Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Closed source programs like Office are the standard in government (just like in the private sector).
:: I'm The Man Now, Dawg!
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
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
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.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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.
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?
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
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.
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.
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.
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.
C.
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
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?
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?
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
#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.
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
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.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai