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

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!

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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).

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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

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: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?

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.

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: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: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: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...

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: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...

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

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.