their lectures into powerpoint (using outlining) then read them to the class. It made class boring as hell, but it had the advantage that it was fairly easy to snooze or get work done during class, or even grab the powerpoint files from the web in some cases and not go to class at all.

Hello class, today is January 17

Today we will be covering pointers

Pointers are Fun!

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Rinikusu]

I think it comes down to familiarity of the helpdesk with the common problems.
I can go to any decent helpdesk kiddo and ask him what's wrong with my Win98 desktop and either he knows what's wrong or just nukes my box and reimages it, problem solved. It seems that the entire toolkits of 90% of so-called "techies" revolves around windows and getting windows working. The problem is not the end-users, it's the ability of the helpdesk to smoothly transition to an "alternative" system in terms of technical "expertise". I know I worked at a helpdesk and I could ask any of the 100's of techs about Windows and everyone had "solutions". If I had one question about Linux, I'd get blank stares. So, we have armies of MS techies, who refuse to switch. As you said, USERS don't give a damn. The techs do. It's the IT departments and the pseudo-computer literati that must be converted, not the users. Remember that the average user has post-it notes taped to his/her monitor telling them how to save a file! It would be no different if they were using Appleworks, MS OFFICE, WordPerfect, or Star Office.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Jeremi]

Maybe start with just a single computer. Once that seems to be working flawlessly your manager will see the wisdom of installing 20-25.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Bodrius]

The IT people are right, I'm afraid.

1.)Cost too much to implement (retraining users, etc)

There would be a high cost for most of the campus, because most users would be very hard to retrain. It would seem that a lot of academics actually have enough problems dealing with MS software, retraining them in Linux could really be a pain (although probably not as much as the IT people fear, if they're unfamiliar with the current distros).

Not everyone is an engineer, geek, or even someone with technological curiosity. The IT poeple will have to deal with office clerks, sociology professors who fear the dehumanization the machine brings, luddites and deconstructionalists, that board member who still can't figure out that email thingie, and who knows what else. Now bring in the students, who think they already know everything but have never seen a Leeniux machine in their life.

The cost of training hostile population is not the same as training your standard Linux newbie, the latter usually took the initiative and is willing to learn.

2.)Would be too hard to support

This depends on the IT department, but more likely than not it's true. In my U. the IT department recruits actively among students with limited experience for low-level support. Since the labs are full of Windows boxes, their exposure is Windows-centric. That's what they know to use, troubleshoot, etc.

They have people with experience supporting UNIX boxes, of course, but the fact is that not all of their personnel is familiar with them. Certainly few new hires are. Retraining their people to handle a mostly-Linux campus would be costly. But the biggest problems, if your U. is anything like that, is that they can't hire new kids that easily to for the support jobs.

Another thing is that there will be an automatic increase in the need of support wherever there's a Linux box, at least for a while. People are used to Windows eccentricities (including crashing), not Linux's.

They will call whenever something is unfamiliar because they cannot/will-not use Tier 0 support: the person next-door. Everyone knows everyone else uses Windows, and will ask a lot of (even non-computer-oriented) people before going to support just in case it's something trivial. They won't expect their fellow non-geeks to have Linux knowledge that easily.

3.)Wouldn't provide students with the knowledge of computers to succeed in the real world

This is wrong if taken at face value, but as the thinly disguised argument it is, it's valid. Today, most universities act as vocational schools, and students complain if they do not.

When students take computer classes, particularly if they're not into computer science (but even if they are), they expect to learn tools-of-the-trade to put on their resumes. They expect classes in Office, Visual Basic, etc. and they will scream if they don't get them. They will oppose anything that's "not what they use in the industry".

It's a matter of customer satisfaction.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[mpe]

What everyone seems to forget here is that there is a training cost involved in using OSS stuff. Why? Well, in 99.9% of the cases, the existing staff is experienced in Windows and Office more than anything else. I don't care how easy you think Linux and StarOffice is, people will need to be retrained.

And they don't have to be retrained everytime Windows or Office changes version?

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[mpe]

A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.

Especially when some of the students used as pawns in this kind of argument are aged 5 rather than 20.

If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.

All of these examples indicate the difference between education and training. Though in most other skill areas even "training" is less about leaning the quirks of a specific tool set in a robotic way.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[mpe]

Point 1: For 95% of what the average person does, Windows is interchangeable with GNOME, Office is interchangeable with StarOffice, and the Big Blue 'E' can be replaced with Mozilla. They're not "used to Windows," per se.

Windows (and MS Office) is something of a "moving target" anyway when it comes to the end user. How can these supposedly stupid people possibly cope. Maybe it's more that it is "cool" to claim that "computers are hard". (In terms of actual brain power the complicated part of a computer is actually operating the user interface anyway.)
A lot of the time when people are actually using Windows it involves things such as defragmenting disks, which an end user shouldn't really need to be bothered with in the first place....

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[digitalgiblet]

Let's be honest with ourselves. It's not just FUD (although there is some FUD).

As much as I would like to say the world was simple enough to say "Open Source: Good, Closed Source: Bad", it just isn't that simple.

Of the three reasons you report your university as giving, I'd say numbers 1 and 2 are perfectly valid.

First they said it would cost too much to implement because of retraining users, etc. It would indeed be expensive. How expensive in comparison with the Microsoft contract we can't say without lots more facts. Quick, knee-jerk answers are seldom accurate. There are several good open alternatives to Office, but I have yet to see one that matches Office for the average worker. It doesn't matter if it works great for me if the bulk of the staff needs help. For open source software to succeed in the mainstream it has to replace Microsoft products. For any product to replace another it has to be a perceptibly better experience than the one being replaced, not just equivalent. At the moment I'd say the open alternatives to Office are almost equivalent. Does that mean I think open source sucks, Hell no, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a long way to go and we're up against a jugernaut whose products many users love.

Which brings us to the third argument given by the university: real world companies by and large do use Microsoft products and a kid graduating from a university had better know how to use them. Rant and rave all we like, this is a fact. Facts do not change themselves to suit us. If we wish to do battle successfully, we must do so with a clear understanding of what the battlefield conditions are, not what we would like them to be. (See Sun Tzu's Art Of War

The world of academia is a closed environment that gives a very skewed view of the world that most people will not be living in. 98% of graduates will work in the private sector or government, not academia. Let's take an example. Our (US) tax code is pretty universally disliked. There are many alternatives that have been proposed. Some people like the idea of a flat tax. A flat tax could save some people lots and lots of money. Let's say we are a university and we universally agree that a flat tax is better than the prevailing tax code. Do we do our students a disservice if we teach them only about the flat tax system we agree is more logical and beneficial than the current tax system? Even though the flat tax makes more sense and would save money, the students wouldn't be too happy the first year they have to file their income taxes! They would feel like we should have shown them how the real (ie mainstream) world works.

A better approach would be to find areas where you can get the IT people to agree that open source is a viable alternative. The criteria, obviously, need to be the counter of the reasons they gave. In other words, where can open source be plugged in without costing too much to implement, being hard to support or giving students a false impression of what they will see after graduation? Suddenly we're back in the "Linux on the server" arena. If the university is using bunches of Windows boxes as servers, they could greatly reduce their support and licensing bill with Microsoft by switching to open source.

However, don't expect to suddenly convert every server and save money. If the university is, for instance, using Microsoft Exchange as its primary mail service, it would be quite expensive to try to change. Even more so would be the hodge-podge of custom apps every organization public or private has accumulated over the years. Does Public Safety have an NT-only system for tracking fines and tickets? Good luck replacing that. The moment you say you are going to replace a custom app, blink your eyes, show little dollar signs in those peepers and say "Ka-Ching" because somebody's going to spend a bunch of money whether they buy or build the new system.

That's my essay for the day. Flame me if you will, but I'd rather see a well reasoned rebuttal... For anyone who would rather flame me, then Nyah Nyah Nyah, your mama is one too.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if you can't write because the faculty got cut then "knowing" MS Word won't mean much...

Additionally; how many people had to be trained on how to deal with MS Office 95 file types and the incompatibility with MS Office 97 and other version issues? Quite a few I would imagine... I wonder how many $$$ is spent on training vendors just so people can keep up with MS?

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[frank_adrian314159]

And they don't have to be retrained everytime Windows or Office changes version?

As much as I'd like to say "No," the answer is really "Yes, they don't need to be retrained." The reason is simple. Even though Microsoft breaks the ability to read new files in the old products almost each time, the old docs read into the new version just fine. Old features do not disappear and, if the new features are not used, the user has no need to be retrained. If the user needs a new feature, he or she might need a small bit of training to use the new feature. So the users do not require complete retraining when a new version is released. However, it's been many, many releases since Microsoft released any essential new features, so it's getting harder and harder for them to justify their upgrade cycle, leading to subscription models, etc.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[WNight]

The TCO troll is getting old.

For starters, not everyone needs retraining. Most people do such simple things that IT can come along and replace their applications overnight with the newer ones and they're perfectly capable of continuing to use them uninterupted, or can do so after reading a quick FAQ covering any important topics. The idea that your average line worker needs an hour of training to be able to click on a different icon and enter text is silly. Few people use any features of a word processor beyond "bold".

Then with your fucky little TCO diagram, why don't you figure in boot times. Linux generally takes longer to boot. Don't forget to multiply the extra two minutes by all employees, once. (That is, if the IT department doesn't set it up at night.) Then account for the fact that Windows requires an average of two reboots (my best guess, from a few years of IT work) per week, per person.

My point is that if you let one side do the TCO they'll include only those things which hurt the other side.

Really though, jokes aside, users aren't so dumb as to be unable to write a memo in a new word processor. As long as the "print" function is labelled that, or contains a picture of a printer or paper, they can figure it out.

You don't need to transition everyone to help. Leave the Win32 programmers in windows. Leave the photoshop artists in windows (if they don't want to switch, asside from pre-press stuff, GIMP rocks). Then move all the people who use their computer as a tool to do their job, but whose job isn't completely dependant on it. (Secretaries, CEOs, Tech Support, etc) onto Linux. They probably won't really notice except that it won't need rebooting.

Re:Open Source isn't accepted

[Tsujigiri]

I would also point out that any HR-type who would throw out a resume because someone has WordPerfect or StarOffice experience instead of MSOffice experience should be taken out and beaten with a cluestick. In many ways, an office suite is an office suite is an office suite. The vast majority of the knowledge learned from one can be transferred to another.

Exactly right. This is why my resume reads "Experienced with industry standard office productivity software". Covers most office suites (I've never had problems picking up new programs).

Movement to Free Software

[prof187]

Microsoft would probably sue everyone for trying to put them out of business if free software became more dominent then Windows. I honestly don't have a whole lot again Microsoft other than they try to get every possible penny out of you that they can. If Windows were free, I'd use it w/out any regrets.
MS should open source 3.1, that would be pretty cool just for the sake of it. Plus, it would be interesting to see how coding has changed over the decade.

Re:Movement to Free Software

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

Ok, I have a few questions. 1) If linux is so much "better" than Windows, why would you want them to open the source to 3.1? So idiot 13-year old OSS "programmers" can learn coding techniques? 2) They are a business. Of course they are trying to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, unless you want to spend the rest of your life eating ramen noodles and wearing a dirty old ripped white t-shirt for the rest of your life. Bill Gates is one hell of a businessman. He wouldn't be a businessman if Windows was free. When will you people get it? Good stuff in life doesn't come free... just ask homeless people. and 3) If Windows were free, I'd use it w/out any regrets Let me ask, did you pay for your copy of Windows?

Re:Movement to Free Software

[prof187]

The one i'm using now? no, i didn't. Win98 on the other hand was purchased and WAS regretted because it was a very unstable piece of OS. And as far as 3.1 going open source, like i said, just because. Kind of as a novelty type thing.
What is your problem anyway? This was a very innocent post. Calm down...

Re:Movement to Free Software

[DavidJA]

MS should open source 3.1, that would be pretty cool just for the sake of it

Whilst I think that forcing MS to open source win 3.1 would not be good thing, I beleive that at the point that a company is not willing to sell/support old software, the said software should loose it's copyright status.

Just like trademark law, if you don't fight to maintain your trademark, you loose it.

Re:Movement to Free Software

[tdelaney]

Mmm ... ramen ... glaaargh.

Re:Movement to Free Software

[The Pi-Guy]

MS should open source 3.1

Anyone else see some big WINE changes coming from that..?

If nothing else, they should put it under the CE "shared source" license. That's pretty much freer than free, it's so free RMS would hate it because it's freer than the GPL!! *ducks* Ok, so I'm exaggerating.

-pi

They Won't Change Soon

[Rebel Patriot]

Government doesn't have a reason to change, therefor, they won't. One of our biggest clients is a government body. They've been ingrained for a long time with Microsoft and just aren't going to switch from MS Office to say, Staroffice. Reasons for this are actually valid.

1) They are comfrotable and familiar with Word and Excell.
2) Some of their Access documents would be hard to render properly in Staroffice.
3) They've invested a ton of money into several Visual Basic programs that use Access as a back end.

As long as government agencies, departments, etc need things like that (which they've spent alot of money on to impliment), they are loath to switch.

Re:They Won't Change Soon

[pete-classic]

Odd that you can't spell "Excel" . . .

Anyway, I read what you have said as "They walked into vendor lock-in with both eyes open."

What is your point?

-Peter

Re:They Won't Change Soon

[s390]

Government doesn't have a reason to change, therefor, [sic] they won't.

Don't be so sure. Microsoft is providing some rather compelling motivation in the form of their new forced-upgrades, subscription licensed software business model. Many government organizations have in the past followed the wise corporations in only upgrading when there was a compelling case to do so, to a demonstrably stable release. These organizations are rightly appalled at the prospect of paying extortionate annual Microsoft software license fees that are 100% - 200% higher than their historical expenses. And the MSCE's in the IT Department won't be the ones ultimately making the decisions, no matter how much FUD they might throw around about TCO. They are the major drain on TCO, so they'll lose whatever credibility they might have had, once the gimlet-eyed executives who make decisions peruse their budget projections.

Microsoft is also their own worst enemy, relative to the way they've been playing hardball with government IT managers - threatening them and going over their heads - typical Microsoft gutter tactics, but it's building a broadly based backlash among government IT managers they've abused lately. If you talk to these people, they'll tell you that they're looking at ways to purge their shops of Microsoft software everywhere they can, and yesterday wouldn't be too soon. Microsoft's going to lose in government.

Re:They Won't Change Soon

[mystran]

Point 1 is true, but for most of the time, at least here in Finland, there is no access. Backend servers seem to be running mostly Oracle on Solaris. It doesn't matter there though, as those have good reputation and users never see them. What I think is that replacing Servers with GNU or BSD would be more likely to happen than replacing Desktop software.

• Samba can do pretty well as a fileshare replacement. Nobody won't know the difference.
• Normal people most often don't even know that over half of webservers are already running Apache.
• OpenSource database servers like PostgreSQL already compete with Oracle.
• PHP is one of the most efficient was to handle dynamic web content. ASP is not.

Only that some of this won't most Slashdotters any happier since it's Sun, Oracle, Netscape (iPlanet's still widely used) and others that are more likely to lose their share than MicroSoft, because those that understand are already running something else, and most of the time couldn't care a sh*t about somebody elses desktop software.

Re:They Won't Change Soon

[Anonymous Coward]

PHP is one of the most efficient was to handle dynamic web content. ASP is not

Oh yeah! Another 'fact' just tossed in the air. Care to back that up with some evidence?

I love PHP but I don't see how it's any more *efficient* than ASP.

This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[J.D. Hogg]

"First, I want to make one thing clear: In my view, governments and public bodies should not push "gratis," "free," "open" or "proprietary" solutions over any of the other options. That could severely damage the incentives for software developers and the national market for IT at large."

You haven't quite understood the open-source and free-software business proposition, have you ? What's more, in my views, when the government buys Microsoft software, it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that ?

"The government should always choose the best computer program and IT solution at any given period of time."

You forget half of the equation : a government is more than a company, and they have to take national interests into account, which is usually more important than the technical solution. For non-US governments, that often means one of the most important requirements is to not run closed-source software from a US monopoly.

Re:This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[JohnBE]

A government also has to ensure interoperability, if the existing base is brand X they have to think twice as hard about a switch.

Re:This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[rabidcow]

"First, I want to make one thing clear: In my view, governments and public bodies should not push "gratis," "free," "open" or "proprietary" solutions over any of the other options. That could severely damage the incentives for software developers and the national market for IT at large."

You haven't quite understood the open-source and free-software business proposition, have you ? What's more, in my views, when the government buys Microsoft software, it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that?

You misunderstand the position. Currently the govt is effectively "pushing" microsoft's stuff. What you want, and what that quote states, is for them to stop pushing that, and not start pushing anything else specifically.

What do you see as a solution? If they start using something else, it still doesn't help your job in a "small non-Microsoft company." If they decide to use the best tools for the job (which they probably don't have the budget to determine) then your job security is based on your performance.

Personally, I think that the government *should* push open data storage formats. That would make switching to a different set of software that much less painful.

Re:This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that ?

That's certainly not fun. But it happens. The government will tell you the same thing. Why get some company that is not making money, and change the market so they can stay in business and just lose more money? The idea being, if your company goes under, you can move to a company that *does* make money. Unless you're a stuffed penguin or novelty t-shirt vendor, you problably aren't making money in open source. Sites like themes.org can't even afford to hire a development staff, and has to beg the volunteers to try and meet deadlines (and they fail, horribly). VA Linux is out of the linux biz. Microsoft does a lot more for the economy than Red Hat ever will.

Re:This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[Anonymous Coward]

That's certainly not fun. But it happens. The government will tell you the same thing. Why get some company that is not making money, and change the market so they can stay in business and just lose more money?
Upholding a monopoly is a way to kill the market and assure that everyone pays above market prices for low quality products. Nobody is asking the government to save some bad company - rather the call is to save the market! Besides, the question what software the government runs should be decided by the public - that is right, by those who pay the bill! That would be in a democracy... Tell someone that government spends his money for overpriced programs when free and better alternatives exsist and see the reaction. This question needs to be disscussed much more - the silence is deafeninig and also telling...

Re:This is a simplistic and US-centric article

[stubear]

"Besides, the question what software the government runs should be decided by the public - that is right, by those who pay the bill!"

However, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. This means you vote for someone who will lobby after your interests. After the tallying is done the majority constituent holds office for a predetermined amount of time and either works on your behalf because you voted along the majority lines or against or indifferent to your needs because your vote fell in the minority. If everyone were given a direct voice in our government there would be more chaos than what is available in hell.

it doesn't fit into the conceptual framework

[markj02]

Well, "open code" could mean several things. If it means free software, or Free Software, there is no procurement at all: people inside the government just use it; there is no procurement. By the time procurement happens, most likely, the government IT people have already ruled out free software. Procurement then involves two sides: the government and vendors. The vendors could, of course, involve companies like RedHat.

Re:Speaking of "procurement"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm... that link appears to be broken.

Try this one.

Links to some exisiting stuff

[JohnBE]

I have personally seen it in several places , it's out there but the tech-guys often don't shout about it. I don't know why, whether it is internal pressure, or commercial pressure or interoperability between departments.

QinetiQ the UK's commercial wing of DERA (Defense Evaluation and Research Agency) produced this report: QinetiQ_OSS_rep.pdf. Which is the most pro-OSS report I've read.

The German Government support GnuPG and a few other security related projects.

And of course the NSA have SE-Linux, and have put money into research at the university of Utah.

LANL have some pretty serious Linux clustering.

Re:Links to some exisiting stuff

[JohnBE]

Yet another open source procurement link, score &lt= big zero, yet again for the UK:

http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp?doc num=429

For those in Europe note the link to the E-Europescheme.

Sorting out an electronic infrastructure sounds like a real nightmare when your dealing with 317 million people.

Also, as another piece of trivia; the US Navy have well high end documented uses, but the USN PSA in San Diego uses Linux for personel support.

Re:Links to some exisiting stuff

[mpe]

the UK's commercial wing of DERA (Defense Evaluation and Research Agency) produced this report: QinetiQ_OSS_rep.pdf [govtalk.gov.uk]. Which is the most pro-OSS report I've read.

Considering what these people do "Blue Screen of Death" takes on an all together more serious meaning...
IIRC DERA did evaluate some Windows based battlefield systems, not sure how they actually performed.

Re:Links to some exisiting stuff

[markmoss]

I do know the Navy has put Windows into some ships. And they had the main propulsion BSOD'd at least once...

Support Contracts?

[SkewlD00d]

You also have to weight the costs/benefits of open-source, and what kind of support contract(s) you can get for such systems. A system can be completely open-source and proprietary at the same time, making the learning curve for any potential support personnel unnecessarily steep. Though Apache/BSD shoud be pretty much standard everywhere, as I can't see a good reason to use a Windoze webserver in a minimal cost environment, such as government. Then again, the government never seems to have any incentive to make fiscally-sound choices, as what profit motive do they have?

Re:Support Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of toss.

Your first sentence is meaningless - I think you need a verb and a ? in your 2nd clause. I think you're trying to say that even though the software is free (beer), you may have to spend more on support. If so, you'd be correct.

"A system can be completely open-source and proprietary at the same time" No, it can't. Do you know what proprietary means?

"making the learning curve for any potential support personnel unnecessarily steep". The steepness of a learning curve depends on the complexity of the software, not whether it is open-source or not.

You 3rd sentence is meaningless ... are you trying to say Apache is better than IIS because it's free?

incentive to make fiscally-sound choices, as what profit motive. And this is just utterly stupid. No, governments aren't out to make a profit ... that doesn't mean they aren't under pressure to spend wisely.

Re:Support Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incentive to make fiscally-sound choices, as what profit motive. And this is just utterly stupid. No, governments aren't out to make a profit ... that doesn't mean they aren't under pressure to spend wisely.
You make no sense! Pressure? From who? May be you are spellchecking their bills? That's a lot of pressure, right. I am sure you have no idea where your taxes go. But oooh, lets hope, someone, somewhere is keeping the pressure... We, in the meantime, will do some spellchecking and macho grande posturing...

Re:Support Contracts?

[oregon]

Pressure from the taxpayer, and from competition between departments for limited funds.

The government can't just print money (!), how much fuss has there been in the US press recently abut raising taxes and reducing the scope and size of tax cuts.

Each department has it's own needs - if you spend an extra billion on defense, then you take it away from health, etc. etc. etc.

Well over here in the UK

[Flossymike]

I saw on Friday that my job centre had up graded thier computer system. It was now running some form of Work Station. I couldn't be 100% sure it was running NT4 or Windows2000, but I think it was NT4.

The application(s) they were running were command line based DOS looking things.

Waste of Money? Could be. I think that they may have been running a Win 3.11 thing before, but I'm open to surguestion.

Crazy

Re:Well over here in the UK

[JohnBE]

They were until relatively recently (1-3 years) running 95 and even 3.11 based systems in several large departments. The DSS and Jobcenter system was a f**kup from start to finish, costing £billions of taxpayers money. Basically it didn't work. I've forgotten the name of the consultancy, but I think they appear in Private Eye every other issue.

Re:Well over here in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"I couldn't be 100% sure it was running NT4 or Windows2000, but I think it was NT4"

Now if I were to say, for instance, that I could figure out which version of Linux I was running, I think I'd be laughed out of Slashdotcom. Or, at the very least, I have someone whining about my lack of technical knowledge or understanding.

Hypocrites.

Re:Well over here in the UK

[Flossymike]

Fraid I couldn't see the screen fully from where I was sitting.

I think the sheer amount of choice available in Linux would make make it hard to be sure without sitting down at the computer.

Re:Well over here in the UK

[ThePilgrim]

EDS.

They are Private Eye's fave comp company :-)

Re:Well over here in the UK

[JohnBE]

I'm glad someone else pointed that one out ;-).

Little bit of politics there.

Closed-source developers are The Public too

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies pay a good portion of the taxes that pay for publicly-funded software. Governments should be encouraged to fund/use/get software that doesn't exclude use in closed-source software.

Re:Closed-source developers are The Public too

[mpe]

Companies pay a good portion of the taxes that pay for publicly-funded software. Governments should be encouraged to fund/use/get software that doesn't exclude use in closed-source software.

On this basis they should probably automatically exclude Microsoft, since they are expert at tax avoidance...

Lawrence Lessig had it right.

[caduguid]

IMHO, this idea is both reasonable and constructive. It's certainly not the radical pseudo-communism the purveyors of FUD will inevitably make it out to be.

Personally, I like the way Lessig put it in _The Future of Ideas_ when he argued that the government should encourage the development of open code.

"Open code ... risks none of the dangers of strategic behavior that closed code, or controlled networks, do. If open code is used strategically, then the resource to counter that strategic action are always available. Innovators can rely upon the promise of open code in their innovations. They need not worry that what they develop will be swallowed by the platform they develop for.

This encouragement should not be coercive. There's no reason to ban or punish proprietary providers. People should be free to develop code however they wish.

But a government has its own interests, and closing its resources to others is not one of them. If the federal government develops a system to handle welfare claims, what reason does it have for hiding the code for that system from the states? Why not let the states take that code and build upon it? And if the states, then so, too, with the universities. In each case, the aim should be to expand the reach of these powerful and valuable resources, not to contract and hoard them when to value to the hoarding exists." The Future of Ideas, p.249

Re:Lawrence Lessig had it right.

[(H)elix1]

But a government has its own interests, and closing its resources to others is not one of them.

Call me a cynic, but last time I looked the government seems to care a great deal what the (insert name of anything that puts money into a politician's pocket) ^H^H^H community wants. Since open source tends not to have the lobbyist or deep pockets an Adobe, Oracle, or any other large corporation, they have to fight fair.... Not so for the big boys - a checkbook can buy almost any "interest".

I chuckle when my co-workers were shocked about the matrix Enron put together to optimize their government purchases. To be innocent again...

Re:Lawrence Lessig had it right.

[dhogaza]

Not true at all. The EPA uses WordPerfect, for instance, because MS lost a competitive bid to supply the government with word processing software.

For years the Forest Service used Data General systems in all their offices, networked together (early achievers in that regard) but not via TCP/IP (they gateway'd back and forth eventually so they could talk to the rest of the world after the rest of the world started talking via e-mail). Again, it was another won bid scenario.

That, not "lobbyists lining a politician's pocket" , is typically how large purchasing decisions are made in the federal government, at least.

This does, actually, have certainly in the past worked against Open Source solutions. Now that there are sizable companies standing behind such solutions adoption may slowly follow. Sun, for instance, can bid Start Office when it finally releases and when existing contracts are up for renewal. If you don't think IBM will bid Linux servers in response to government bid auctions you're not watching enough TV and are missing out on some great commercials targetted towards executives everywhere.

Re:Lawrence Lessig had it right.

[tom's a-cold]

I've worked with government agencies, both within and outside the US, and have advised them on IT procurement policy. I admire Lessig and agree that it is in the public interest for governments to promote the free exchange of ideas.

There are two obstacles to this agenda: first, large governments have a tendency to acquire multiple, mutually incompatible solutions to the same problem. So it's not a simple problem of fighting lock-in to the de facto standard illegally imposed by the Beast of Redmond: there's also Star Office, Word Perfect, and four others that nobody has ever heard of. This is because the various departments responded to whoever lobbied them the hardest, or just applied their procurement rules differently. So, the current support and training requirements are unnecessarily complex, and there is a real need to cut down the list of solutions for any given problem. In a competitive environment of that kind, it's hard to displace a market leader. The sight of yet another alternative frightens them. And, to sort the mess out, budget is needed, and quick fixes always win out against correct long-term strategy.

The second problem is that, in government as in much of the private sector, control of information is power. Open dissemination of information is typically not in the interest of any bureaucrat, since it might enhance accountability. Much of the bizarre and seemingly inept behavior of government employees is really a well-executed way of concealing who made which decision. Anything that blows away the smokescreen might well be in the public interest, but not in the interest of the honcho providing the service. So there is a strong lobby opposing openness, and this inertia must be overcome. Usually that takes a scandal or two, otherwise the public is just too apathetic.

So, we agree on what's in the public interest. The bad news is that civil servants and politicians only care about the public interest when it bites them on the ass, and then, only until the teeth let go.

It used to be the rule

[Anonymous Coward]

All non-classified custom development for the US federal government used to be open source. If you could locate the agency that had the source and pay the cost of reproduction and shipping, you could get a copy of the source of any federal-government-paid-for program. This included a bunch of defense-related simulations, military pensions, military hospitals, atomic number crunching, and all kinds of miscellaneous programs too miscellaneous to describe.

Now, the more interesting provisions in government purchasing usually read like this (1) you have to certify that you never have and never will sell it to anyone else for less than you charge the government, (2) it has to be accessible to users with various handicaps (eg visually impaired, carpal tunnel victims, etc).

Re:It used to be the rule

[markmoss]

Now, the more interesting provisions in government purchasing usually read like this (1) you have to certify that you never have and never will sell it to anyone else for less than you charge the government, (2) it has to be accessible to users with various handicaps (eg visually impaired, carpal tunnel victims, etc).

How well does open source meet the needs of the handicapped? I know that it is be easier to make a text-based command-line system work for the blind (just link to a reader program), but a blind office-worker has to run the same word processor his colleagues are running -- and that's GUI whether it's Windoze & Office, or Gnome or KDE with Star Office... And how about accommodations for other handicaps?

Re:It used to be the rule

[guisar]

US Government SW was never open source- it simply couldn't be copyright by the government itself- other organizations were free to do so.

It's not as simple as it seems.

[evil_roy]

No-one would specify an OS / Platform or any other detail that is not necessary. A good specification in an RFQ ( Request for Quote) or an RFT (tender) outlines essential & desirable criteria. By specifying outcomes rather than details the market is opened up and the benefits of an open proceurement policy are seen - including $$$ savings , quality and probity.

The problems faced when writing specs are legacy systems & applications - staff knowledge & training included. It may be necessary to specify exact hardware / software ; you may be able to specify "compatibility" requirements rather than exact products ; or in the best case you can write an outcomes only based spec.

It's horses for courses though. The more open the better generally - if you start closing your specs you start removing some of the benefits - $$$$ , probity for example. But , if you have to run the app on an NT4 box with IIS then spec it that way.

If you need compatability with Office apps then spec it that way.

If you need Office then just order a copy. Once you water down your spec by being too tight you may as well just buy the product you want. There is no point issuing an RFQ if there is no market to test. And sometimes this is the best option to take.

Who cares if the code is closed?

[mvpll]

Not me. Open standards are what is needed. That way anyone can write software that interacts with other peoples protocols or file formats.

With open standards, governments (and individuals) are truely free to do whatever they like. They can throw their (our?) money away overseas to multi-nationals, purchase from local closed source developers, use free software or develop in house.

Personally I find the fact that democratic governments are letting private enterprise (rather then their electorates) dictate policy to them, well, ... typical, but disappointing

Wah wah wah, break out the small violins

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more, in my views, when the government buys Microsoft software, it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that ?

Put another way, you can't compete with the big boys, so you want the government to interfere in the market to benefit yourself? Welcome to capitalism, buddy - if you can't compete with the big boys, that's not the government's problem, that's yours. Be the next Microsoft. Create a better product, do the hard work of making it successful, live the American dream, instead of demanding the world change to fit you.

Re:Wah wah wah, break out the small violins

[WNight]

It's the capitalist troll again. Is this the same guy, or is there a group of Randites out there who do this?

Big hint: The US isn't a capitalismm.

As soon as the government starts passing laws regulating business you don't have a free unencumbered capitalism, you have a socialism.

The government already passes laws which benefit Microsoft (that their stupid restrictions in the EULA are binding in some states) so why shouldn't they pass laws which help other companies too?

Re:Wah wah wah, break out the small violins

[Tsujigiri]

As soon as the government starts passing laws regulating business you don't have a free unencumbered capitalism, you have a socialism.

Actually they are not talking about laws regulating what software other people can use, but regulating what government departments can use. Whole different kettle of fish. The problem is that the Government is such a big organisation that standardisation on an app creates huge ripples in the industry (plus any other businesses that want to be compatible with the gov.)

From J.D. Hogg's comment:
You forget half of the equation : a government is more than a company, and they have to take national interests into account, which is usually more important than the technical solution. For non-US governments, that often means one of the most important requirements is to not run closed-source software from a US monopoly.

I would say that a government is not a company in the usual sense of the word at all. Their primary interest is to get their administrative jobs done, and for that, the best technical solution is paramount. [Spurious example] Would you like to hear that your tax refund check is going to be an extra month late because the tax department computer system purchased was inapropriate for their needs because they couldn't find an open source vendor that could deliver the goods dispite closed source companies that could?

I too belive that open source should be using in government, but I don't think it should be jumpped into and mandated across the whole of government when it is inapropriate. Moderation in all things.

For government purchasing of IT solutions, cost effectiveness and price/performance is more important than vendor relationships or IT community placating. The various government departments have their own jobs to do and they should use the best tools at their disposal to do it, regardless of where they come from. It is up to the linux community and the companies that participate/support it to supply the best tools for the government, so that choosing open source will be a quality desicion and not a philisophical/political one.

You've got to have money to save money

[sam_handelman]

When the faculty are empowered - and I'm refering to the empowerment of cold, green, cash (for swimming in) - they can do as they please; which, when it comes to computers, is generally whatever their post docs, grad students and senior techs want (I'm a biologist.)

Often, at least here at Columbia, that means individual labs will just go out and buy a bunch of Intel machines on their own initiative, and put Linux on them. This has been going on for the past year or more, and Linux is starting to gain credence with the administration.

At a school where people don't have that kind of funding, individual groups don't have the resources to investigate, not just Linux but new avenues of procurement generally. As is too often the case, if you don't have the sugary wampum to evaluate the different vendors/solutions, you end up stuck with a bad deal.

Anyway, this is a problem that Linux people, especially those at academic instistutions, ought to be pursuing - I say this without bothering to look and see who's pursuing it and how, hoping that someone already familiar with the situation will respond by posting details.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that ill-will on the parts of some CS faculty towards some other CS faculty may be hampering the adoption of Linux by certain institutions.

Can free software save $400 per seat?

[yerricde]

The costs of retraining, cutting over, and so forth for even a 100 person organization would likely come to more than $40K

That comes to $400 per person. Thus, if switching to GNU/Linux would save at least $400 per seat in royalties, GNU/Linux would have a lower total cost of ownership.

[OT]New location of the goatse gaper

[Anonymous Coward]

[Goatse.cx] appears to be broken. Try [buttse.cx].

Actually, the Goatse Gaper has moved to http://www.hick.org/goat/ until the domain can be renewed.

Change file formats, not platforms...

[taiwanjohn]

There's no need to force the government to change software platforms, at least not if defeating M$'s monopoly is the goal. But as long as the government requires that bids/tenders/etc be submitted in closed file formats, they enforce a monopoloy for the vendors of such formats.

You're right, forcing a change of platforms would be expensive and slow. But how tough would it be for Pres.Bush to sign an executive order that all government offices should change their default Save format to RTF? ...and that correspondence will henceforth only be accepted in open formats? Legacy documents can still be opened and used, staff don't have to re-train... just stop forcing the rest of us to pay the Microsoft Tax in order to do business with our own damn governmnet!

This is The Real Microsoft Killer.

--jrd

Devry vs. University

[Weezul]

Trade schools like devry should worry about training people to do a job as soon as they get out. Universities are supposed to worry about providing a "breadth and depth of experences necissary to truely function in a changing world." All universities should have clusters with Windows, Mac, Linux systems.. and a unix command line interface to email via telnet. They should attempt to enshure that students find all systems at least partially useful at diffrent times. Clearly, it's more importent to enshure that students learn something about the theory side of computation in cs101, but cluster diversity is a good way of reinforcing it.

No need to go 10 years back..

[Kjella]

I remember when I was learning TikiCalc on Tikis, not PCs, 8-9 years ago. We did have a few PCs too (2/386 or something) amd they sure weren't running MS Office either, WordPerfect but not Lotus Notes either... But I must admit I heard the same being said about the intro computer classes 6-7 years ago, but I suppose then there was only two years until people could go out in Real Life(tm) and use it.

Kjella

30 day grace period

[Anonymous Coward]

should be enough...

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9..10...
11...12...13...14...15...16...17...18...
19...20...submit...

Looking out for public interest? U kidding!

[derfla8]

Who is anyone kidding? Apart from IT and the costs of IT, labour is an area that is the most expensive for governments. How many people believe unionized labour provides the most value to the consumer - the tax paying public? Probably very few, yet goverments persist in using overpaid labour that are shielded by their unions for poor performance and threatens our services with job action.

Give me an example of any goverment that runs in a cost effective manner with customer care in the forefront - and I'll show you an area where people including me would pay top dollar to immigrate to.

UK policy appears to be what you want.

[Bazzargh]

You can find the draft UK procurement policy on open source here: (all versions) (direct link to html version)

This has been driven by the EU recommendation to consider open source mentioned in the past on Slashdot.

Main body are these recommendations:

• UK Government will consider OSS solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements. Contracts will be awarded on a value for money basis.
• UK Government will only use products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments.
• UK Government will seek to avoid lock-in to proprietary IT products and services.
• UK Government will obtain full rights to bespoke software code that it procures and all customisations of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) packages that it uses wherever this achieves value for money.
• UK Government will explore further the possibilities of using OSS as the default exploitation route for Government funded R&D software by academic research institutes

... which all seems pretty laudable.

BTW: PLEASE DON'T SEND COMMENTS TO GOVTALK if you are just going to say 'me too'. The 7 comments that are there are all pro-open source and we dont want to sound like fanatics, do we? Remember how a lot of the comments to the EU on patent law were essentially ignored for this reason - don't duplicate the arguments of others.

Disclaimer: I don't work for the UK government, but I write software that gets sold to them. Which includes a lot of open source stuff. I just happened to be reading that policy today before I read /. ...

Cheers, Baz

Using open source to meet gov't specs

[superflippy]

I work for a research group which builds a lot of government software. AFAIK, we haven't run into any problems with organizations specifying which technology must be used to build the applications. They just want the software to 1) work with their existing procedures and 2) run on existing hardware, wherever possible. This has led to the development of a lot of web-based systems utilizing some open source solutions, sometimes hosted by the government and sometimes hosted by our group. Whatever works best, doesn't cost too much, and requires little training is what makes the gov't orgs happy.

No definite standard

[Kphrak]

Actually, and some may be surprised to know this...there is no definite standard. It works on an agency-by-agency basis, in my experience. So MS might get the "government" to buy, but what government? State? Federal? DoD? DoE? And which agencies of that department?

My agency has just decided to support Linux, although they're keeping desktops on NT4 at present. There's always someone who wants to experiment, and we're under pressure from upper management to support users who shoot themselves in the foot. One of the problems when you talk to management about supporting Linux, they say, "Hmmm...we could have Linux and decide on (slackware redhat debian etc etc...), or we could have MICROSOFT! Microsoft it is!" That is because as soon as Linux is mentioned, every zealot (you know who you are) launches a jihad in favor of his distro, and they all go down in a kicking, biting tangle like crazed ferrets.

In addition, corporations like Microsoft and Sun are trusted for support. I'm NOT saying Linux has no support, I'm saying that it is put out by a series of different providers and supported by a series of different consultants, none of which have withstood the fires of the dotcom crash. Linux has a reputation for being a hobbyist OS; no manager wants to get support from some bozo in a garage somewhere. There is also the concern of interoperability; .doc, .xls, .ppt, etc are not supported by Linux without a lot of tinkering. Unless we're just talking about servers...and even then many managers will probably get antsy. "What's a server? Why isn't this one Microsoft too?" My managers aren't clueless, but they're leery of Linux for the support reasons.

<rant> That being said, I don't even know why I'm mentioning this stuff. From the comments I've seen so far on this topic, most Slashdotters don't really want to know why the US Government (or any other) doesn't accept Linux. They just want another chance to scream "Why?", like kids who ask for every piece of candy/junk food they see in the supermarket and then wail when Mom says No. "Why is the government using software made by a monopoly? Why is this article US-centric? Why are my rights being violated? Why is everything just so unfair?" </rant> I'm being harsh, but this article is so clearly a troll that I'm hard-pressed not to laugh. Until I see myself replying to it. :)