UK Sets Open Source Procurement Policy

An anonymous submitter notes a story in the Register about the UK publishing their policy on the use of Open Source software. (Or skip straight to the policy itself.) The UK has been moving towards this for a while, and while they don't rule out using proprietary code, the policy definitely recognizes the benefits of OSS.

Comments

OSS in the UK government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Folks,

This revelation would seem to be at least something of a nail in the coffin of Microsoft selling software to HM Government. I think that here in the UK there is a gradual awakening (both in national and regional government) that there *is* something better than MS's products.

In reality certain departments of the governments both in the UK and around the world have been using OSS for ages - what the UK likes to do once a critical point has been reached is to 'formalise' everything on paper. This is just the formalisation. In truth this won't open the floodgates to a lot of departments 'Switching'. It'll just make it easier for IT managers to take the perceived 'riskier option' of choosing OSS above MS.

Encouraging to see. Here's hoping some other governments start to see sense and do the same.

X.

Best Part

[Fascist Christ]

My favorite line, from the policy:

...removing the reliance on individual IT suppliers

This portion of the policy alone, if used by everyone, could really hurt M$ and finally bring fair competition to the common desktop pc.

Re:Best Part

[seanyboy]

I think this is the core of it. The (UK) Government has been stung several times over the last few years by proprietry systems. ICL and Microsoft come to mind most readily.

Of course, there's a lot of people who work on Government systems who'll be disappointed by the announcement. It looks like the days and advantages of being the only XL57Z-6000 (or whatever) Series programmer in the UK will be coming to an end.

Re:awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when Blair, Clinton, and Schroeder seemed like the leaders of a real, lasting change in governance of the Western world.

Anything good that came out of Clinton's 8 years in the Oval Office was surely a mistake.

Of course, thanks to the beauty of the way government can effect the economy in the long term, almost every President takes the blame (or credit) for the policy of the President(s) before him, and very few can actually manage to do anything that has an economic impact during their own term(s).

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Having those numbers, as well as some solid cost-benefit analysis should help speed corporate adoption.

You're making a huge assumption there. Have you ever given any critical thought to what the real TCO of Linux is? It's not too bad on the server side; discounting the NRE of hardware and server software, the TCO for a Linux server is about the same as the TCO for any other Unix server. Once you add the hardware and software back in, you end up with a package that's nice and cheap.

But on the desktop... whew! The TCO of Linux is huge. There's support costs, training and re-training costs, application development costs... it's just a killer. When-- or, more accurately, if-- Linux reaches the point where the cost of re-training your staff and acquiring the needed software is less than the cost of Windows plus Windows applications, then it makes sense-- from a TCO standpoint-- to run Linux on the desktop. But that's a long way off.

If anything, looking at the TCO for desktop computer systems will probably benefit Microsoft more than Linux.

Re:ph33rf of London in Redmond

[anthonyclark]

May I just say, on behalf of many many brits who scratch their heads in bewilderment at the US stereotype of bad teeth...

FUCK YOU

that's better...

Re:TCO

[swillden]

Man, somebody really has a hard-on for me today. That's three ``-1, Flamebait'' moderations on two posts in just the past hour or so.

Wow. Let's analyze this:

One was applied to a post in which I said that the TCO of Linux on the desktop compares negatively to the TCO of Windows on the desktop

Which "fact" you stated without any supporting argumentation beyond "My secretary can do this with Windows, betcha it'd be different under Linux". Your comments smelled a bit like gasoline to me.

the parent, in which I said that browsers that fail to render pages the same way IE does should be considered broken

Ah, an unabashed the-big-boy-is-always-right, standards-be-damned, everyone-else-is-wrong attitude. Gettin' pretty high-octane there, bub.

I'm glad to see that reasoned, critical opinions are treated with such respect from the Slashdot crowd.

Reasoned? Critical, certainly, but reasoned? Where's the reasoning? I saw bald-faced, controversial statements with no facts, figures or logic to back them up!

FWIW, I would be very cautious about deploying a Linux desktop to non-techies. I think it could work, but it would have to be carefully configured and tested before deployment, and I think there's a certain class of users (non-technical "power" users who like to install software and tweak stuff but don't really understand any of it) for whom Linux is *not* a good choice at the moment.

But, that's my opinion, based on my own experience using Windows and Linux, and based on my observations of non-techie Windows users who have converted over, and I'm not about to claim that everyone else should find it blindingly obvious.

Re:awesome!

[csteinle]

Actually, Blunkett seems to do a bait and switch all the time. Propose something totally outrageous, then back down and "compromise" to what you actually wanted in the first place AND get to look reasonable and willing to meet people's concerns.

This government has lost all credability when it come to image - you're never quite sure if it's real or spin.

Re:TCO

[swillden]

No, it's not complicated at all. You're just making a lot of hidden assumptions, that's all. Those assumptions may or may not be invalid, but determining the facts of the situation requires research, not statements about the blinding obviousness of the conclusions.

You are assuming:

• There is no retraining cost with using Windows-based tools. This one is easily disprovable.
• There are significant retraining costs with using Linux-based tools. This one is really complex, and the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
• There are no TCO implications of a given configuration outside of license fees and training costs. This one is also easy to disprove. What's not clear at all is which solution has the better TCO (which was where the whole discussion started).
• De facto standards are more important than de jure standards. In the short term, I suppose this is often true. In the long term, this attitude would screw the whole industry badly. The right approach is not to blithely accept that only IE works with some web sites, the right approach is to *fix* the web sites so they're compliant with standards. That will have other benefits far beyond allowing other browsers to use sites. For example, creation of automated systems that talk to web sites for you is becoming more popular, and standards compliance makes those systems easier to build and less prone to bugs. Also, aging of proprietary formats is a real problem, and one that is likely going to bite us hard in a few years. Adherence to standards helps a great deal with this problem.
• Finally, you're assuming that all users and all companies have needs similar to yours. I'm working with a client right now who sees a lot of value in Linux because their users _don't understand it_. This client wants their users to have a few, specific apps to do a few, specific things and they don't want their users mucking about with anything else. They also want centralized management of all of those systems, which is easier and cheaper with UNIX-type system.

if the open source folks want to build software that can be seriously considered as an alternative to the tools people already use, they must not force the user base to compromise.

Ah, here's another faulty assumption: Forcing the user to change is equivalent to forcing the user to compromise. Change can be for the better. Many companies didn't want to pay the costs for retraining Win98 users on Win2K, but the superior stability of Win2K convinced them that the change was beneficial. My laptop has 43 days of continuous uptime right now, and it only got rebooted a month and a half ago because I wanted to play a Windows-only game. That's a system that goes through a zillion suspends, hibernates, has four different kinds of PCMCIA network cards and a half dozen USB devices attached and removed on a regular basis. That kind of rock-solid reliability is worth something.

I will change to another operating system if, and only if, it benefits me to do so.

Not me. I'll change just because I like variety. But that's just me; when making a decision as to whether or not to convert an office staff to a different system, only an idiot would do it on a whim. What I'm really saying here is: "Well, DUH!"

Giving me software that's equivalent to, but different from, what I use now will not motivate me to change.

Here's another mistaken assumption: You seem to believe that open source developers want you to use something else. Trust me: we couldn't care less what you use. We'll use what works for us. Now, I do care what my government uses, and I think representative Villanueva from Peru did an admirable job of explaining why open source software has a fundamental advantage over proprietary software, and TCO has little or nothing to do with it (although I think that in many -- not all -- cases OSS has lower TCO). For that reason I applaud the UK policy shift, and encourage them to strengthen it.