Slashdot Mirror
SF Gate on Open Source Government
Bruce Perens writes: "At the San Francisco Chronicle's SF Gate, Hal Plotkin points to Sincere Choice as the right compromise for an IT renaissance in Government including both Open Source and proprietary software. The article is extremely flattering to yours truly, but a good push in the right direction from a well-respected commentator."
the way you should buy everything? I don't buy cars based on what brand I like, or how their business practices are. I buy the best for the money.
The way this works is, you mandate formats, not applications.
So you say, "all forms must be in PDF, all email via normal RFC822 mail (MIME allowed), documents in some-or-other format".
Who decides just what constitutes the "openness" of a format?
It just sounds like the right feature list will "win", and you'll have to explain to the PHB (the gov't PHB, worst kind) that Microsoft's XML isn't open, and Exchange isn't the same as sendmail + Cyrus IMAPD.
Unless I'm reading it wrong.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"The good thing is, California's lawmakers won't have to pay a dime to anyone to formulate the policy, since Perens has already done that job."
I will eat my (win)socks if this was not the plan from the beginning. Fortunately, no-one will ever know, if it was not :)
The article mentions a great point, which is that no government agency should use proprietary formatted commercial software. This means no more MS Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, etc., unless they are saved as RTFs and CSVs.
I would love to see some work done on open standard file formats for common office applications, such as word processing, spreadsheets (that include formulas!), presentation, charting, calendars, small databases (like for FoxPro or Access), etc.
I know there are open source apps for these things, but you still have to translate the files from one format to another. Ideally, a single XML standard would exist that allows all the applications to use each other's files.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Appologies to Ozymandias.
Hey, it is something everyone can do - and does. I guess the more opinionated you are and the more intelligent your opinions sound (it is usually good enough if they are almost intelligible to the layman) - the better chances of you landing that job.
Most journalists are not merely reporters - they also like to stuff their own clumsy misinterpretations down our throats. If you are a know-it-all you too can be a professional commentator. :P
However, the reason that this happens is that unfortunately some people take journalists and commentators seriously.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
I agree that legislating interoperability would go a long way to fixing the problem. How does anyone propose to get legislation to this effect?
The Internet/Computing industry gave $16,138,743 in the 2002 election cycle. If there is one thing that these people understand, it's Return On Investment.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
"Bruce Perens disagrees with both sides in this debate. By striking a middle ground between the two, he's come up with a far more elegant solution. Unlike the most radical elements in the open-source movement, Perens maintains that a complete ban on state purchases of proprietary closed-source software isn't necessary."
But Michael Sims of Slashdot disagrees, and actually accuses Tim O'Reilly of being an industry whore for his "middle ground" position:
"O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign."
Michael, Bruce, you both read Slashdot and have posting privelges. Here's your SteelCage : have at it. Is Bruce an industry whore or a visionary? Inquiring minds want to know...
Er, the people that pay for the software so used? That is, the taxpayers, perhaps?
You could've hired me.
Here is the problem I see with mandating file formats "open"...
.rtf? They can then say (even with "some" legitimacy perhaps) that Word supports open standards.
What stops MS from making the default (in Gov. Editions anyway) Save feature in Word to be
I'm sure they'd figure out how to support open standards with most of thier suites, knowing full well not many would actually use them.
Aww hell, why not? I told you so.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The Gate is down.
/.ed already/
No comments and
--
E_NOSIG
I agree with Perens' demand for open document formats. So long as the format is open, I have choice in what application I use. I can choose to read a PDF file, for example, with gv or Acrobat Reader. The competition comes from who can make the product more convenient to use.
When formats are closed, then one product must dominate. This is what we've already seen happen with MS Office, and we're seeing again with Internet Explorer, since MS is leveraging its market dominance to saturate the market with non-standard HTML (ie the Microsoft Document Object Model), thereby locking everyone into using IE.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
Um... I'm not a customer of the government, I'm one of its bosses. That's what a republic is about. I pay taxes. I vote. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and all that stuff, you know? Thus, as one of the bosses and owners of the government, I get a say in how it's run.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
What is the purpose of having a patent on something if you are going to make it available royalty free and available on a non-discriminatory basis. Once you do that, what value does the patent serve other than to prevent others from trying to patent it?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
>>EVERYTHING would have to be output as ASCII text.
Except for mainframes which use EBCDIC.
At some point people simply MUST upgrade. However, software that easily maintains backwards compatibility with older file formats doesn't force everyone to upgrade when a new version of the software comes out.
Also, if some of the software choices ARE open source, then upgrading periodically only costs some time, not thousands of dollars in new license fees.
bytesmythe
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Looks like Bruce came up with a good, common sense idea again. Sincere Choice is not only just a good idea for the government, but a good idea for computing as a whole. It makes sense from both the business point of view and a developer's point of view.
It's a good start and people can support it by really trying to only use open standards. You don't need to go to either extreme to make a point (either proprietary or free software extremes); open source and specifically open standards give an excellent compromise between proprietary and free software. It will give an even playing field and promote competition, so that everyone will really have a choice. Or if you don't like it you can always write your own software to meet the open standards.
Actual competition in the software / computer industry? Well with open standards it's much closer to being a posibility.
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
No government of course works really really well. Unless you're one of those big government lovers that likes highways, defense, clean water, clean air, etc... What have the Romans ever done for us!?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The problem here really is the definition of open. The MS-Office file formats could be called "open" because: [i] there is a published spec and [ii] there are multiple software packages that claim to both read and write them (WordPerfect Suite, OpenOffice, etc.)
Now slashdotters will claim, correctly, that the spec is incomplete and constantly changing and that the other software packages aren't 100% compatible. But MS has mucho lobbying muscle and the "State Commission on Open File Formats" will approve MS-Office formats, trust me.
"Sincere Choice" will become the "Sincere Status-Quo" pretty quickly.
I love the analogy Mr. Plotkin makes near the end, that letting software vendors lock the state into proprietary systems is similar to letting construction firms install their own toll bridges on freeways. Hits the nail right on the head.
As for his closing question, "Will our legislators do their [job]?" Unfortunately the answer is another question: are they doing it now?
The right question is: why do government projects cost more, take longer and fail more frequently than private sector projects?
The reason is that they mandate long discredited project management techniques. A for profit company that took ten years and $100 million for a mission critical system, and then failed to deliver, would have been driven out of business by its competitors.
I could recommend XP (Extreme Programming, not the Microsoft OS, which has nothing to do with development,) but that's undoubtedly too extreme for government. However, just requiring the contractor to ship meaningful results every three months, instead of the complete system after three years, would probably work wonders.
John Roth
Any opinions expressed in this post are genuine, certified opinions.
If MS does a better job, they deserve to get the contract. If some one else does a better, that's fine too. Trying to force MS to do something is both stupid, pointless and ultimately will fail. If it looks like there's any favoritism, any rules about software purchases won't get very far. On the other hand, if there is a solid file standard, it looks bad for software vendors because their motives are more apparent. Let's make it open for everyone to compete. Not just "we hate MS and love OSS."
Say there are two competing products that meet the interoperability requirements of SincereChoice. One is Open Source, the other is proprietary secret source, but with interfaces and formats suitably defined to qualify for the SincereChoice requirements.
If I pick the proprietary one, then next year when there's an update that fixes the security bugs, but the updated version does not meet SincereChoice requirements, what's gonna happen? If the law doesn't let the purchaser buy the update anyway, they'll have to switch.
So forseeing that, the purchaser will pick the Open Source version because they know the security fixes will be available without changes that prevent update purchases under the SincereChoice conditions.
Of course, if the SincereChoice law allows purchase of non-compliant updates to a compliant original purchase, then this logic does not hold, but then the policy is a sham anyway.
Also, Bruce Perens is not the first person to write about using government buying power to require open file formats...I'm probably not the first either however (although my article was discussed on LinuxToday...where're you getting your ideas from Bruce?!?)
- adam
No, linux removes terrorism rm /bin/laden
This exactly the middle-of-the-road approach that we need.
I have no doubt that open-source software will blow away proprietary competition, I've experienced that over and over again myself.
But there are some cases where open-source apps don't exist, or are not up to speed yet.
This middle-of-the-road approach is perfect for opening up closed gov't doors. And for motivating developers to notch-up their efforts too.
By not forcing the gov to take an all-or-nothing 'leap into the void', sincere choice should succeed where the DSSA initiative will fail.
I'm afraid I have to drift a little off topic here for a while. Bear with me for the big finish that ties it all together. :)
Your argument is right, and indeed doesn't go far enough. Government is not the same as the private sector, and analogies comparing the two are generally as dangerous as they are useful.
Government (theoretically) exists for the benefit of the governed. Its job is to serve the governed, who both pay for said services and give government its legitamacy. This (ideally) constrains the behavior of government.
Most corporations are chartered by the government to turn a profit by any legal means. They might choose to operate with an eye to the common good, or they might not. This gives a business a great deal of freedom to act that government does not, and SHOULD not, have.
To say that government should operate like the private sector is to invite the governmental version of a monopoly: the tyrrany. Once that takes hold, there's no SEC to break it up... the solution generally involves blood in the streets. I'll pass, thanks.
Once we dispense with the "government = private sector" fallacy, it's obvious that Mr. Perens has hit on an approach very near the ideal. Mandating open-source does indeed constitute an unwarranted attack on proprietary software, and allowing things to proceed as they are leads us to buy proprietary software to view public documents. Both of these extremes are bad for the people, and thus are bad choices for government.
Everyone who has tried to migrate data from a closed system can appreciate the merit of this proposal. (In fact, there's a lot to be said for adopting large parts of it to corporate use.) Good work, BP! I'll see if I can take this up with my reps in Oregon next session.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I actually take issue to the government using PDF forms; to actually save the data on a form, Joe Sixpack must purchase Acrobat! It is not a functional electronic form without that minimal level of support, so we loose some level of access to our government. Really, who has a (working) typewriter anymore?
>> Now slashdotters will claim, correctly, that the spec is incomplete and constantly changing...
Doesn't XML represent a potential "open" data exchange tool that changes and grows about every 5 minutes?
Isn't it grand that people affiliated with or paid by companies making money on open source are so disinterestedly helping the State of California save money?
Don't try to mandate government purchases of any kind of software. A company selling open source is just as capable of ripping off California as is Oracle.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Oh now I see. Since some people don't have modern computers (OSS-based or otherwise) the Gov can't use computers at all in conducting the business of the public. I mean, at some point that's the lowest you can limbo in the service of egalitarianism.
Look, there is always paper and the USPS. Libraries have computers for free use, and generally keep them within a few years of "current". Same with public schools. In a few years hence anyone with a cell phone will probably have access to a microbrowser.
Universal access to technology is an interesting topic, but not a realistic goal when defined narrowly as dekstop PCs. Freedom of information is not only interesting but frankly vital.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
The Open Source business model has difficulty competing against proprietary formats and protocols, so now it is looking for some legislation.
> Imagine, a new tax is introduced, so the tax
:)
> software has to be changed.
Well, yeah. The capability for future modification certainly is a good idea when choosing software. I wouldn't get software without it. Ultimately, though, that can be a matter of outright competition... it won't need to be mandated.
An example: When I was a drafter, I used AutoCAD because the software is supremely flexible. It is built with customization in mind and includes a built-in programming language. There's really not much that needed doing I couldn't get it to do. Because of their flexible design, I didn't need to see the source for AutoCAD to implement really major customizations.
(Which is a good thing, since Autodesk isn't exactly a fan of software libre. If AutoCAD qualifies by Mr. Perens' standards, it's just barely... their primary format [DWG] is mostly closed, but they have another [DXF] that is mostly open.)
The problem you're addressing isn't one of open/closed source exactly, but of flexiblity. The necessary flexibility could be gained through open source, or by clever software design that supports a great deal of user-definable action. Software that can be customized on the fly by an advanced user, without having to muck around in the source code, is good enough for government work.
By all means, the government should not choose software that sucks. I completely agree that inflexibility begets suckage. On the other hand, it should also be recognized that open source is not the only way to gain flexibility, and thus avoid sucking.
However desirable flexible software is, mandating flexibility of design (open source or not) is probably not necessary. It'll sort itself out without much help.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
How about, security, accountability, ability to interoperate with other software, long term viability of both the software and the support structure? None of these can be guaranteed if the interfaces and file formats are secret, or patented and available only to a small subset of the population.
Corporations and the Government are not the same thing. They work according to different rules. Corporations exist to maximize profit and serve the shareholders. Governments (in theory at least) exist to serve the people. Part of that service involves safeguarding the information it gathers, while at the same time being open and transparent in all its activities.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
- adam
- adam
they also need to be available with no license restrictions, and no requirement for an NDA. This is, in fact, much more important than "free of charge".
Microsoft have already used the "free of charge" loophole to publish some of their API's "free of charge", but with a NDA that forbids you to use them in GPL'ed code (not mentioning Samba with a word).
So it is important to stress that the API's and ABI's should be both public and usable by everyone with no restrictions.
I don't know what your experience is, but I have never been able to get any version of Word to emit valid HTML for any document, even the empty document. To say that Word supports HTML seems to me to be somewhat of an exaggeration, especially in the context of open standards.