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.
While your comment is amusing...there's also a real crisis there. Government CAN'T get good IT people, or at least can't keep them (I work in IT for the government, so I have to be careful here :). Seriously, if there's anyone on the planet that you would want to have the best IT people it's your government...so they provide better services to the constituent. The problem is, the government just flat-out can't afford to keep IT people.
They have no problem getting entry level people, which is where I began three years ago. Government jobs are fantastic if you're just getting into the field...you'll get LOTS of experience. Take me, for example. I run a Win2k network with Win2k servers, Red Hat servers, Cisco switches and router, SCO Unix server, and an NT server. I am the one-man IT department. It's great because I'm getting lots and lots of experience doing lots of different things. However, at some point the value of the knowledge I'm gaining here will be outweighed by what I could make applying the knowledge that I have in the private sector, and I'm gone!
Not to digress from the main thread or anything, but I just wanted to insert my 2 cents in here.
"You can't eat an apple with one tooth."
Sorry to say, but I highly doubt that such a law would result in making anything more than a microscopic-size dent in a $5 billion deficit. The TCO for open-source vs. proprietary systems isn't a slam-dunk either way, it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis against the value that each provides.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I bet slashdot could get an interview with him.
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.
...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.
... 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
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
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".
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...