Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
VeniDormi writes "I just found out that House Bill 2892 was introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives by Representative Phil Barnhart. The summary: 'Requires state government to consider using open source software when acquiring new software. Sets other requirements for acquiring software.'
Rep. Barnhart has a few comments on the bill." A NewsForge story has more information, including some words from Rep. Barnhart.
I'm pleased. Open source should be considered. And at the same time, I'm glad they didn't take things too far and require the use of open source. This is a positive influence yet doesn't seem too restrictive. Good for them :)
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
It'd be interesting to know what Oregon's northern neighbors in Redmond think about this.
It's a baaare faced challenge to the quality of M$'s products.
Go OREGON!
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
thats nice but we need people that know how to use compouters in goverment first :)
Ok, what was the deal with this story showing up on the front page in red with a posting date of "the mysterious future?" I know the the editors can post date a story, but why did I (and presumably the rest of the world) get to see it?
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
As Illinois is currently facing a 5 billion deficit. While I would rather first see all the pork barrel projects come to an end, I know that would never happen. That would be like Microsoft cutting Internet Explorer out of windows.
The key word here is "consider."
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Well, we are closing schools and perhaps shortening the school week to 4 days [although we aren't, as of yet, as fscked as California]. Might be an idea to get software that is like, you know, cheaper than the standard suites - especially if you only need the capabilities of one of the programs within the suite.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I think government should be compelled^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrequired to look at all alternatives, but not forced into anythiing.
On the related topic of what license should software carry if government funds its creation, I feel like open source should be a requirement.
Of course, this opens up all the little issues like, well, if it's truly open sourced, Canada could use it against us in an upcoming war.
...Oregon is just about as socialistic and liberal as Sweden.
I don't know that I agree with this. I'd like to think that governments/corporations/etc choose open source software based on its merits and advantages, not because they are forced to. I mean, sure it gets more exposure for open source, but is forced exposure what it needs? (or wants?)
This must be a Washington - Oregon rivalry, that is manifesting itself at the legislative level.
That is a fancy way of saying "Screw you Bill Gates, and your f'ing Seatle company".
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This means nothing. This is a no-tooth bill that has nothing to do with increasing open source usage, but merely placating a bunch of lobbyists.
Here's how it goes when an agency is looking to buy software:
- They decide what they want, and which vendor to get it from. They seek a budget for it.
- The rules say they must let contractors compete on the bid, so they put out an RFP (request for proposals).
- They word the questions in the RFP in such a way as to make sure that the only product that will be acceptable is the one they originally planned on.
I see this day in and day out. Just this morning I read an RFP. They were looking for an RMS system to complement their police dispatching system.
The first requirement was: Must work with the existing dispatching system.
Well, the only RMS out there that works with the dispatching system is the one from the vendor of the 20 year old dispatching system. The whole RFP process is a beurocratic circle jerk.
Now if all the systems were 'open source', would it make a difference? Not really, since we'd be unlikely to rewrite our RMS for each and every bid. An open format for data transmission would be nice, but a pipe dream, since every agency in the country has their own way of managing the data.
So while this is a nice warm and fuzzy bit of legislation, it wont affect how the system works at all. If they put out a contract for a bunch of OS's, it'd read "Must support DirectX 9" or some such to pigeonhole it into what they already decided on.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
the rest of the USA does not give a damn about Delaware either, so quit yer whining ya wimp...
I suppose I become, year after year, more of a libertarian: the less government the better. Why should one have to legislate this sort of thing?
...
;)
Should we also put for legislation that governments must consider using aluminum-foil stop signs instead of metal? Isn't the stewardship of tax money impetus enough to find the "best" solution for a given municipality.
Of course the argument is two-fold: if open-source is so fantastic why does it need to be legislated -- like some sort of quota system. Yet, the flip side, which will hopefully avoid many similar posts is that their is a certain structual momentum that doesn't easily allow for change, much like racism I suppose.
When I grew up it wasn't a law that children wore bicycle helmets. Of course, helmets weren't readily available either. But you know what that made us? Stronger. Surer. More aware of our limitations. Now a child goes out into the world wearing full, active-camo kevlar and runs cycles through traffic with abandon. The point: it was better before the law. But as the parenting got worse, the laws got tougher.
So, now again, we are being parented by the government. We are not simply smart enough to decide that helmets are good thing individually -- we must have intelligencia decide it for us.
To wit, I think this is a poor idea on all fronts.
But I could be wrong
~Airrage
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Why is it important to enact a bill to say that the state should consider anything? I could work as an employee of some state controlled IT department and say, "I didn't choose the open source product because the sky is blue, but I did consider it." and be in compliance with this law (assuming it gets passed). It's a nice political statement, but nothing more.
Somehow I think legislating something as a viable choice is much nicer than forcing imposed rules about how we can and can't use our computers. *cough*DMCA*cough*DRM*COUGH*
How lame is it that they don't even consider using open source software? Sounds like they know too much. =)
Producer: NEXT!!
Ralph Wiggum: Chicken necks
What a ridiculous post.
How did anyone mention failing in the regular marketplace? Who, mentioned in the article, is an OpenSource writer?
How do you figure someone sinister is behind this action?
Go back to your cubicle at Microsoft, Bill.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
This is one of the most important steps the government can take to make good use of free software. Evidently, most free software projects have no motivation to join government biddings and, therefore, are left out from the decision-making process. It is only natural that the government would consider using free software just as often as it would consider using proprietary software.
And on the border of Oregon and Washington State, the tanks are massing for an invasion of Oregon.
The Govenor of Washington was heard to refer to this operation as "Operation Make Bill Richer"...
www.eFax.com are spammers
(d) To guarantee the succession and permanence of public data, it is necessary that the state's accessibility to that data be independent of the goodwill of the state's computer system suppliers and the monopoly conditions imposed by these suppliers;
The "s" at the end of supplier of course is a typo.
I can picture the eyes of thousands of Linux nerds light up as they see "open source software" and then realize how close Oregon is to Redmond, WA. Why else would we get all these stupid comments about Bill Gates in a open source software thread?
Producer: NEXT!!
Ralph Wiggum: Chicken necks
I wish this was happening for a better reason, but
our budget mess has to be a driving force.
The State of Oregon is really hurting money wise.
When I worked for the Univ of Oregon Bus Office
Linux was was not a consideration. Maybe this will
raise the visibility of linux. It may be comming
at a good time. The VAX running VMS are getting old.
I bet slashdot could get an interview with him.
The US government loves the low bidder. If an open source software candidate is free, and support costs are comparable to a closed source alternative, open source is going to win every time. I know of at least one example where the government's stinginess has backfired when pursuing the low bidder, but that's top secret. The difference with software, I think, is that the lower cost alternative is often better!
Requires state government to consider using open source software when acquiring new software. Sets other requirements for acquiring software.
In many cases where highly specialized applications are required, the consideration of opensource alternatives will show that while linux has multiple nice desktops, multiple nice office suites, multiple nice browsers, multiple nice email clients... it still has a number of fronts to work on.
When you compare all enterprise commercial apps against the most mature and most turnkey opensource ones, you'll find a lot of projects with good intentions but little functionality compared to commercial offerings.
The free software world is all about code and component reuse and sharing, and the attitude of 'hope someone can find use for this thing that I wrote - if it doesn't meet your needs or doesn't work, let me know and I might choose to do something about it... better yet, can you help? Here's the sourcecode'
If the government is committed to hiring software developers to *MAKE* opensource software work by *ENHANCING* it and *EXTENDING* it's functionality, then... HORRAY! We all Win.
$100 for the first politician to do the same thing....in the great State of Washington.
*tumbleweed rolls slowly by*
What, no takers?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
What does it say about Open Source (not necessarily free, especially when considering total cost of ownership) when the state has to pass a LAW compelling folks to consider it. This sounds like more bearocracy forcing agencies to jump through ever more hopes, costing taxpayers more. Will there have to be a special agency set up just to index all available OSS options out there so that when a new purchase is being considered, unknown (probably for a reason) OSS can be considered?
Just like in private business, if there is a viable OSS solution, there doesn't need to be a LAW forcing agencies to consider it. Sounds too much like affirmative action.
Rep. Barnhart says, "I am a long-time lurker on Slashdot, so I have been aware of the [open source] issue for some time.
I bet he's a freaking Anonymous Coward! Or worse maybe MEEPT!!!
...they are considering considering Open Source?
Why not just consider using Open Source? Screw the deals with Microsoft and Dell, why can't government be trusted to get what computers/OSs it needs, while not being a whore to companies? Why must it be law to consider it? Why can't they just consider it? Have they not considered the ramifications of such a pitiful act?
Come on...consider it!
It makes sense. They're doing everything they can to save money now that they have a huge budget shortfall.
I feel you owe her an apology.
What's this Delaware you speak of? Some sort of fine china?
When I spoke to him a few weeks ago, we were discussing the whole thing, along with DSL issues, slashdot, etc. (yes, he reads slashdot). Go Phil!!
I think it's good that governments consider open source. But at the same time, the government buying comercial software supports my family.
The company I work for sells a lot of software to state governments, the federal government, and foreign governments. At a time when most businesses are tightening their belts, government sales have become more important to keeping the company in the black. If sales drop too much, I could lose my job. So while I like the idea of the government considering all the options, I also like the idea of the government supporting the software industry.
One other thing to note: we sell very litte software without consulting and maintenance attached to it. Our customers don't want to dink around with stuff without support. They want someone to come in and set it up for them. So even if governments have to consider open source software, they're not likely going to go after something that doesn't have a commercial backing of some sort.
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
up my ass by the end of the work day.
I'm embarrased at how much your post reminds me of me.
classic.
They have not mandated the use of Open Source software, rather they've guaranteed that Open Source will be one of the choices. This is after all Microsoft's position WRT the software ecosystem ... right? ;)
... and it is upto the proprietary developers if they *choose* to compete in delivering software to Oregon's government.
They should also be happy that Oregon has laid down clear and necessary conditions on the requirements for state purchased software, thereby insuring that Oregon residents always have access and recourse to State owned data. Clearly, both Open Source and proprietary software are *capable* of meeting these conditions
I'm writing a letter to my Governor and legislator to see if they might consider introducing a similar law.
...reap the freakin' whirlwind.
"Before he was elected to the legislature, Barnhart was a member of a local school board that was threatened with a software audit by Microsoft. Barnhart says, "It would have cost $60,000 just to perform the audit."
It looks like MS just made a New Friend. Licence 6.0 is making similar friends in the corporate world, too.
Francois.
This is a bill, a proposal for a new law, not a law. I would encourage every Oregon resident reading this to write your state senitors/reps and encourage them to support this bill. Letters from out of state can also be helpful, even if they are not counted as highly.
The only interesting part of this is how good a settlement M$ will have make to shut this guy up.
Isn't the stewardship of tax money impetus enough to find the "best" solution for a given municipality?
Oh please!
More like impetus to feather one's nest while yammering on about the "free markets", "level playing fields", and "rising tides lifting all boats".
...the second assisted-suicide bill to come out of the Oregon house :-)
I highly doubt this change is a WA/OR rivalry. We've been trying to make ourselves the "Silicon Forest" for the past 6-7 years. We loooooooove Intel, and part of the reason our unemployment rate is so high right now is because when the economy tanked, all the dot-com companies that were subsidized here tanked as well. This is simply because (as other Oregonians pointed out) we're facing a billion-dollar budget shortfall, and the taxpayers won't pass a sales tax/income tax increase/property tax increase/etc... Basically, it's just a response to a very bad governmental finacial situation, not a conflict with Redmond. I clarify this because NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONFLICT WITH MICROSOFT. Try to expannd your world-view, especial if you're supporting things that are "open"...
The issue is what you can do when you find a gap and who benefits from plugging the gap.
In the opensource world you can either try to rally the masses or hire your own programmers to fill a gap. The new code then gets returned to the community for possible future use and refinement. (Or it may remain so unique that no one else can gain any use from it.)
In the commercial/proprietary world you usually wind up having to convince the software owner that this is a gap worth filling in. Then you have to wait through the release cycle or pay them extra to do the work for you. At the end of the day the other company owns the fix and you end up re-buying it each time you get another license/upgrade.
(If it's a customizable API then you're exactly where you were with the open source stuff we're you're paying programmers to do the work for you.)
At the end of the day you're probably going to have to pay for a programmer, it's just a question of what return you get on that investment.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I work in IT for one of the largest State of Oregon agencies, as a state employee (not contractor). They repeatedly shoot down any suggestions of open source software for any reason that we may present. It is always the same argument: "not ready for prime time", "no support", "too many bugs". We have regularly submitted articles, reports, analisys, and documentation to the contrary. They won't have it. Unless it is "IBM" or "Novell" they don't want it.
Darn economy. Come on jobs, come back to Oregon so I can get back to the private sector...
I used to work in IT support/development for the State of Oregon. The management there are the same brilliant geniuses that bought something like 200 Pentium Pro Overclock chips for $200/each from our Holier-than-thou vendor while the street value was closer to $80-100. To this day, they are still sitting on top of a crate in an unused conference room. They will use ANYTHING that their vendor (think Volt) tells them to use, and pay what they tell them to pay. This legislation won't get very far.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Rep. Barnhart says, "I am a long-time lurker on Slashdot, so I have been aware of the [open source] issue for some time. I've been convinced for a long time that Windows is a difficult program -- wasteful and expensive." And, he adds, "The little experience I've had with open source has been very positive."
Get back to work!
I like to hear stuff like this, but I'd like it even better if I heard it after it's already passed. The fact that this pending bill gets attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft to 'deal' with it. And given the malleability of government servants in the face of cash bribes and coercion from large companies, this bill may not survive long.
Congratulations, guys, you got your wish. 'Open Source' is now a political buzz word, used by legislators who have no idea what it is, except "all the kids seem to be talking about it".
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
A department gets a budget to spend X number of dollars a year. Despite some half-hearted efforts to break this trend, this usually means the department tries its best to spend all of it, because if they don't, they will get less in subsequent years. If some bureaucrat finds a way to spend 0.75X in implementing a project by using open source software, odds are more than likely their management, who are skilled in playing the game (to the taxpayers' detriment) will find some way to spend the remaining 0.25X. And if that means using a proprietary solution, so be it.
First off, thanks that was quite amusing.
:-}
Second, you realize that following that chain of events out we're going to have MS vs the White Supremacists for the fate of open source.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
That's an interesting idea... You know what, though? Even if you're using open source software, and even if you have NO coding skills whatsoever, and you're not contributing to the actual development, there are OTHER ways to help out.
Testing: The more people that run the software in a real world environment, the more bugs that are found. Even running released software will help to overturn bugs that might not otherwise be discovered, because everyone uses software a little differently and in a different environment.
Evangelism: A government organization or big company that runs, say OpenOffice.org, evanglizes that software by simply using the program and the file formats. Telling other people your organization uses a particular software package also tends to make people in related businesses or organizations think "Hey, maybe that program will work for me?"
So just because you can't code, or don't have any developers doesn't mean your organization has nothing to contribute.
My journal has hot
More open source software in government might open opportunities for small businesses to extend and customize programs for government use.
The only big problem with this thought is the expectation that OSS must be free...meaning unpaid small businesses.
... and if true, your boss (or his boss, on up to whoever is doing what you describe) belongs in jail.
This means nothing. This is a no-tooth bill that has nothing to do with increasing open source usage, but merely placating a bunch of lobbyists.
Here's how it goes when an agency is looking to buy software:
- They decide what they want, and which vendor to get it from. They seek a budget for it.
- The rules say they must let contractors compete on the bid, so they put out an RFP (request for proposals).
- They word the questions in the RFP in such a way as to make sure that the only product that will be acceptable is the one they originally planned on.
Not only is that a violation of current law (and, as another suggested, you should get the media involved), but that would be a direct violation of this law as well, since obviously if the vendor is chosen first and then the bidding started, the free software solution wasn't ever in consideration to begin with (a violation of the proposed legislation).
The law will be good for those departments which do obey the law, and will be an additional charge to be filed against the leadership of those who do not. This, to me, appears to be a good thing on two fronts: more responsible and more open IT policies in government, and additional ammunition to punish the corrupt.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Some effort has to be made to look for free software, no one is calling you to sell it to you. I find free software to use at my company occasionally. It usually takes a few hours on the internet to compare all of the free alternatives and can save thousands of dollars compared to what companies are trying to sell to us. Shouldn't the government at least look for alternatives before it shells out our money?
When you compare all enterprise commercial apps against the most mature and most turnkey opensource ones, you'll find a lot of projects with good intentions but little functionality compared to commercial offerings.
:).
Open Source software is the final destination of products that are destined to become commodities. Operating systems, word processing, personal finance, and some games, for example.
The software products that will likey never become open source serves domains so specialized, complex, or competitive that only businesses can drive them. In other words, no one would want to put up with such software in their spare time. A good example of this would be high-end computer-aided manufacturing and process planning. The problem domain and the hardware, such as multi-axis milling machines, are so expensive and complex that the cost and risk associated with proprietary software isn't that big of a deal. Also, there are so few people who can write such software well, that they deserve to recieve a salary for their work.
It's all these other "me too" products, such as Microsoft Office, Microsoft Windows, etc., that belong in the public domain
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
This sounds kind of like the NFL mandating that owners must interview at least one minority candidate when filling a coaching vacancy. That policy doesn't work too well - just look at the recent Lion's hire.
When your stuff is only used by 3% of the market, and that 3% just happens to be all of the pear shaped, pasty white, date-less losers in the world, I would consider that a pretty big failure.
Gov Agency: No, I am not using Open Source SW.
A lawsuit and thousands of dollars later ...
Judge: You must consider Open Source.
5 minutes later
Gov Agency: mmmmm. Ok, I considered it. No, I am not using Open Source SW.
Judge: Well, you obeyed my order and the law by considering it. Have fun.
Or we'll hold your precious UI students hostage at WSU indefin...wait, why are you laughing?
--
By that measure, how many more people READ literature in this world than write it? How many more people VIEW art in this world than make it? How many more people LISTEN to music in this world than compose it, or even perform it?
The human race has been "Leeching" off of creative poeple at least since the discovery of fire. Up until we had this whole notion of Intellectual Property, this was considered by all parties to be a good thing.
Music without ears to hear it is a pattern of vibrations. Software without a user base is a random gob of bits.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
We also used Data General computers. Cheaper and better UNIX computers were out there, but the paperwork made them impossible to get. To use a new vendor you had to post that you were looking for equiptment. Then you had to see how many minorities were in the vendor company leadership. Those got preference. Bunch of other forms and regulations.
Require consideration of open source good idea? On paper. But that is the problem. There are too many good ideas on paper that became laws, and you have to pile through to do anything in government.
Being a slashdot user I didn't read the article. (Because the sites are always down after the slashdot post for some reason.) But are the comments about it are correct, that 'open source' was required to be on the approved list? Great, I can write a piece of crap and it is required to be approved? Hope not.
Trust the guy they hired to make the decision. Otherwise he shouldn't be in the position if he didn't deserve the trust. (Yes, I know about the stupid Oracle license story a while back.)
Microsoft, might decide that they don't liek this and buy Oregon, break it into parts, then sell what they don't want to California and Seattle.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
I'm shocked that there are so many in slashdot community who will, on one side, complain that IT departments in private corporations don't mandate that they consider open source products because the IT managers believe, based on false stereotypes and laziness of mind, that MS only is the way to go.
Now those slashdotters are complaining about a law who's sole purpose is to fight that mindset?
Of course this is politics, but its good politics. People who are hired in government IT departments are humans too and suffer from the same conceptions (or misconceptions if you will). Instead of shareholders who ask the CEO to make directives, lawmakers make directives of its subsidiary departments to make sure they fulfill certain goals.
Frankly, I think someone got the idea that Open source might save the taxpayers and the state money and that they are simply asking IT departments to make an effort to look at open source solutions rather than be lazy. Imagine that!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
In other words, if I walk down to the University computer store and buy a copy of Endnote, because everyone here uses Endnote and everything I want to work with is already in Endnote format, I will have to explain why I didn't use "jreferences". That's ridiculous.
Eg; I work for a company that writes and sells computer dispatching and records systems to cops and firemen. I see no CAD systems on sourceforge. They simply dont exist, and wont because much of the code req
Guess you haven't tried QCAD then. Or maybe it doesn't exist :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
For those of you who didn't take the time to read the bill:
.DOC file formats, and no Windows Update or Turbo Tax-like spyware! Woohoo (theoretically)!
(2) For all new software acquisitions, the person or governing body charged with administering each administrative division of state government, including every department, division, agency, board or commission, without regard to the designation given the entity, shall:
[items a, b, c omitted]
(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage; and
(e) Avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of state government.
So. No undocumented
-AC
...but in some of those environments, all it takes to commoditize those vertical markets is a sufficiently adequate API or other environment that others can write interfaces for their tools for, and boom.
Your example of software to control/program computer-controlled milling machines. If someone abstracted the market enough so that it made sense to write an interface to the abstract API, instead of worrying about interacting with CADCAM producers to ensure that their/your drivers were compatible with their software/your hardware...
In other words, it would do for computer-controlled miling machines what Windows did for printers and software developers...
When your stuff is only used by 3% of the market, and that 3% just happens to be all of the pear shaped, pasty white, date-less losers in the world, I would consider that a pretty big failure.
Not all Open Source users are white, you dumbass.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
However...
Requiring state agencies to "consider" open source is likely only to raise costs. Someone will spend a couple extra days saying they're considering open source, then go back to the safe choice. (At some point in the past, when IBM was king, the saying was that "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM")
If Oregon were to find all the places where open source could be dropped in with minimal disruption and then actually do it, the state could probably save a fair bit.
For example, in the town I live in in Oregon, there is a Community College (they like to call themselves a University, but tend to act like a Community College). Essentially all the faculty run Windows and run mostly screen savers, word, email and a browser (there are a few exceptions running Macs). All of these could easily be replaced with open source alternatives. They probably never will be - the Computing Services folks have bought big into MS and they will support the whines of the faculty who'll say "I can't learn anything new".
I've seen a couple of comments that an admin can say it's no viable and opt into proprietary solutions. That the bill is unenforcable or accomplishes little. Consider this:
1) It gets F/OSS on the list of allowable purchases
2) Portland school districts estimate 1.5M in licensing alone as pre-bill adopters. Savings indicative of larger statewide saving spotential.
3) Incentive for gov't focused VARs to deploy
4) Precludes use of EULA 6 type licensing
5) Considers the disposition of the a merit, protects integrity of public data systems
Not all of the benefits translate directly to savings, some will beget savings, some will encourage out of the box thinking, some are just the right things to do.
"Documentation:"
Indeed. Keep in mind that technical writers tend to rake in the cash, as well. Why? Because a true Klingon programmer never comments, that's why. Or if they do, it's in obscure terminology that'd make a user's head explode.
If you can write clear, concise documentation, you've a very valuable skill.
I am Ben Barber(aka Ken Barber's Son) the reason why he diddmt decide to make it go so far, is because
1. forcing the government to to use open source would be just as bad as some of the things that M$ does. but instead of forcing people to use m$ products we would be forcing open source.
2. a bill fasioned like that would less likely to pass.
3. there can always be admemndments made to the law. so if in the future someone wants to extend it, we can do that.
Why do hippies come to Oregon?
Because there are no jobs.
For quantitative evidence showing that any software acquisition should consider their OSS/FS alternatives, see my paper Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Ben Barber here again and i am sick that no-one makes a single mention of my dad, who is the person who wrote the bill in the first place.i am proud of him and i want his name to be recognized. he unlike many open source users actually goes out nad furthers the movement. not only about this bill the HE wrote, but all of the open source work he does for local schools. and i havent found a single mention about him here. bless his heart, he is one of the few people who doesnt just complain and wish things were diffrent. but he actually goes out and helps the community. he is my hero, and should be a hero to every open source user.
Oh yes, it is so much less restrictive to require propriatary software only. {sarcasm}
This actually opens MORE choices. It is LESS restrictive than the alternative. More options, more clout to negotiate with MS (if they decide to go that way, hope not). Either way, it can only benefit the citizens of Oregon.
There is a reason the human race "leeches" off creative people. Most people are not that creative. A great many people who listen to music, could not make decent music, a great many people who view art, could not make decent art, etc.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
"Is there such a thing as a FREE SOFTWARE LEECH?"
I take it by this you mean someone who uses the software without giving back to the community. Um.
Stop and think about this a second. Additional users are always helpful to software. They may spot bugs, someone may suggest a feature you haven't thought of. Even if you never hear from them, they may recommend it to someone else who then helps you out. And ultimately, you were going to write the software anyway. You're a volunteer. You can always bow out and let someone else take over. So why should you resent a "leech"? You want the software to be used.
And not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling you get when your work is actually downloaded and does something useful. Remember, in the open source world the motivation is not money. (Not that it isn't nice, but it's not the main focus.)
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a government (any government) starting to use open source might mean that they would get involved with open source development. Would anyone really want that? I mean, most government beauracracies seem to have the midas touch in reverse...everything they touch turns to shit.
...but you seem my point, right. Sure, governments would save a packet being involved in Open Source, but when they need a neck to choke due to a problem, or to cover their own incompetence, whose neck gets the treatment?
::Faded
Additionally, Imagine if governments start to use open source software, governments including the Feds. Doesn't that mean that at some stage in the future a Director of Homeland Security might just make the realisation that the open source solution they are using and participating in is openly available to them as well as terrorists...terrorists who might have found an undeclared security hole in that open source code...a hole which could be used to infiltrate the government.
A business, making this realisation, would be in for a costly move off the platform. Governments tend just to legislate in these cases. All of a sudden, all that open exchange of information is a security threat, sites like SourceForge are shut down and the contnt natioinalised and...hmmm...sorry...I think my tin foil hat is slipping around a bit there.
Even when they don't really describe the bug well, finding out about a new bug within HOURS, while the code is still fresh, really helps. It also makes coding more exciting, having people trying out the new code within hours.
Sure, there are lots of ways to more directly contribute... but in just simply using the software, running truely on the bleeding edge (updating to CVS every couple days, or ever time something interesting happens on the mail list) really helps developers find out about bugs while they're still easy to fix and it really increases the overall energy level or momentum of the developers working on the project.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Hey, Ben -- chill out dude.
Yes, I wrote that bill at Phil Barnhart's request, with some very good help from Jeremy Hogan and Walt Pennington (who are hereby gratefully acknowledged) but I deliberately took myself out of the limelight when I wrote the press release -- and you'll notice that Jeremy and Walt aren't getting any credit at all for their contributions.
The story of how I came to write it is an interesting one that will supposedly show up on desktoplinux.com tomorrow.
I've been lurking here all day, just to see what people would say about this and I'm gratified that most of the comments are positive. Plus some VERY good jokes about Washington invading Oregon! But we're not worried 'bout those mean ol' Cougars and Dawgs with all of their claws and fangs coming down here and hurting us -- we Oregonians are well protected with...
... uh...
... ducks... and beavers... yeah, cute little Ducks and Beavers... they'll defend us, right?
We're not really worried about opposition coming from Micro$oft Corp. on this one. First of all, they have virtually no corporate presence in Oregon and secondly, I think we've caught them by surprise. Most of the key committee members have already heard our side of the story, and the only thing Micro$oft can do now is what they did in Maryland: Plaster the Speaker of the House with lots of money and liquor to get the bill diverted to a different committee. But now that I've mentioned that here, it will be a lot more difficult for M$ to get away with.
I'd love to write a long post explaining why we put certain things in the Bill and left certain other things out, but I won't. Basically it boils down to crafting a bill THIS year that we think has a chance of actually passing. Yes, it's watered down -- on purpose. As an IT admin myself, I don't want to anger a bunch of State IT people by telling them how to do their jobs -- so the Bill has lots of loopholes and "wiggle room" so that they hopefully won't object to it very strenuously. In the meantime the IT folks who WANT to implement Open Source will be able to do so without fear of losing their jobs.
That's a pretty good start. If it becomes law (not likely this time around) and too many state IT admins thumb their noses at it... well, the Legislature doesn't like to be ignored and they can sure as heck make it stronger down the road.
Stay tuned. This is going to be a lot of fun.
Ken Barber, aka "Mr. Firewall"
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Portland is just a black hole sucking in tax money for a poorly administered school district. Oh, and then there is Metro...
A penny saved is a penny earned
Except to PERS, who would rather tax Oregon into the stone age for a 100% plus retirement package.
Oh wait, you probably don't qualify for the 100% plus retirement package, right?
This is great. Now, if only other states would adopt similar legislation. :)
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Linux on the desktop is banned in some departments of the state government. They use expensive proprietary software when open source would probably work. Maybe this will change that.
with some very good help from Jeremy Hogan and Walt Pennington
And Bruce Perens. Sorry I forgot to mention him earlier.
Also for what it's worth, the so-called "Initiative for Software Choice," the people whose job it is to fight open-source legislation, also kinda sorta contributed to this bill. Among their stated principles are exhortations to "Procure software on its merits" and "Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards," so that language is part of the bill. If they show up to oppose it, they're going to have to explain to some non-tech-savvy legislators why they oppose something that promotes two of their core principles!
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
The next step woud be requiring usability testing based on the average computer skillset of an Oregon government employee.
It's a slippery slope guys.
IBM still has mainframes in the Oregon state government. They have piles of DL1, CICS, and all of that. Because the state is budget-crunched, they are not funding wholesale rewrites, conversions, and migrations. They are incrementally going to new technologies. The most popular of these for the IT managers in the state government is Webshpere. This is not an easy place for open source to win, because it will be hard to slowly migrate and do piecewise replacements of mainframe systems without going to something else that runs under the same mainframe OS, eg Websphere.
...for teaching all those open-source coders how to do their jobs, creating the free value from which the state can draw intellectual property and save themselves money?
No?
Then fuck 'em.
And fuck Intel while you're at it.
What type of requirements do gov't IT jobs have?
I'm educationless, as well as lacking certifications, and I find that more then a few employers don't give me a second glance.
I'm curious to see how this effects companies like the one that I work for. I'm a foxpro developer for a company that writes software specifically for local government offices. The reason we only write software for local government is because their needs are special enough that software really does need to be specially written for them. In our case its pretty much database software. So even though offices may be required to consider open source software, it wouldn't really be very easy to move their data and software to an open sourced operating system like linux. also I'm pretty sure that a lot of these guys already know what software and hardware they're going to use before they even get started on the bidding process. That said, I'm personally very ready for if the government offices do want to start using open-source software, I'm a big lover of free software and would like if we wound up rewriting our software for an open platform.
Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
Why on earth should I give any credence to the text that follows this disclaimer?
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
am really happy to see this.
We have made a couple of IT blunders that will end up costing us quite a bit over the next few years.
DMV computer system. BTW, most of the DMV computers run win32 to access an application via terminal emulator. I have never witnessed one of these clerks use anything but that terminal emulator for what they do.
Public Water billing system. This one is pretty scary. They contract the job out to a company that delivers a poor product. There are a number of project management problems with this system that have little to do with OSS, but I can't help but wonder if fixing it would not be easier if it were OSS software.
This bill made me think a little too about return on taxpayer dollars. Lets say we do correctly spec and develop a water billing system using Open Standards and tools. Lets also say it works. Why not hire out the group that built it to other cities currently under the thumb of whatever company sold them their billing system? Seems we could get back some of our investment with services dollars while doing something good at the same time.
The more cities that use the billing system, the cheaper ongoing repairs and upgrades will be because the interest in the code is shared.
My school district is currently working hard at getting the wrinkles out of the LTSP project. Pretty cool stuff really. The schools see the dollars they spend each year and are looking hard at reductions through OSS.
Lets hope this goes somewhere?
BTW, how does one know about the hearings? They would be interesting to attend.
Blogging because I can...
Actually, we prefer Oregonads.
Yes. O.R.E.G.O.N.
Oops...pertaining to "...Is there such a thing as a FREE SOFTWARE LEECH?"
I guess I should...
A modern day witchhunt.
Your example of software to control/program computer-controlled milling machines. If someone abstracted the market enough so that it made sense to write an interface to the abstract API, instead of worrying about interacting with CADCAM producers to ensure that their/your drivers were compatible with their software/your hardware...
I really wasn't talking about low-level stuff like the good old DOS printer driver days. I was talking about domain expertise--the stuff that lies between the programmers' ears. Manufacturing (from paper/CAD to finished part) is no trivial task, and finding a person with both solid engineering/manufacturing expertise and programming expertise would be quite an accomplishment.
This kind of software isn't likely to become part of the next Red Hat distribution nor a download from SourceForge. The market is specialized, the learning curve is high, and the financial barriers to entry are very high.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Yes sir!! The article on ZD news has a quote from this complete moron whining how Microsoft did an audit of some school district and found unlicensed software. In otherwords, they were clearly in violation of software piracy and were caught red handed...then he WHINES about it. Bottom line: that guy obviously supports stealing.
Sure is funny how as techies for the state of oregon we were never taken seriously about open source, and actually smacked down for even thinking about it. But, then a bill shows up without anyone (as far as I've heard) in the "state techie community" even aware of it. That's progress....Next we might even get a bill suggesting using email instead of faxes or perhaps instead of purchasing calculators, we could ,uh, use that funny looking thingy on the ,uh, button thingy.........
I personally dont think this is the best way to go about things. Open Source should be another choice, and "forcing people to consider" it sounds a bit stupid. People should have the option to consider. However, it shouldnt be mandatory to do so.