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

and the defualt choice is ....

[Alien54]

An important and useful point from the policy

• UK Government will explore further the possibilities of using OSS as the default exploitation route for Government funded R&D software."

which is a fascinating surprise

o/~ money, money money o/~

[Mr_Silver]

Wheee!!

I look forward to Bill Gates parachuting into the UK and depositing a ... ahem ... small donation to help us sort out the mess that is our railways!

Re:o/~ money, money money o/~

[JimPooley]

Yup, a donation to the Queen's election fund.
I think you'll find that the only place they elect Queens is the ficticious planet of Naboo.

TCO

[nate1138]

Quoth the article:

UK Government will consider OSS solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements. Contracts will be awarded on a value for money basis.

Maybe now we can get some real total cost of ownership analysis for linux systems. IMHO this is something that has been lacking (except of course for the TCO workups done by Microsoft, and those can't be considered accurate. Not because they are from MS, but because they are being used as tools to outsell a competitor, and therefore are immediately suspect.) Having those numbers, as well as some solid cost-benefit analysis should help speed corporate adoption.

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:TCO

[gowen]

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.

This research you're citing sounds very interesting. Can you give me a reference?

Re:TCO

[Space cowboy]

Microsoft don't think so - they're (Balmer) admitting that Linux TCO is less than windows, and now they need better arguments than "We're cheaper".

Plus, big government contracts are only sometimes for general-purpose bloke-in-a-box solutions, and hell, the UK will just go for MS at the moment with those ones. Fair enough.

The really lucrative contracts are the defence and systems contracts though. There's a lot of space there for Linux to make its' own....

Simon.

Re:TCO

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Bah, who needs a support staff for Linux. Just have an e-mail address that in answer to any query spits out "RTFM".

Companies could save millions!

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

I understand your point, but I think you're being kinda silly. What research is necessary to show that people who are trained to use MS Office under Windows have to be re-trained to use some other application under Linux? This is blindingly obvious. And while the learning curve from one platform to the other may be shallow in some specific areas-- like typing in a word processor, for instance-- it gets steeper when you move into other common tasks, like emailing a word processor document to a colleague. You do it one way with Word and Outlook, and an entirely different way with whatever-you-please on Linux. Voila, retraining.

You don't need a trade study to know how zero retraining on the left compares to non-zero retraining on the right.

Re:TCO

[Jason Earl]

TCO for Linux might be too high if you plan on putting a PC on everyone's desk, but if you roll out Linux desktops intelligently (ie. using thin clients) then TCO is far lower than Windows, even including retraining costs. You see, the beauty of Linux is that, for the first time in recorded history there is a fairly comprehensive set of applications that can be served up via X11. One commodity Linux box (provided it has enough memory) can easily handle hundreds of X terminals. So instead of hundreds of PCs to babysit you would be left with one server per hundred users (or so). Backups, software upgrades, account changes, client configuration, etc. all become trivial matters when you are only dealing with one machine. Likewise upgrading the clients becomes far more economical.

Yes, there are some niggly little client details that require some work, but it is definitely possible to set up Linux clients that are functional and userfriendly, and the cost savings in hardware and software (and especially staffing) can be enormous. It's even possible to use Citrix to use "legacy" software during the changeover.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

This has nothing to do with advanced users. This has to do with my secretary, who knows how to email Word documents and web pages to me by going to the ``File'' menu and selecting ``Send To Mail Recipient'' (or whatever it is). Up pops an email message with the file attached, and she just types my name and clicks ``Send.'' She's not dumb, by any stretch of the imagination, but she's not a computer hobbyist, either. She doesn't mess with 'em for fun. She uses her PC as a tool to get her job done.

When you're using (insert name of word processor here) under Linux, can you go to the ``File'' menu (or any menu), select ``Sent To Mail Recipient'' (or something like that), type in an email address, and click ``Send?'' If you can't, then my secretary will have to be re-trained to use Linux. Can you create a PDF by printing to the Acrobat Distiller printer? If you can't, then my secretary will have to be re-trained to use Linux.

I'm not speaking from a position of experience here; I have no idea how to do those basic, ten-times-every-day tasks with any combination of applications under Linux. But no matter how easy it may be, it's different, and that means I'll have to re-train my secretary. That'll cost me money and time. If the cost of re-training my secretary exceeds the cost of a copy of Windows plus the necessary software, then Linux costs me more than Windows.

You said, ``the functionality that they do make use of is already replicated quite well under Linux.'' Back that up. Explain to me, please, how to do the following task with any combination of applications for Linux.

1. Open the Excel file containing such-and-such vendor's price list. (We get these from our vendors, so we don't get a say in their format. They come as Excel files.)

2. Open the word processing document that I just emailed you and find the table cell marked, ``paste description here.'' (I create that document, so it can be in any format, as long as it supports in-line tables.) Paste the description of part so-n-so from the price list into the table cell.

3. Turn the word processing document into a PDF, and mail it back to me for approval.

In real life, the job would be a lot more complex, of course, but it would basically consist of that list of steps, permuted in various ways. She can carry that job out very easily with Windows, using Excel, Word, Outlook, and Acrobat Distiller. How would you do that job with Linux and Linux applications? If you can do it at all, is the process close to or very different from the process my secretary currently uses? (The more different, the more it will cost me to re-train.)

I'm going to stand behind my call of ``blindingly obvious'' on this one.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

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. 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, and two were applied to the parent, in which I said that browsers that fail to render pages the same way IE does should be considered broken. I'm glad to see that reasoned, critical opinions are treated with such respect from the Slashdot crowd.

Oh, well. Just blowin' karma today, after all.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Your comment was no help at all. If you've used both MS Office and Linux office applications, as you say, then you should have no trouble at all telling me specifically how one would do the things I asked about. Without some kind of specific information, I'm afraid your post really carries no weight at all.

Re:TCO

[flacco]

You don't need a trade study to know how zero retraining on the left compares to non-zero retraining on the right.

You don't need to be a physicist to know that you turn motorcycle handlebars to the right to go right, and to the left to go left.

Except that's not the case. A physicist will tell you about counter-steer. The fact is, to go left on a motorcycle, you push the handlebars to the right, and vice versa.

Re:TCO

[swillden]

This has to do with my secretary, who knows how to email Word documents and web pages to me by going to the ``File'' menu and selecting ``Send To Mail Recipient'' (or whatever it is). Up pops an email message with the file attached, and she just types my name and clicks ``Send.''

She would do exactly the same thing using OpenOffice. File->Send->Document as e-mail.

1. Open the Excel file containing such-and-such vendor's price list. (We get these from our vendors, so we don't get a say in their format. They come as Excel files.)

Click on the file. OpenOffice starts up and displays it.

2. Open the word processing document that I just emailed you and find the table cell marked, ``paste description here.'' (I create that document, so it can be in any format, as long as it supports in-line tables.) Paste the description of part so-n-so from the price list into the table cell.

Click on the word processing document, OpenOffice opens it. Click on the already-open spreadsheet, find the data, select it, hit Ctrl-C (or, if you prefer, use the menus: Edit->Copy). Click back over to the word processing document, click in the cell, hit Ctrl-V (or Edit->Paste).

3. Turn the word processing document into a PDF, and mail it back to me for approval.

This is the only one that is even the slightest bit different. Click File->Print, select Print to PDF, choose a file name, click OK. Click back to your e-mail message, click reply, drag the new PDF document over and drop it on the message, click send.

Now, how painful was that, exactly?

The fact is, that you're making arguments based on the "blinding obviousness" of baseless and uneducated suppositions (that just happen to be wrong).

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Good thing we're not talking about motorcycles, then.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Thanks for the info. I'm glad to see that somebody is willing to discuss this subject with me.

When you use OpenOffice's ``send document as email'' feature, what exactly happens? Does OpenOffice have its own email functionality built in, or does it fire off another email program?

I have basically the same question about PDF generation. Does OpenOffice use its own PDF generator, or does it use Adobe's, or what?

Thanks again.

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:TCO

[swillden]

VMWare is another excellent option for dealing with legacy Windows software.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Look, this really isn't that complicated.

1. There are literally millions of people out there who have experience using Windows and Windows applications for basic business tasks: email, browsing the web, document handling, and so on. Let's say that 5,000 of them work for MyCorp. If MyCorp wants to deploy 5,000 Linux desktops instead of 5,000 Windows desktops (savings: 5,000 times whatever MyCorp pays per head for Windows), they're going to have to re-train 5,000 people to use different (albeit similar) tools. Whether they have to be re-trained a little or a lot, it still adds up fast. It's not clear, because of a lot of things, whether it would cost more to deploy Linux or to stick with Windows. There is no clear, universally applicable cost-savings case associated with Linux. Blame it on inertia or the entrenchment of Windows or what-have-you, but it's the case nonetheless.

2. The idea of a de facto standard is not new, and it shouldn't be controversial. At my business, we use lots of web apps, for everything from order processing to HR. When one of my coworkers complained last month that the trouble ticket app wouldn't work properly with Mozilla, there was a sudden and final answer: use IE. You can wave all the paper standards you want; if the software isn't useful because of the way it renders-- or fails to render-- pages, then it gets replaced by the better-behaved incumbent. I'm sure this scenario is being played out over and over again all over the world, even as we speak.

Both of these points speak to the same basic idea: 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. I will change to another operating system if, and only if, it benefits me to do so. Giving me software that's equivalent to, but different from, what I use now will not motivate me to change. Giving me software that isn't as useful to me as what I have now sure as hell won't motivate me to change.

Re:TCO

[CoolVibe]

have basically the same question about PDF generation. Does OpenOffice use its own PDF generator, or does it use Adobe's, or what?

Does it matter? Unlike the MS word format, the PDF file format is open and can be generated quite easily and reliably without the papal sanction of Adobe.

Re:TCO

[mpe]

What research is necessary to show that people who are trained to use MS Office under Windows have to be re-trained to use some other application under Linux? This is blindingly obvious.

No more so than changing between different versions of MS Office, which also is blindingly obvious.
This kind of thing would be laughed at were it applied to driving a car too.

Re:TCO

[nate1138]

The problem with VMWare is that you have to have a copy of windows to run on the virtual machine. So there is actually a big cost problem there as far as TCO for the platform is concerned. If you have to purchase VMWare and windows, why bother running linux at all?

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Jee-zus, talk about your knee-jerk reactions. If you read a little more closely, I was asking if OpenOffice has PDF generation built in or if it uses an external application. That's a very important question, because I need to know whether I can generate PDFs within OpenOffice by itself, or whether I'll have to make sure some external software is installed first.

I've gotta tell you, issues of cost and re-training notwithstanding, it's people like you that will put the open source software movement into an early grave.

Re:TCO

[nate1138]

Absolutely right. I don't understand why some people have such a hard time with that simple little concept. Sure the apps are similar, but not the same. People have a hard enough time learning an application on Windows in the first place. Example: I had to train a dozen or so salespeople to use that godforsaken piece of dogshit known as ACT!. It took no less than 2 days of my time to drill it into their itty bitty brains just the basics of syncing data, etc. Now imagine retraining hordes of these people on applications that don't even look the same on the surface, let alone function identically. Nightmare time.

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.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Driving a car? No. The gas is on the right and the brake is in the middle. The one on the left is the clutch. The big round thing in the middle is for turning. In front of you is a gauge that tells you how fast you're going.

Every car I've ever seen has those characteristics. Right-hand drive, left-hand drive, sports car, truck, whatever. The same basic user interface is found everywhere.

A more apt analogy would be to compare a car to a boat. You can do the same basic things-- forward, left, right, faster, slower-- but some of them have to be done in entirely different ways.

Re:TCO

[mpe]

TCO for Linux might be too high if you plan on putting a PC on everyone's desk, but if you roll out Linux desktops intelligently (ie. using thin clients) then TCO is far lower than Windows,

It's likely to be lower than Windows even with regular workstations. Since (l)user fiddling with hardware and software settings is out. Something Windows is only just catching up on, but hampered by legarcy application support.

Re:TCO

[swillden]

If you have to purchase VMWare and windows, why bother running linux at all?

As a temporary strategy to facilitate technology shift with long-term benefits.

Also, you can often get away with less licenses than you have users, if your users don't have to use the Windows apps all the time. Effectively, you have a small set of virtual Windows machines which your users take turns using. I believe the higher-end VMWare products will even assist with the license management to ensure that you're legal. Under this scenario, the virtual Windows boxen all live on one big VMWare server and the end-users use them over the network (X makes this very easy, of course).

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Your post is well-written and well-thought-out. Unfortunately, I disagree with most of it. Rather than just saying ``nuh-uh'' about thirty times, I'll let you have the last word on this issue.

Re:TCO

[SurfsUp]

If you read a little more closely, I was asking if OpenOffice has PDF generation built in or if it uses an external application.

I believe it uses ghostview, an external application.

That's a very important question, because I need to know whether I can generate PDFs within OpenOffice by itself, or whether I'll have to make sure some external software is installed first.

With open source software it's not really an important question, since there's no new license to pay for. In fact, you *want* things to be properly modular wherever possible, so that each component can do the job it does best, and not fill your hard drive up with redundant code etc.

Anyway, OpenOffice is designed to let you install components whenever you want. you can go ahead and do an initial install no matter which components you already have, then add bits and pieces later if needed. I don't know about you, but I like that attitude a lot.

Re:TCO

[SurfsUp]

-1, Flamebait'' moderations ... were applied to the parent, in which I said that browsers that fail to render pages the same way IE does should be considered broken.

You're right, but only because -1, Just Plain Wrong isn't available as a moderation option. Obviously, a browser that fails to render a page in some broken IE way is not necessarily broken: it comes down to standards, as in W3C standards. Whichever browser does not correctly implement the standard is the broken one.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

With open source software it's not really an important question, since there's no new license to pay for.

Absolutely it's an important question. Whether the software costs money or not, it still has to be acquired, installed, and (possibly) configured. This is a trade-off. Windows software has to be bought, but installing and configuring it is (usually) very simple. Linux software, on the other hand, doesn't have to be bought, but is (usually) quite tedious to install and configure. So if you told me that the commercial product costs $100 and has a three-click installer, but that the free alternative consists of seventeen packages that must all be installed individually, I think the smart choice is to just buy the commercial product and be done with it. But that's my perspective; I'm in the position of having more money than time, at least when we're talking about $100.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Did you not read my post in which I talked about de facto standards? All the paper standards in the world can't help you if you decide to release a web browser that doesn't render pages in the way that the user needs it to. Consider my situation. We spent a good chunk of change-- not millions, but several thousand bucks-- getting our trouble ticket application written and debugged. We have the option of either contracting with the vendor to open up that application and make the changes necessary to make it work properly with Mozilla 1.0, for a few thousand more bucks, or use IE instead of Mozilla, at no cost at all. Which do you think we chose?

Re:TCO

[MrResistor]

Well, it couldn't possibly be any worse than Act, could it? Perhaps it would be easier to train people on an app that isn't a big pile of shit?

For the record, I have used Act, and it is in fact a big pile of shit. Most OSS designed with a GUI in mind compares quite favorably, IMO.

Re:TCO

[nate1138]

Umm, no you can't "get away with" less licenses than you have users. MS is very clear in their EULA. One copy to be installed on one machine. Period.

Re:TCO

[swillden]

Ahh, but there is only one copy per machine. One per virtual machine. In reality there are fifty copies running on one machine (the server), but their displays get moved from place to place all the time.

This has all been hashed out pretty thoroughly on the vmware discussion groups.

Re:TCO

[swillden]

I'm really not interested in "having the last word", and I'd really _like_ to see some good counterarguments to mine -- I'm interested in *being* right, in the sense of having beliefs that accurately reflect the state of reality, rather than just *appearing* to be right (i.e. "winning" the argument), so having you give up does me no good whatsoever.

And, if you remain convinced that you're right but still cannot articulate a single reasonable counterargument or point to a single counterexample, then this little discussion has been a complete waste of your time as well.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

De facto standards are all well and good, but why should your application require to use anything outside the feature set supported by all browsers?

Because when we contracted to have this app, and others, written, ``all browsers'' consisted of Netscape 4 (which was long obsolete even then), IE 5 for Windows and Mac, and various second-tier products that were of no relevance to us. Mozilla didn't even exist yet.* It's unreasonable to expect that any software vendor should be held to a standard of forwards-compatibility. We would not expect them to guarantee that the apps would work with browsers that hadn't even been released yet. That's just absurd.

In any case, this job was done and paid for a long time ago, so we're in no position-- nor have we any particular desire-- to argue over it.

Also, just FYI, all our web apps are J2EE, not CGI. They have a surprising amount of presentation-layer logic, more perhaps than you might have guessed.

* Please don't talk to me, as so many others have, about the various 0.n versions. Neither I nor my company has time to mess with software that is of less-than-1.0 quality. As far as we're concerned, Mozilla didn't even exist until just a few weeks ago.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

I'd love to hear what, exactly, you consider to be ``power user'' features in, say, a word processor. Printing, maybe? Spell-checking? Style sheets? Table of contents and index generation? Change control?

At my company, every employee, from the interns to the CEO, uses those features regularly to produce our documents. And these aren't complex documents; they're contracts, and proposals, and whitepapers. Standard stuff. To us, these aren't ``power user'' features. They're basic tools.

Maybe the problem, here, is that the developers (or at least advocates) of open source office software don't actually use office software themselves.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Be that as it may, simply saying, ``it ain't necessarily so'' doesn't make for a very productive or interesting argument.

And your example is a terrible one. The idea the current flows from the positive pole to the negative pole springs-- when it does spring-- from the arbitrary names attached to the charges. If they were called ``right'' and ``left'' or ``square'' and ``round,'' your ``common sense'' would tell you something entirely different.

We're talking about drawing conclusions from facts: people know how to use Windows, but they don't know how to use Linux. Therefore, people will have to be taught how to use Linux, at a nonzero but undetermined cost. Training costs to maintain the status quo are fixed at zero. Voila, it costs more in training to move people to Linux than it costs to keep them on Windows. If the cost of the retraining (as yet undetermined) exceeds the cost of staying on Windows (also undetermined), it makes more sense to keep using Windows.

I'd love to hear somebody explain to me how that line of reasoning is flawed. Because I haven't heard it yet.

Re:TCO

[mpe]

Driving a car? No. The gas is on the right and the brake is in the middle. The one on the left is the clutch. The big round thing in the middle is for turning. In front of you is a gauge that tells you how fast you're going.

Cars have different numbers of gears, complicated further on a 4 wheel drive. Automatics don't have a clutch, but may have a foot operated parking brake in its place. The indicators may be on the right or the left, no standard place for horn, lights and wipers. But somehow people manage to just get on with this. Maybe because, unlike with computers, no-one would take any moaning seriously.

Re:TCO

[SurfsUp]

We spent a good chunk of change-- not millions, but several thousand bucks-- getting our trouble ticket application written and debugged. We have the option of either contracting with the vendor to open up that application and make the changes necessary to make it work properly with Mozilla 1.0, for a few thousand more bucks, or use IE instead of Mozilla, at no cost at all. Which do you think we chose?

You made your mistake much earlier in the process: paying money to somebody to develop content that doesn't conform to W3C standards. You should have paid the same money to somebody with a clue, and you would not ever have to worry about that problem.

Next time you pay to develop web content, show your contractor this website.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Mistake? Where did you get the idea that we made a mistake? We've been deploying web applications for key business operations gradually over the past couple of years, and our overall efficiency has skyrocketed. It used to take more than a week to get a sales order filled for a customer. Now that order can be entered in the morning, product ships around lunchtime, and the invoice goes out that afternoon. There's no mistake here.

This is my whole point, really: W3C standards are absolutely irrelevant to us. They're just pieces of paper as far as I'm concerned. What's relevant to my company is our existing base of web applications. If Mozilla (or whatever) can't run those applications well enough that the users don't notice a difference, then Mozilla won't find a home here.

Why get religious about standards? They're important only to the extent that they improve things. Releasing a browser that's 100% compliant with the specification of the standard but that can't do the job of the incumbent browser doesn't help anybody. The Mozilla team should have spent more time implementing compatibility with IE-- or at least an IE compatibility mode that can be turned on and off in the ``advanced'' pane of the preferences dialog-- and less time implementing features that nobody needs. How much time was spent implementing the ``skinnable'' interface? How much time was spent on the mail and news readers? The browser doesn't have a goddamn ``home'' button on the toolbar, but it reads news, and look at all these kewl skinz, d00d!

What a waste. What an unbelievable waste of time and effort. Is it any wonder that IE is the more popular browser? For all their faults, Microsoft implemented features that developers and users actually wanted, while the Mozilla coalition gave us kewl skinz.

If you want to talk about mistakes, I think we can start right there.

Re:TCO

[SurfsUp]

Why get religious about standards?

For the same reason we get religious about freedom of speech. But you wouldn't understand that. I refer back to my advice that your co-workers need to dust off their resumes, there are more enlightened places to work.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

Always beware of a man who acts in the name of ``enlightenment'' or ``principle.'' He's either conning you, or deluding himself. Any person who acts contrary to his own self-interest-- particularly where business is concerned-- is either a liar, a fool, or a saint. Calculating the odds is left as an exercise for the reader.

If you would rather work for an ``enlightened'' company than a successful and profitable one, then by all means, get out. If you're a decent employee, I will happily consider re-hiring you in six months when you find that you can't put your kids through college working on your highly principled, highly enlightened, not-for-profit, eco-friendly, neo-collectivist software kibbutz.

Re:TCO

[SurfsUp]

If you would rather work for an ``enlightened'' company than a successful and profitable one, then by all means, get out. If you're a decent employee, I will happily consider re-hiring you in six months when you find that you can't put your kids through college working on your highly principled, highly enlightened, not-for-profit, eco-friendly, neo-collectivist software kibbutz.

Indeed, I am now sure that you are nothing more than a Microsoft astroturfer, since you are simply spouting from the Microsoft 'how to FUD' playbook.

I stand by 'dust off your resume' for your coworkers.

Re:TCO

[foobar104]

God, does nobody understand what ``FUD'' means? If I were slinging FUD, I'd mention the case from several months ago in which Apple had to remove various bits of code from the Darwin project because one of the contributors was under 18. Because he was a minor, he was legally unable to waive his copyright and other rights in submitting code to Apple. Apple had no choice but to reject his submissions-- actually backing out checked-in code, if I remember correctly-- because, in a few years when that kid hits majority, there would be nothing stopping him from suing Apple on a copyright or other IP rights infringement claim. And he'd win, too. Apple would have been using his code without his permission, since, as a minor, he was legally unable to give permission to them, no matter what he may have said or done.

Then there's the case of Tilly, from just this past spring. He did some work on some pretty important Perl modules while working for an employer with whom he had an inventions contract. In that case, Tilly had no right to waive the rights to his work, because they were never his to begin with. His employer owned the rights to everything he had done during his employment, which included some fairly well-known open source work.

The lesson from both of these instances is the same: you can't give away what you don't own. Because there's nobody out there double-checking the validity of programmer's claims when they GPL their code, there's no safety net at all to ensure that this sort of thing isn't happening every day. So, basically, unless somebody took the trouble to do a background check, there are no guarantees that any of that so-called ``free'' software is anything of the sort. Consider the odds-- of all the open source programmers in the world, how many of them are under 18, or are under contract to an employer? All that code-- or, rather, all your rights to use that code-- could disappear tomorrow, if the wind were to shift just a little bit. Is that something you're willing to bet your business on?

For me, the answer is yes. My company has a number of Linux file and application servers inside our firewalls, and everything outside is running one flavor or another of BSD. Once you get all the bugs worked out, you just can't beat the cost-effectiveness of Linux or BSD servers.

But on the desktop, the stuff just doesn't work. So we're a Windows shop all the way. At home, I value my time more than my money, so I only own Macs.

Still think I'm a turfer?

There's enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding ``free'' software as it is. I don't need to press the point, and I sure as hell don't get paid to do so.

I would happily take a job as an Apple astroturfer, however. I'd take that job in a heartbeat.

awesome!

[cswiii]

First it's a loosening of their marijuana laws, and now an endorsement for open-sourced software.

Who ever thought the stodgy old British government would be this... progressive?

Re:awesome!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Labour party, you know. Not the bloody Tories.

Re:awesome!

[agdv]

First it's a loosening of their marijuana laws, and now an endorsement for open-sourced software.

Maybe they're related?

No, can't be. They would have to be on crack, not pot.

(let the flame fest begin!)

Re:awesome!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Tony Blair is a progressive, you know. Oh, he's a slick politico, of course, but he's managed to reach the top without completely selling his soul, which is an impressive achievement. And now that Jack Straw has been demoted, the UK government in general is a lot less scary and a lot more likeable.

I remember when Blair, Clinton, and Schroeder seemed like the leaders of a real, lasting change in governance of the Western world. Of course, Crown Prince George's handlers managed to derail the process in the US, and it's hard to tell how German politics are going at the moment, but at least the UK is still going strong.

Re:awesome!

[David Gerard]

Blunkett is bloody scary, though. RIPA? Removing double jeopardy? ("We'll keep dragging you back into court until you give in.")

Re:awesome!

[gosand]

First it's a loosening of their marijuana laws, and now an endorsement for open-sourced software.

Did you ever consider they are related? After all, aren't all OSS users dirty pot-smoking hippies?

Re:awesome!

[Martin S.]

Blunkett is bloody scary

Though I'm starting to see a pattern.

Blunket talks tough on crime and makes draconian suggestion.
Massive outburst and public commotion.
Blunket backs down.
Tony says don't worry.

Public Perception: Blunket is tough on crime, whilst actually being pretty liberal. i.e. dope.

Um, actually I like his style :)

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:awesome!

[mpe]

Tony Blair is a progressive, you know. Oh, he's a slick politico, of course, but he's managed to reach the top without completely selling his soul, which is an impressive achievement.

He has had plenty of critisism even from within his own party for following Bush. Indeed sections of the press call him "Bush's Poodle".

Guess the clue stick hit the right head.

[Soko]

"# UK Government will only use products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments.

Here it is, people - the best reason to use OSS software. It follows Open Standards, without the need for things that "enhance" or "differentiate" it from the rest. Stright from the RFC to your OS. It means that "proprietary lock-in" won't be a problem, should you decide to switch vendors.

Sun didn't get this with Java, and if history repeats itself, some business hack at Microsoft will try to sew up market share by leveraging what even MS is saying is an Open Standard.

I sound like a broken record here, but Open Standards should have the weight of Law in IT. If you extened a Standard, you should either open the code for the extention or have it clearly labelled as a proprietary extention.

Until this happens, I'll be treading very carefully through the OS mine field.

(GAHHHH!!! a Minesweeper reference!!! I'm DOOMED!)

Soko

ph33rf of London in Redmond

[supabeast!]

"UK Government will seek to avoid lock-in to proprietary IT products and services"

At the moment this sentence hit the web, Microsoft began accepting resumes for fifty lobbyists with bad teeth and old-world accents.

Re:ph33rf of London in Redmond

[alext]

Hmmm... apparently us Brits have the best dental health in Europe, y'know (well, yeah, I am a bit surprised too, given that it's not a completely free service these days). Not sure where the USA would fit, but it's hard to believe that below-average Joe can pony up for regular visits.

And don't start me on the mind-numbingly tedious Mike Myers - not worthy to lick the great Peter Wyngarde's boots... just see Peter in action.

Anyone else notice...

[Dark Paladin]

Most of these governments looking at OSS software are non-United States governments?

I'm wondering how much of this is "OSS is good eatin'!", and how much is "Holy shit, do we really want software from another government running all our shit? I mean, if war breaks out between France and the US, and they don't allow Windows exports, that would be catastrophic!"

Re:Anyone else notice...

[markmoss]

I mean, if war breaks out between France and the US, and they don't allow Windows exports, that would be catastrophic!

Nah, the French would surrender before they even got Linux downloaded, let alone noticed how much better it is. 8-)

Re:Anyone else notice...

[mpe]

I'm sure there are a few people in the UK that believe their language is being further bastardized by the amount of software being developed in the US and exported to the UK ;)

Especially when the so called "British English" version of MS Windows is peppered with "Websterized" spellings, examples using US paper sizes (Amricans moan when the boot is on the other foot with the likes of SuSE) and various other Americanizms.

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.

Re:OSS in the UK government.

[Skyshadow]

While I applaud this change by the UK government, I think it might be a little early to engage the orchestra for the dance on Bill G's grave.

Personally, as much as I enjoy seeing the very successful beaten by scrappy newcomes, I don't really want to see MS or any other vendors go away -- I want to see them compete against OSS. I want to see them forced to compete on the merits of their product, not just on who has the state locked in with proprietary file formats. I want to see strong competition because that is the mother of innovation. Competition, then, accelerates the advancement of the state of the art.

That's what I want to see.

Re:OSS in the UK government.

[Zeinfeld]

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.

It means no such thing. The policy does not mandate use of Open Source, it merely states that it should be considered. The actual decision is left to the department which can take into account the 'total cost of ownership'.

If a department has already purchased a Microsoft application it will have no difficulty justifying upgrades or additional licenses under this policy.

It isn't even a matter of the cost of retraining. The plain fact of the matter is that the average user of a computer would rather have their fingernails ripped out with pliers rather than learn something new. It isn't only Mac users who can refuse to change from their preferred platform. There are people who absolutely refused to move from JCL.

If a government department is paying its workers 30% less than they can get in the private sector it is a really bad idea for management to go telling them they have to stop using the computer system they are familliar with and use something different.

The significant passage in the policy document was the part where it states that code developed under public grants should by default be open source.

Uh oh.

[Dthoma]

Nowhere in that policy did I see them mentioning that they were going to go through the code to make sure that it hasn't been tampered with or changed in some bad way. That's as ridiculous as if I just download some source code from a dodgy website and run it without examining it first. If the government just picks up any old code and uses it, then all sorts of stuff could happen.

GOVERNMENT: "We are now using GPL'd software for our banking systems."
1337 H4X0R: "LOL! They don't even know I've h4x0r3d it so I can steal everyone's card numbers! LOL!!11!!"

Of course, if you think I'm just being excessively paranoid, ignore me.

Re:Uh oh.

[WowTIP]

No, me neither. Why would Bill Gates h4x0r GPL'd software when his Windows series reaches a far greater number of users? Another great thing for him is that nobody would even know he h4x0r3d Windows if he did.

I am not sure if Bill does any h4x0r1ng anymore tho?

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.

Amen.

[Skyshadow]

Amen to that. I've been successful in convincing my managers to go with an OSS (often the only ones adhering to open standards 100%) solution several times using this arguement.

The big advantage of this is that you don't need to get technical to explain it and there's no reasonable-sounding counterarguement the sales droids from whatever vendor can use to counter you. It's simple: "Boss, if we start using their product, we'll be locked in. After we've put enough work into it they'll hold our own data hostage and will be free to charge us whatever they want. Now, with this product, we can move to another package at any time because they use an approved, published standard."

My hope is that once enough businesses realize the sense of this arguement, commercial software will be forced to adhere to standards to compete. And after all, healthy competition is really what OSS is all about, isn't it?

bottom of article

[Graspee_Leemoor]

I would like to be the first person to draw your attention to the bottom of the report, where they state that it can be downloaded in msword, pdf or rtf formats, and say something funny about it.

Only I can't think of anything funny to say. Make up your own joke, maybe even post it here so the rest of us can appreciate it.

graspee

Governments and OSS

[Lumpy]

It blows my mind that it has taken governments until the 21's century to understand this. The UK being the first to realize it in a beginning way.

You want examples? Sure :-) I'll use US centric ones.. The US Govt, Fed level develops census and data gathering software, probably written in Fortran as it was the popular thing to do. They wrote software that would gather important data on census, basic voter info (voter registration) employee payroll/hours/tracking/etc/ resource management ... etc...

why the hell wasn't all of that software open-sourced so that the state and city governments could have used it? even if not as-is they could have modified it... thus eliminating re-inventing the wheel tens-of-thousands of times all across the country. all that money wasted just to feed some programmer's egos?

Open Source should be the number one requirement for any government software.... GIS is the current love of governments... my local municapality bought a GIS system ( completely ignored GRASS with the basis that free can't be useful software) that cannot import state level data-sets because the state bought a GIS system that is also closed. so now we have to waste more money and man-hours to convert that data.

Any govt that installs a policy that everything MUST BE open source will move ahead faster than any other in data manipulation and gathering. There is no doubt about it, and there is nothing the closed source companies can or will do to combat such capabilities.

Computer science is still in the stone ages because we force ourseoves to reinvent everything every day.

Re:Governments and OSS

[ocie]

It blows my mind that it has taken governments until the 21's century to understand this.

Right. I would have thought that governments would have figured this out in the 17th or maybe 18th century.

Re:Governments and OSS

[CoolVibe]

Now, what you really want to do is push all GIS companies to be able to import/export GML, now that would be nice.

Well, since I am currently involved in the building of a GIS solution (that could possibly end up under an open source license in the future), could you provide links? I'm interested.

Re:Governments and OSS

[tagishsimon]

Picking up on your why the hell wasn't all of that software open-sourced so that the state and city governments could have used it, the UK can point to a (first?) example of this - a GPL'd content management system for local government:

http://www.aplaws.org.uk/

Re:Governments and OSS

[tagishsimon]

Sorry. Still asleep. Try:

http://www.aplaws.org.uk

UK government in U-Turn shock

[nigel_atkinson]

Well, I am shocked. I attended a talk by the venerable Mr Stallman to the Department for International Development on free software a few weeks ago and the reaction from the audience of civil servants and educational IT planners was decidedly flat.
(It may have been because he kicked his shoes off at the door, got very defensive while answering some fairly innocuous questions and beelined for the sandwiches at the end.)
The reaction reenforced the response my company received while attempting to pitch an open source based solution to the NHS (health service), which was (paraphrasing): "Well we have got all of this lovely free* software from Microsoft and we would rather use a solution based on that, thanks".

Maybe license 6.0 has some government officials thinking.

* The NHS paid Micro$oft a great deal of money in March for a bulk licensing deal.

I wonder if MS is going to give them a donation...

[theLOUDroom]

Remember all the stories about Peru and possible law mandating open source? The debate
and then MS coming in with $550,000 in software to try and make sure a certain law doesn't happen?
I wonder how MS is going to try and get this changed. It's going to cost a lot more money to buy off the UK.
Place you bets...will it be:

• FUD
• 'Donations' of software
• Targeting competing OSS projects via patents
• Lobbying (Note that for a period of time MS' lobbying power, in the US, was second only to that of Enron. Actually, accoring to this they made it to #1)
• "Embrace and Extend"
• Criminal uses of their monopoly status
  

Have I left anything out?

Contracts and value per money

[intermodal]

"Contracts will be awarded on a value for money basis. "

This is somewhat contradictory in a sense.

Some math:

Windows + $ = contract

Linux + ? = contract

Windows value/$=x

Linux/0 = windows error

linux + commercial distribution = contract

linux + consultant = contract

Linux + inhouse IT = Windows usefulness in most gov't applications

linux value per money > windows value per money

Us Brit's love Open Source

[xA40D]

Given that us Brits have the habit of making technological leaps forward - and then handing the specs to someone else to embrace and extend and finaly profit from - I suppose it could be said that we invented Open Source.

I had an interview at a UK university a couple of years back. My final interview was with the Professor who was academic head of the IT services department. During this interview he told me that virtually every technology in the computing industry had it roots in the UK. I challenged him on this with a couple of "but what about" questions. Each time he countered with names, dates, and places.

Now, just imagine how much the US Economy would be worth if we'd locked these ideas away with OTT patent laws.

So it's about time we got back to doing things our way rather than trying to do everything the same as the US. Now, about those "fat-cat" salaries...

I work in UK Government and this won't make a diff

[McCall]

I work for a large local council, and this policy won't make a difference to be quite honest....

Its not policies like these that hold Linux back from running the UK government's servers, its the staff. Very few governments actually hire staff to work on Linux, and the attitude towards Linux is like its some crack-ball OS. You have to remember that staff turn over in UK governments is very low, and many of the staff are not in IT because they love IT, they are there because its a stable job with half decent pay and couldn't care less about Linux or OSS.

If it wasn't for myself campaining to use Linux for our Internet servers they would have been replaced very recently with Microsoft ones that would no doubt have been left unsecure and unreliable. This was going to happen for no reason other than some badly written ASP code didn't work on Chili!Soft and Apache.

The government where I work as a IT team of about 60 people, we have 4 people who are UNIX System Administrators, I myself am the only person who is a dedicated Linux System Administrator, the rest are Microsoft based Administrators. Now imagine being the only voice saying "Use Linux, its free, stable and reliable" to the managers - believe me you don't get heard.

Another problem is the fact that many projects have no involvement from the UNIX team at all, so even if there is a better piece of OSS, they won't know about it, and the MS Administrators who are involved with the project won't look for it.

I know the benefits of OSS and can tell all the staff that we don't need another Windows/Solaris server until I am blue in the face, but when high-level managers demand to use a product they have heard of, this puts pressure on the IT managers to introduce that software. You don't get the average UK council worker snooping around Linux software I can tell you! 90% of the software they want to use runs under Windows.

A conference for governments that I recently went to that was teaching the benefits of OSS and Linux only had around 8 people on it, I am also sure that this is representative of the councils that are actually going to take notice of this policy.

These are just a few reasons why all in all - it won't make a difference, there are many more. It does really frustrate me knowing that a very large amount of my taxes gets spent on software that could be obtained for free, or next to nothing.

Re:Hate hitting the wrong button, lets try this ag

[foobar104]

Okay, sorry I jumped the gun on you. But even in your revised post, you still didn't give any specifics.

I'm not going to set up a Linux PC just so I can evaluate OpenOffice. I imagine that's probably the typical position that corporate IT folks will take as well. That's why I asked specific questions; I was expecting (rather, hoping for) specific answers.

Re:Hate hitting the wrong button, lets try this ag

[swillden]

I'm not going to set up a Linux PC just so I can evaluate OpenOffice.

So run the Windows version.

Re:I wonder if MS is going to give them a donation

[overshoot]

Have I left anything out?

• All of the above

Licence

[RatFink100]

Licence is the English spelling as opposed to the American spelling. Which spelling should the UK Government use?

Re:Us Brit's[sic] love Open Source

[UncleFluffy]

During this interview he told me that virtually every technology in the computing industry had it roots in the UK.

> The Russians would make the same claim.

> And the Spanish, and the French, and probably even the Czechs.

Hmm, please extend my knowledge of computing history. This is what I know so far:

UK
==

floating point arithmetic hardware
virtual memory
mechanical computers
transistorised computers
commercial production of computers
pipelining
programming
stored-program machines
tlbs
raster-scan displays
public key encryption
assemblers
temporary registers
branch prediction
packet-switched networks
http://
caches

Russia
======

superscalar machines

USA
===

fixed-function / hard-programmed valve machines
modern RISC
Windows :P
TCP/IP
microprocessors
compilers

I'm serious, btw, not trolling. I keep seeing these debates about "who did what" and every online resource tells a different story. Some are (selectively) incomplete, some are just plain wrong. Anyone who can add to / correct / clarify this list (with references), please do.

Re:I work in UK Government and this won't make a d

[maroberts]

But yes - Linux is seen as a crack ball OS. Have you seen a picture of Alan Cox lately?

I'm tempted to say that I will know Linux has become the mainstream OS when I see a picture of Alan Cox in a suit without his beard.

Re:I wonder if MS is going to give them a donation

[Peter Harris]

I doubt they see it as a threat yet. But assuming they did:

FUD - everyone's heard it already. It's getting old.

Donations of software - thanks for the 100,000 free copies of your product A, Mr Gates. Now we can afford to get the free replacement for your product B working.

Patents - US software patents are irrelevant in the UK, and the threat of misusing them in that way just pushes the UK further from allowing US-style patents to be adopted.

Lobbying - Possibly. How effective it can be without large sums of money in brown paper bags, I don't know.

Embrace and extend - What, make new versions of MS software stop working with open standards? They'll just NEVER BUY the new software. Point gun at foot, take aim, pull trigger.

Criminal uses of monopoly status - Heh heh. That would make my day. The EU is already watching MS very carefully, and not likely to wuss out like the US DOJ. Attempting to use monopoly powers to interfere with competitive tendering in a member state? Oh yes, smart move.

Of course, it's a bit of a red herring judging the success of an open-source-related thing based on how much it will hurt Microsoft. The answer is nearly always "not at all, but so what?".

TCO=FUD or how much do you value freedom?

[jotaeleemeese]

This is getting tiring. You want to be locked up with one vendor? Being a goverment? Taking that decision only based in TCO???

You would not get my vote then.

Re:TCO=FUD or how much do you value freedom?

[foobar104]

Vote? What vote? This is a company, not a cub scout troop. TCO is the only legitimate reason to choose one type of technology over another. If you believe that you can do business by standing on your principles and using Linux just because it's ``free'' (whatever that means), then you're in for an unpleasant surprise.

And as for FUD, as I've said before, FUD stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I'm not talking about any of those things. I'm stating cold, hard facts: it costs more to re-train your staff to use Linux than it does to keep them on Windows, because the training costs associated with keeping them on Windows is zero. Your staff already knows how to use Windows, because they're already using it. It's simple math, not FUD.

Talk about jumps of logic....

[jotaeleemeese]

If transition is so fsking simple, all those "Learn Windows for Idiots in 24 minutes" should be a figment of my retard imagination.

Good thing we are not talking about ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... windows and office retraining costs neither.

You need software auditors.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you allow OSS in your company or institution, then you need to audit it.

But I would consider the salary of a team of OSS auditors a necessary investment, specialy talking about goverments: the audit is done only once and then the product is made available to all the branches of goverment once it is declared clean.

It is also important to remeber that many oss projects have a comercial enterprise selling services nad I am sure, they will be willing to certify a version of the software as fit for public use.

These companies then may be accountable, unlike others that wash their hands invoking EULAs.