Slashdot Mirror


Texas Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration

Skapare writes "The Texas Legislature now has before it a bill ( ASCII text here, PDF here), submitted by State Senator John Carona, to require the state to consider open source and open standards as part of the acquisition of software. Texas, like many other states, has a budget crisis going on. If this passes, I believe it could help the state save a lot of money. Texans need to make sure their state representatives and senators know they want this to pass."

193 comments

  1. But it doesn't say how hard they must consider it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hmm, Open Source? Nope. Send in the guy from Microsoft with the money-filled briefcase!"

  2. The Texas Legislature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    only meets once every two years. While I would love for a bill like this to pass, I am afraid that this bill won't be big enough to get the notice and attention it would need. Most likely it'll be swept aside in favor of using the available time for more pressing issues.

    1. Re:The Texas Legislature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see a bill pro-open source proposed by a Republican state senator...

    2. Re:The Texas Legislature by jonman_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/

      Not sure if I missed something, but it seems like they meet a lot more than once every two years. Heck, they meet Monday! Odds are pretty good that Monday's not the once-in-two-years day, eh?

    3. Re:The Texas Legislature by tadelste · · Score: 1

      I give it a good chance of passing. Unknown to people outside of Texas, Carona should be a US Senator. Heck, I'd vote for him as governor.

      This should get international attention.

      I give it 70-30 chance to pass this session.

    4. Re:The Texas Legislature by tadelste · · Score: 1

      It's more likely to get passed by Republicans - you know conservation :)

    5. Re:The Texas Legislature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I hope you're kidding. The Texas Legislature has a session every two years, not just one day. The reason he said Meets was because that is the word the Texas Constitution uses, which is not necessarily singular.

    6. Re:The Texas Legislature by webloser · · Score: 3, Informative

      the legislature meets for a 120 day period once every two years, not for one day every other year. The governor can also call a special session for 30 days anytime he wants IIRC.

    7. Re:The Texas Legislature by idamaybrown · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a texan, I think once every two years is still too frequent, they can still do a lot of damage.

    8. Re:The Texas Legislature by repetty · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Anyone would beat the asshole we have now.

      --Richard

  3. Be a cynocrat! by GrievousAngel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Stop this madness! Become a cynocrat tody!

    --


    "Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
    1. Re:Be a cynocrat! by Cyno01 · · Score: 1
      Stop this madness! Become a cynocrat tody!
      I am. *grins*
      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  4. Deja Vu! by netsharc · · Score: 3, Funny

    A repeat!!!! Oregon, Texas, what's the difference!?!

    OK, just being sarcastic, let's hope we see 50 or so more of these.. :)

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    1. Re:Deja Vu! by gazuga · · Score: 1

      Oregon, Texas, what's the difference!?!

      Boy, you ain't from around here, is you?

      --
      "I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
    2. Re:Deja Vu! by stewby18 · · Score: 1
      let's hope we see 50 or so more of these

      So that would be... one for each of the 52 states?

    3. Re:Deja Vu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or one for each of the 50 states, one for DC and one for Puerto Rico...

    4. Re:Deja Vu! by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dont forget our largest state, Canada.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    5. Re:Deja Vu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 more...? Guam?

    6. Re:Deja Vu! by glitchvern · · Score: 1
      Oregon, Texas, what's the difference!?!

      You laugh. Both states were admitted to the Union at almost the same time under President James Polk. Texas as a slave state and Oregon as a free state maintaining the all to precious balance of power in the Congress. Following Texas's admission into the Union, Mexico went to war with us. The treaty Texas had signed with Mexico ending the Texas War for Independence had specifically stated The Republic of Texas would NOT annex itself into the United States. Also, there was a dispute as to the exact borders of the Republic of Texas. After the Texans had defeated the Mexican Army, they made Santa Anna sign a treaty which made the Rio Grande Texas's Southern and Western border. The border had previously been much further to the North and East. Here is a map which shows the disputed regions.
      The Republic of Texas had been independent for about nine years before it managed to convince the United States to let Texas be admitted, and the reason it had taken so long was Texas allowed slavery. It was only when we had enough people in the Oregon territories that it was decided the United States could just let both of them in at the same time. Both the United States and Britian had claims on the Oregon territories at that time and since neither side wanted war, it was agreed to divide the territories along the 49th parallel. At the end of the Mexican-American war, when we had captured Mexico City, we "negotiated" the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which we took an enormous quantity of land from Mexico. This land would eventually become the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas. There was some debate in the Congress about taking all of Mexico, we had after all conquered them more or less completely at this point, but we so racist, that we decided we did not want that many Mexicans in "our" country. Thus completed America's manifest destiny of growing from sea to shining sea.
    7. Re:Deja Vu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Texan, a Californian and an Oregonian were out camping in the woods. As they sat around their campfire drinking, they began to brag about the virtues of their home states. Suddenly the Texan took a big swig off a bottle of Tequila, threw it high into the air, whipped out a set of six-shooters and nailed the bottle. The Californian said, "Wow, man, what a waste of good liquor!" The Texan replied, "Hell, we got plenty of that where I come from." Then the Californian took a big swig out of a bottle of Chardonnay and threw it up into the air, whipped out a semi automatic pistol and cut that bottle clean in half. The Texan said, "Whoa! What a waste of good wine!" The Californian replied, "Nahhh, we got plenty of that where I come from." Next the Oregonian took out a bottle of microbrew, drank it down to the last drop, threw it high into the air, whipped out a hunting rifle, fired a plug straight into the Californian and caught the empty bottle of microbrew before it fell. The Texan said, "Whoa! Why'd you do that?" The Oregonian answered, "We got plenty of those where I come from and besides, this bottle's worth a nickel!"

    8. Re:Deja Vu! by JoshWurzel · · Score: 1

      OK, just being sarcastic, let's hope we see 50 or so more of these

      Hmmm...
      ::counts on fingers::
      Apparently the US has 52 states now. Why wasn't THIS posted on Slashdot!?

    9. Re:Deja Vu! by dolson · · Score: 1

      Uh, excuse me?

      You are the United States of America, and we are the Canadian States of America.

      We aren't one State, we are many.

    10. Re:Deja Vu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are US. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

    11. Re:Deja Vu! by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Well, I never mentioned there wouldn't be a few repeats in those 52 /. article. In any case, I'm not a US-ian, and I couldn't bother looking up how many states they really have. Well, that makes me closer to a US-ian in that I'm just ignorant and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Tell me, do you know how many provinces France has?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    12. Re:Deja Vu! by netsharc · · Score: 1

      As I wrote to another person; I never mentioned there wouldn't be a few repeats in those 52 /. article. In any case, I'm not a US-ian, and I couldn't bother looking up how many states they really have. Well, that makes me closer to a US-ian in that I'm just ignorant and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Tell me, do you know how many provinces France has?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    13. Re:Deja Vu! by sphealey · · Score: 1
      At the end of the Mexican-American war, when we had captured Mexico City, we "negotiated" the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which we took an enormous quantity of land from Mexico. This land would eventually become the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
      This is a little-known period in US history and well worth studying. However, I would have a hard time believing that Mexico had a claim to any of the land that is now Wyoming, Kansas, or even Colorado as late as 1840! Could you provide some backup for that?

      sPh

    14. Re:Deja Vu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are US. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

      How? By funding our operating systems?

    15. Re:Deja Vu! by tmasman · · Score: 1

      OK...
      If we've seen at least Oregon & Texas...
      Where are the other "50 or so" going to come from???
      To my count there would only be another 48 (49 if you count DC).
      Eh... What do I know

      ~ tmasman

      --
      Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
    16. Re:Deja Vu! by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Third time's the charm: I never mentioned there wouldn't be a few repeats in those 52 /. article. :) In any case, I'm not a US-ian, and I couldn't bother looking up how many states they really have. Well, that makes me closer to being a US-ian in that I was being ignorant. Tell me, do you know how many provinces France has?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    17. Re:Deja Vu! by tmasman · · Score: 1

      ok, ok...
      My humblest apologies
      I'm not about to argue the ignorance of Americans when it comes to geography (myself included)

      --
      Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
  5. like the DMCA case by hutuworm · · Score: 1

    like the DMCA case

  6. Bloody Liberal by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 0

    Quit reading too much into the bloody code. The same thing goes against left-handed vs. right handed (sinister vs. dexterious), all sorts of people in the Bible, etc. If all you're going to do is fill in acronyms with things that would bolster your argument, find something better to do with your time. Have you considered taking your passionate energies and actually volunteering somewhere to directly make a difference or will you just continue to gripe?

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:Bloody Liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT YHL HAND

  7. It could save a lot of money by mrpuffypants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....but changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.

    Still, I'm going to call my people in Austin to support it.

    1. Re:It could save a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's just as much cost in sticking with what you have if the vendor forces obsolescence. Have you known very many commercial vendors who don't?

    2. Re:It could save a lot of money by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.
      I think often the question is how to migrate away from some antiquated homebrew DEC or mainframe setup. In that scenario, the transition to Oracle isn't real cheap either.

      And if you're going to invest in training, it's better to invest in something that's always available, rather than something you might not have the money to own next year, or which might be taken away through forced upgrades or discontinued support.

    3. Re:It could save a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound at least open to the idea.

      but i'm struck by the number of people who just automagically quip "it will cost to switch".

      it costs to maintain.

      it costs to pay the microsoft police (texas was just recently bitch slapped)

      it costs, because I know for a fact that many texas computers (in gov.) don't have microsoft office on them....because you didn't pay for it, and the bsa made you take it all off.

      it costs because you have lousy IT leadership

      opensource is the least of your worries.

    4. Re:It could save a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for one of the first honest posts I've seen on the general topic of conversion costs. Admin training, data convesion, all valid concerns, and no berating of Gnome, KDE, or OpenOffice! Cue the plague of locusts, the end times they are a comin'.

    5. Re:It could save a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm going to call my people"? "MY PEOPLE"??

    6. Re:It could save a lot of money by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....but changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.

      As does sticking with a commercial vendor who likes you to "update" according to their schedule.

    7. Re:It could save a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hes a negro, doh.

  8. It will save Texas more money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    so they don't have to worry about the cost of operating the electric chair.

    1. Re:It will save Texas more money... by idontgno · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I thought Texas was a lethal-injection state. That's not expensive, right? A little barbituate, a little potassium chloride. Hell, if you were really cheap you wouldn't have to worry over-much about sanitizing the plumbing--who's gonna worry about subsequent infection if the needle's not sterile?

      What the hell, too much karma's just a burden anyways.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:It will save Texas more money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm just a tad worried someone will get their wires crossed and Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond will find themselves on death row, with nobody willing to admit they made a mistake...

      Nah, that'd never happen. None of those three are black.

  9. What is the current policy? by dirk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With some form of this same bill being considered in several states, I have to wonder what the current policy is? Is there something in the current policy that would prevent open source from being considered? Or is it that this is just a way to ensure it is considered in every situation? If it is the latter, I'm not sure it's such a good thing. If there is nothing stopping it from being considered already, why do we need something to push for it to be used, as it would be on a level playing field with other software. I don't thing OSS should receive any more "special" consideration than any other product. After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:What is the current policy? by loucura! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered."

      Why? It just says that they have to be considered, not that they have to be used. Requiring consideration is very different from requiring usage.

      Requiring usage would be anti-competitive, but requiring consideration is pro-competition. Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work, so even if you consider using a competitor, it won't fit all the requirements for the requisition.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    2. Re:What is the current policy? by Siniset · · Score: 1

      I think the parent misunderstands why the legislators want OSS considered. OSS does not force the government to become reliant on any one company. Also, it allows for greater scrutiny of govermental business as nothing can be hidden behind propietary software. I think this is why goverments want OSS considered first before considering propietary solutions.

    3. Re:What is the current policy? by jbolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Often states and state agencies have regulations and legislation which require all sorts of properties from various "bidders" on contracts. By explicitly allowing for open source these regulations might be nullified when considering open source projects.

      For example lets say Texas requires that all software be purchased from companies that pay Texas sales tax. Can they use Apache?

    4. Re:What is the current policy? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Is there something in the current policy that would prevent open source from being considered?

      Open source projects do not tend to be represented by salespeople.

    5. Re:What is the current policy? by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work"

      That's an awfully broad statement - any vendor selection process that starts from the vendor's perspective is doomed to budget bloat and ultimate dissatisfaction. What is really needed is not a mandate that such-and-such software is considered, but more of a mandate that governments (just like businesses) need qualified systems analysts to drive these decisions. What's often lacking in government is the combination of technical and business expertise to make the proper match between requirements and technology.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:What is the current policy? by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. I figure that the law requires consideration means that the report that is written to decide the real product will include the reasons why and why not to choose OSS solution.

      With a sales guy, you can usually find out and relay word back. Here you have public record that you can mine for either injustice or legitimate ways to improve the features and acceptance of OSS.

      As I think is your point, genuinly this is a good thing for OSS. It just makes things even, and encourages openness.

      -----------
      OnRoad: JunkYard Wars + SCCA => Banger Racing

    7. Re:What is the current policy? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying what I already was going to say. I have always been they guy who wants the best tool for the best job. If that was the way things worked with computers, Mainframes would definitely be used for Databases and all IO intensive processes and UNIX/Linux for Calculation intensive stuff and Windows for low end file sharing and print spooling as well as clients. By saying this, the states should use the best tool. Period. Mandating that Open Source be included should not be needed. Granted, this is a good thing for open source, but bad for everything else. We need to make LESS laws. IN fact we need to get rid of some (Total Awareness thingy is the big one that needs gotten rid of....why does the government need to look at my credit report before I ride in a airplane??)

      --

      Gorkman

    8. Re:What is the current policy? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering what this story has to do with 'Your Rights Online'.

    9. Re:What is the current policy? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think you could make a case for a policy along the lines of "open source software should be used unless there is a compelling need for commercial software."

      This is little different than requiring employees to purchase the cheapest availble airfare, or limit them to midsize car rental while traveling. The low-cost option should be the default option, unless the need to spend more is demonstrated.

      Is that anticompetitive? I'm sure MS would say it is, but then the Four Seasons could balk at govt. employees not being allowed to chose a luxury suite on business travel. Ferrari could complain about discrimination in cop car purchases. It's not like "open source" is a particular company that will unfairly benefit; open source is itself a more level playing field for service contracts, custom application development, etc.

      Sure, for the forseeable future there *will* be a compelling need for lots of different commercial packages. But let's at least justify the extra expense.

    10. Re:What is the current policy? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      need qualified systems analysts to drive these decisions.

      I'd say they need not only qualified system analysis, but qualified *unbiased* system analysis, which is an even harder problem.

      There would also ideally be bans on the kind of relationships that existed in places like the Oracle/California debacle, where the analyst has a relationship with the vendor whose software is a candidate for recommendation. Of course, the logistics of how to "ban" something like this would be pretty hairy...

    11. Re:What is the current policy? by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering what this story has to do with 'Your Rights Online'.
      (Someone from Harvard would explain it far better than I, but here goes anyway;-)
      The real reason for OSS in government is that government records, and by extension the records of and about its citizens, cannot be held hostage to the whims or (mis)fortunes of any private company (or organization). Your actual rights depend as much or more on the way governments keep records as on the laws which have been enacted.

    12. Re:What is the current policy? by JordanH · · Score: 1
      • I have always been they guy who wants the best tool for the best job. If that was the way things worked with computers, Mainframes would definitely be used for Databases and all IO intensive processes and UNIX/Linux for Calculation intensive stuff and Windows for low end file sharing and print spooling as well as clients.

      This is way too much of an oversimplification. For many applications, mainframes often lose out rather badly to Unix systems for databases. Your cost and flexibility with Unix systems is often going to be superior. It depends on your requirements, of course.

      OpenVMS doesn't run on Mainframes, yet it has the best clustering available. So, some database applications are best run there.

      Similarly, there are clients applications where Linux seems to be a big win over Windows. POS systems come to mind. SAMBA can be more flexible for low end file sharing. It all depends on what you want to do.

      • Mandating that Open Source be included should not be needed.

      Nobody is 'Mandating that Open Source be included'. The mandate is that Open Source be considered.

      Since Open Source might help build a healthy local software economy for people to build and customize applications, rather than send all your money to Redmond or whereever your database/app vendor lives, it's seems like it's in the State's best interest to have OSS considered. But, just considered.

      Technologists are often afraid to openly advocate Open Source. A law like this can help. But, the mandate is just to consider it, nothing more. I'd like to think that, all things being equal, the Open Source solution might win some of these competitions.

    13. Re:What is the current policy? by idontgno · · Score: 1
      Well, your specific isn't a hindrance. Yes, they can use Apache. Since no money changes hands, no sales tax accrues. No tax, no applicability.

      Besides, everyone will pay their state's sales tax before long!

      Non-USians: none of this applies to you. Or maybe not.

      Bottom line: open-source is probably not going to be disqualified by any state's acquision law, even the loopholey "gimme-my-kickback" kind.

      No, I think that the battle lies in the hearts, minds, and committee-meeting agendas of acquisition and technical bureaucrats at all levels of government, Texas included. "Consider open source" needs teeth or else it will get the "We considered it a bad idea" treatment.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    14. Re:What is the current policy? by dirk · · Score: 1

      Except that in software there are features that you are looking for/need. The only feature of a plane flight that matters is that it gets you from point A to point B when you want. Everything else is just gravy. Same thing with a rental car. But with software the requirements are much more stringent and important. Cost is a factor, but so are the options and features the software provides. If you're requirements are a word processing programs with features X, Y, and Z that can easily be used to transfer documents with complex formatting to all people, OpenOffice may be cheaper, but may not have all the features that MS Office has. Features are much more important in software than costs are.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    15. Re:What is the current policy? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      That's why any such policy would allow paying for software when necessary.

      But what about IIS? Haven't you wondered WHY people are using it when Apache is the market leader, free, and has a better security record? I think sometimes in govt. there's no incentive to avoid wasting money unless there's a rule that says you should.

    16. Re:What is the current policy? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Where is the Apache state tax id # with the filing for $0? That's how they might define a company that pays sales tax.

    17. Re:What is the current policy? by idontgno · · Score: 1
      Quoting grandparent:

      Often states and state agencies have regulations and legislation which require all sorts of properties from various "bidders" on contracts.

      What contract? Not applicable. Govt IT employee downloads, configures, and installs. The only way that doesn't happen is if IT employee's PHB decides that you have to buy software. Hence, my comments about the hearts (not applicable in the case PHBs), minds (also not applicable), and meeting agendas (right on point).

      And the scenario can be played out other ways, too. Hire a local or in-state integration contractor. The contractor has to meet whatever pork-barrel acquisition rules, but now has the freedom to provide OS as well as (or instead of) commercial. A regular tax-revenue source (sales, property, income, whatever your state charges), within easy reach of the state revenue department, and keepin' those Texas Dollars in Texas, God Bless 'em!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:What is the current policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For example lets say Texas requires that all software be purchased from companies that pay Texas sales tax. Can they use Apache?

      Just so people understand, Texas doesn't have this requirement.

    19. Re:What is the current policy? by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 1
      Here's the focus of inertia:
      Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work

      That would hold true except that there is a difference with PUBLIC bidding procedures.

      The problem stated above could change of course, if an enterprising soul said "I can make exactly what you want for $1.00 less than MS!! You gotta choose me!", either by customizing something already free or rolling a new product And with state contracts, you mostly gotta take the lowest bidder. Also, the criteria is open. That's precisely where the beauty of OSS and GPL are born.
      There's no need to be a poor programmer while suporting OSS/GPL. Make it work for you and take down the empire!....you just gotta put your money where your mouth is.

    20. Re:What is the current policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current policy for the federal government, and most states, is a compute-off. This is similar to a fly-off between two fighter manufacturers. The best one to meet the overall requirements, and cost the least, wins.

      Unfortunately, most government agencies, at the state and federal level, look for technical support as a requirement. Official, established, technical support is what is missing with most open source software.

      These laws would require Texas to at least look at the possibilities of open source.

    21. Re:What is the current policy? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered.

      Good moding and question. I think the primary difference is that OSS isn't 'a' company, nor is it perceived that way. It means different things to different people. To bean counters it means free as in beer. To politicians, it means they can spend the money on something else (they would never just spend less). To the management of the agencies, it means "getting that new software everyone is talking about." To the end user it means "crap, learning something news, i don't get paid for this. To the IT department, it means more money and some education.

      If you could get 'windows' from many different vendors, free,or not, then it would be a different story. Govt.s have such specialized needs in so many depts, that linux SHOULD be a viable alternative. If it takes a bill to make all the decision makers within the govt. feel its ok to look at this 'new operating system', then I think its ok to pass the law, although i agree it should not really be needed.

      Now, if they passed a bill to look at "redhat linux" or a VENDOR/BRAND in particular, then I think the comparison would be more direct.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    22. Re:What is the current policy? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered.

      Yes, but only because they're a harmful monpooly. As great as the free market theories are, in practice once the market has been poisoned by a monopoly then corrective action is needed. That's what this bill does. This bill addresses the fact that the IT industry is in dire straights (mainly because of Microsoft) and is forcing competition through legislation.

      It does more than that. It addresses "open standards" so as not to fall into another Microsoft-like trap.

      Would I support a pro-Corel or pro-Apple bill? Sure. Just because the feds let Microsoft get away with a slap on the wrist doesn't mean the states will. Or perhaps its more accurate to say: that doesnt mean that the states didn't learn a lesson from the anti-trust trial.

      I think the need for open standards and the alternative of using free/open software has hit critical mass. Expect more talk or legislation along these lines. The worst thing the anti-trust trial did for Microsoft is expose HOW they control things.

      Knowing is half the battle, right?

    23. Re:What is the current policy? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What contract? Not applicable. Govt IT employee downloads, configures, and installs.

      You haven't worked with government much have you? Imagine the difference in freedom between being IS for a small business vs. a large corporation. That's the same difference as between large corporation and government. Government employees don't install anything (in general there are exceptions). The employees are generally responsible for vendor management and designing the criteria for the RFP/RFQ (though often they are even more removed from that and do vendor management for the vendors that design the criteria...).

      And the scenario can be played out other ways, too. Hire a local or in-state integration contractor. The contractor has to meet whatever pork-barrel acquisition rules, but now has the freedom to provide OS as well as (or instead of) commercial. A regular tax-revenue source (sales, property, income, whatever your state charges), within easy reach of the state revenue department, and keepin' those Texas Dollars in Texas, God Bless 'em!

      Exactly that would get around the sales tax issue. But it might not get around something like a total revenue clause (ro prevent nepotism, corruption...).

      Anyway I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You seem to have a pretty good handle, you can't imagine the kinds of regulations that might block open source.

    24. Re:What is the current policy? by wfrp01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't thing OSS should receive any more "special" consideration than any other product.

      Do you think public forms and documents should be distributed using proprietary formats, thereby compelling taxpayers who expect to benefit from their existence to aquire the same proprietary software? Do you see any irony in using proprietary software to manage the affairs of public institutions? (hint: proprietary is the opposite of public)

      Of course we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered! But this is not a apples to apples comparison. Apple to Microsoft might be (less so lately). OSS/Free Software to Microsoft is not.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    25. Re:What is the current policy? by brundlefly · · Score: 1
      Why? It just says that they have to be considered, not that they have to be used. Requiring consideration is very different from requiring usage.
      Yeah, but do we really need more nit-picking laws? A periodic memo would accomplish the same thing here.... A law is only useful if it a) protects something which needs protecting, and b) gets enforced. This law fits neither criteria. (Imagine someone getting brought up on charges for "not considering to use open source" and you'll see how silly this seems.)
    26. Re:What is the current policy? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Informative
      You haven't worked with government much have you? Imagine the difference in freedom between being IS for a small business vs. a large corporation. That's the same difference as between large corporation and government. Government employees don't install anything (in general there are exceptions).

      I'm lead engineer for a U.S. Air Force developmental and contracting facility. (I think it qualifies as "government".) I get to install damn near whatever I want in the lab. Most of my demonstrations become production prototypes, and come deployment time the execution contractors often choose the same architecture we prototyped, right down to the same open-source suites (operating environments, toolsets, tons of GNU stuff...).

      The employees are generally responsible for vendor management and designing the criteria for the RFP/RFQ (though often they are even more removed from that and do vendor management for the vendors that design the criteria...).

      Yes, we have vendor minders in the contracting center, but even they are beginning to open up to OS (since, for instance, some of the distros have received some US DoD "blessing"). And yes, sometimes it's "Here's a bunch of money, please tell us what we need and then build it for us," but we geeks in the process have our say and it often weighs in highly with the suits. Hell, that's literally 50% of my job--engineering assessment of contractor proposals for requirements, architecture, analysis, design, testing, coding, deployment and integration--half technical analyst for the customer, half mad scientist. It's a living.

      If any given governmental entity has geeks on-staff, and they listen to the geeks at all, open-source can viably be a part of their IT infrastructure. If the governmental entity doesn't have its own technical experts, or has them but doesn't listen to them, they (A) deserve to suck, and (B) can still benefit from "consider OS" laws if they are encouraged (by said laws) to contract with someone clueful.

      Anyway I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You seem to have a pretty good handle, you can't imagine the kinds of regulations that might block open source.

      I don't have to imagine, I've lived it, and we're slowly making progress within my little slice of government IT to work our way around and through and over the maze. A law like this helps, because it gives the embattled geek who wants to see the right thing done one more small pile of paper to stack up against the other piles of paper. After all, that's how these types of decisions are made, right? Whichever side can produce the greater weight of relevant laws, regulations, instructions, and supporting documentation wins.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    27. Re:What is the current policy? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying what I already was going to say. I have always been they guy who wants the best tool for the best job. If that was the way things worked with computers, Mainframes would definitely be used for Databases and all IO intensive processes and UNIX/Linux for Calculation intensive stuff and Windows for low end file sharing and print spooling as well as clients.

      In quite a few cases the best tool for the job might be a terminal either text or graphics. I've seen quite a few situations where Windows machines do nothing other than run a maximised copy of Hyperterminal.

    28. Re:What is the current policy? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I remember back when my company machine was a 75 MHz Pentium, the cashier's office got brand new Pentium II 450's to run 3270 emulation. If they had been using a terminal, we'd have had the ability to attatch a printer directly to the terminal for CICS prints instead of the kludge we have now of a PC running SNA over IP mapping to 5 network printers, all to the row of cashiers. The printers they bought did not even have a parallel port on it, plus the needed the ability to do some processing on the CICS data to make it look right on the paper. KLUDGE KLUDGE KLUDGE! PLUS those machines are running TN3270 sessions instead of using a direct connect 3270 card. Means the network dies, so do they. Used to be a real PITA!

      --

      Gorkman

    29. Re:What is the current policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an awfully broad statement - any vendor selection process that starts from the vendor's perspective is doomed to budget bloat and ultimate dissatisfaction.

      Tragically this is often how purchasing in Texas, and other government organizations works. TIERS is a large multimillion dollar project to revamp the computer system that manages Texas's welfare programs (currently it runs on Unisys mainframe hardware that was considered dated in the mid 80's, I often stumbled across software that had been written before I was born). A number of state employees have confided that the decision of which vendor would win the contract was decided by outside influences (read as pressure from a member of the Texas legislature) before bidding, or even requirements were laid down.

      Currently the project is in progress, and cost overruns and poor performance is everywhere. Paper forms that took 20 minutes for an employee to fill out, now take 1.5hours using the computer system. The software is expected to scale to over 10,000 users, and rumors indicate the vendor is having difficulty scaling past several hundred.

    30. Re:What is the current policy? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Because currently there is no level playing field, products are usually chosen based on what those in positions of power have vested interests in, or what the salesman managed to tell them. NOT based on research and testing by qualified unbiased professionals.
      I dont want to pay tax to the local government so that they can buy microsoft (or any other vendor) software based on "the mayor plays golf with one of their execs" or "senator whoever owns shares in them"
      I have no problem what the government uses, so long as its used for the RIGHT reasons, ie efficiency, cost, etc... Personally i think the results of cost effectiveness and efficiency studies should be made available to the public, so that the government can be held accountable if they`ve wasted taxpayers money.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  10. I will be visiting Texas... by Forge · · Score: 0

    ... For the 1st time this April.

    I'll see to it that this bill gets the suport it deservs. I'll loby, I'll march, I'll recrute people to work the phones and go house to house.

    Hmm... Maybe not.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:I will be visiting Texas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which city you headed to?

  11. I don't get it by jstroebele · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Why is a republican supporting this bill? There is no money in open source software. What is the truly liberal slashdot crowd to do? We love open source but hate republicans. They must be doing this so "Big Oil" can save some money, or maybe to kill innocent people in Iraq. What makes this worse is it's coming from Texas, oh no what to do.... Go listen to my Dixie Chicks CD and smoke pot I guess.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Senator Hollings is a Democract and we all hate him.

    2. Re:I don't get it by mitcharoni · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because there are no liberals left in Texas. We shoot them on sight. We're too busy tending to our oil wells or horses to know any better, or having sex with farm animals, depending on the time of day. It's also compounded by the fact that none of us here made it past the third grade can't say words with more than two syllables.

      And we also hate anybody who wears a turban on their head, hence the deep-rooted right-wing conspiracy that got "Dubya" elected just so we can go kill lots of "rag heads". YEEEHAAWWWW!!!!

      I'd say more, but I have to go prune my marijuana crop. Or tap some more light sweet crude. Mmmm mmmm!!!!

      WILLIE NELSON FOR PRESIDENT! REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

      Ignorant retard.

  12. Why is this required? by Captain+Beefheart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm seriously curious, because it just seems a little silly that even considering open source has to be legislated. Are there laws that forbid open source in this particualar situation?

    1. Re:Why is this required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      No, there are no rules against selecting open source solutions. Open source has always been an option, and the "best value" business is typical of government contract requirements. Maybe there's a few evaluators that never "considered" open source; maybe they'll even do more than "consider" it for five minutes after this bill is passed. But it's unlikely to actually change anything.

      All of which is why the bill is nothing more than a bit of grandstanding on the part of the sponsors. They can get a vocal geek lobby cheerleading for them.

      Consider, for example, the well-known DoD "mandate" for Ada in all future projects. A few major projects were done in Ada. Most simply escaped under the "waiver" clause that let you simply claim it would be more cost-effective to use another language. And the everything-in-Ada requirement was a lot more stringent than this one. You see the same language there -- total cost of project, cost of components, cost of training, availability of personnel, blah, blah, blah.

    2. Re:Why is this required? by Captain+Beefheart · · Score: 1

      OK, thanks for clearing that up :-)

    3. Re:Why is this required? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, pretty much all governments have laws requiring competetive bidding for government contracts. So you'd think this would be fully redundant.

      But it probably isn't. There are a lot of examples of only "commercial" offering being considered.

      Something I've seen on a number of web projects is a concerted effort to judge which web server to buy. While they're putting out a lot of effort installing and testing demo versions of commercial servers, I'll walk over to an idle machine, download apache, untar and compile it, and have a demo running in 15 or 20 minutes.

      Usually the reaction to this is exasperation. Apache wasn't in the list of competitors, and wasn't to be tested. After all, it doesn't have a price, y'know, and there isn't an Apache Inc to buy it from, so how could they ever compare it with the other servers? The rules are to consider competitive bids, and apache didn't make a bid, so they don't have to consider it.

      But in each case, the developers went with my apache server, because it was up and running. The management found they had serious opposition on their hands when they tried to get people to switch to the commercial server that they chose. The developers wanted something that worked, and had little patience for an expensive server that needed a constant babysitter.

      In all seriousness, this is how things get done in many organizations. Few managers anywhere want to decrease their budget by using something that's free. It doesn't matter whether it's government or business or industry or whatever; there's a strong prediliction among managers to simply not see "free" things.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Why is this required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence one big reason Sun sells OpenOffice. Once it's not free, PHM (pointy-haired-managers) actually look at it.

    5. Re:Why is this required? by FsG · · Score: 1
      Usually the reaction to this is exasperation. Apache wasn't in the list of competitors, and wasn't to be tested. After all, it doesn't have a price, y'know, and there isn't an Apache Inc to buy it from, so how could they ever compare it with the other servers? The rules are to consider competitive bids, and apache didn't make a bid, so they don't have to consider it.

      That's an excellent point; I wonder if we could address this problem to increase awareness of free options like Apache. For example, couldn't the Apache group form an Apache, Inc. and sell the very same server (in addition to posting it for download at httpd.apache.org) for, say, $5? It would then be a commercial product, and other companies could finally look at it as a potential choice. Plus, it'd still be cheaper than the compedetors.

      --
      I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
    6. Re:Why is this required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the Apache Foundation is a corporation. What was once the Apache Group was incorporated as the Apache Foundation so the Apache would be represented by a legal entity. This happen around the time IBM decided to resell Apache had IBM's lawyers couldn't get their heads around obtaining a product from a supplier that doesn't exist (as a legal entity - remember, these are lawyers).

      Speaking of which, there already exists an organization from which to buy Apache. That organization is called IBM! I'm sure many other suppliers can be found, some even in Texas. In other words, use Apache, and the money stays in Texas.

      And if the Texas government can't find someone to buy an open source product from, just post an RFQ on Slashdot. They'll get a few million responses from Texas and around the world. I for one will charge a lot more than $5. I want to make a profit too.

    7. Re:Why is this required? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Another excellent point. And $5 is far too low a quote. The thing to do is follow RedHat's lead, and make the bid as a company selling consulting and support.

      We might note that this isn't exactly a new idea. IBM has historically made money from selling hardware, yes, but they also make billions selling support contracts. Their approach for decades has been to sell or give away the software, and charge customers for support.

      It may be true that the Open Source crowd has good, free online consulting help. But a close look shows that this is mosly a good tool for us geeks. If we really want to succeed in the commercial arena, we need consulting help for businesses. This is probably not a job for computer geeks; it's a job for specialized business consultants. IBM has realized this, and it may be a matter of time before MS realizes it, too. Then we'll see both IBM and MS abandoning their OSs and making billions selling support contracts for Open Source software. IBM has already started on that path.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  13. Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... by bluxus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet if the bill was convered in bbq sauce, or cleverly inserted into an acutal, edible, brisket sandwich it would receive the attention it deserves. I think we all know the true path to a Texan's heart.

  14. Re:Open Source? More like Openly Racist by the_bean42 · · Score: 0

    I guess the parent is a joke. But it's so bad it's looks like a troll.

    Keep your jokes shorter dude. And make sure they are relevant at all. Plz.

  15. Just think by fluxrad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This could be a huge boon to open source. Companies like Red-Hat could run promotional campaigns based on being the software of choice in TX.

    Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox could become the de facto pioneers of a whole slew of software designed to speed the execution of retarded prisoners.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:Just think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Red Hat -- it improves the national average IQ"?

  16. It's funny by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Funny how the economy goes in the toilet, and all of a sudden state governments start realizing that Microsoft is really a band of highway robbers. And this isn't the only announcement in recent weeks that a state is seriously considering switching things over to Open Source software.

    I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.

    1. Re:It's funny by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.

      Gee I wonder... what powered that whole "Internet" craze? Sure as hell wasn't Windows 3.1.

      If OSS had a ticker symbol, I'd buy in a heartbeat.

    2. Re:It's funny by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.
      "He who lives by the crystal ball shall learn to enjoy ground glass".
      In a word, yes. For how and why, take a close look at IBM. Don't confuse free with cheap. Microsoft makes a glitzy facade with no real substance behind it. The required real substance is expensive. Very expensive. Large business systems that must interoperate reliably, with no funny business going on in dark corners. The future isn't B2B, it's B2B2B...2B with a few Cs thrown into the brew, where the whole mess is sufficiently open that I do not have to trust my neighbors.

    3. Re:It's funny by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
      Gee I wonder... what powered that whole "Internet" craze? Sure as hell wasn't Windows 3.1.

      Yeah. But the Windows dudes brought the money. Missed again, Slashdot ha ha!

  17. Open standards most important by bluGill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't mind them picking any closed source solution so long as it has sufficant functionality and guarenties so that they know it will work right. However I do have a problem with ANY solution that is not open standard based. microsoft doc format works okay, but it limits your ability to choose a compititor. In effect your next bid for who supplies word processors either has to have perfect microsoft compatability, or you need to account for a team to open every current document and save it in a standard that the new program can read.

    By contrast if they require an open standard as default, today they can use Word, and tommorow switch to wordPerfect, and next year Staroffice might win the bid for who supplies word processing software. Even better than can be a mixture. Most people would be served just fine with kword or openoffice, but a few people need as use those features in microsft word that isn't provided in the alternatives. With a standard file format you mix and match as you wish. Today you can already provide Photoshop to those who really need the best, and Gimp to everyone, since picture formats are open. Word processing formats should be too.

    Even though I mentioned file formats above, that isn't the only place where open standards are better. At walMart I can buy several different memory card readers. Some support 3 different formats, some 5, and some 6! If you happen to buy the 6 port version you can read most formats today, but not all. By contrast there is already a good open standard memory card interface: USB, and every new comptuer has it so there is no need to buy any adaptor. (Some of the memory cards read by the reader might be considered open, but they are not everywhere so it is hard to call them standard. This should be a considereation too)

    1. Re:Open standards most important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By contrast if they require an open standard as default, today they can use Word, and tommorow switch to wordPerfect, and next year Staroffice might win the bid for who supplies word processing software.

      As someone who has been the instructor for several classes of Texas state government workers, I have to tell you that you're nuts.

      There's no way in hell you can simply change the software on these people every year. These aren't uber-hackers, these are little old ladies who barely know how to operate a mouse. That's not hyperbole -- they really do barely know how to operate a mouse! Yes, this only applies to the least tech savvy of them, but more of them are tech ignorant than otherwise.

      To do as you suggest, changing software packages on them yearly, would grind these agencies to a shuddering halt.

    2. Re:Open standards most important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an employee of a university in Texas, I have a couple of concerns with the proposed legislation. My biggest concern relates to the oversight handed to the Department of Information Resources (DIR) when it comes to state agencies "justifying" their decisions.

      The DIR, unfortunately, has a history of turning everything within their grasp into a giant, cumbersome, time-wasting exercise in paperwork. I have no doubt that, if passed, the implementation of the legislation will result in lengthy and time consuming reporting for every acquisition, no matter how insignificant the expenditure. I can already see expending 20 hours of staff time filling out forms to justify the purchase of one copy of MS Word instead of installing AbiWord.

      That said, my agency has used open source alternatives, where feasible, since 1995. We already "consider" open source alternatives, and our existing open source implementations should serve as proof of such consideration. Unfortunately, I doubt that will be the case given DIR involvement.

  18. Please also mention HB1899 by GregAllen · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    If you do call your state representatives, please also express your support for Texas House Bill 1899 - Prevention of International Parental Child Abduction.

    A similar bill has already been passed in California. This bill could have helped to prevent my daughter's abduction to Mexico. She has been missing since last April. FindSabrina.org for details.

    Let me tell you, your definition of "stuff that matters" changes when your child has been abducted.

    --
    Please help find my missing daughter: FindSabrina.org
    1. Re:Please also mention HB1899 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Shut up. Shut up shut up shut up. You are the noise in the signal. You are the jackhammer on an early spring morning. You are the motorcyclist with no muffler. Stay on topic, red 5.

      The Peace and Quiet Nazi

    2. Re:Please also mention HB1899 by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Erm.. I hate to be the eternal pessimist, but what good would another law do? It's *already* illegal to take minors out of the US without written consent of *BOTH* parents.

      If an estranged husband/wife is already planning to grab the kids and run to Mexico (breaking several state and federal laws), I don't think another state law is going to do much to stop him/her!

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    3. Re:Please also mention HB1899 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I see from findsabrina.org that you are a churchgoing man, I can only conclude that Sabrina is better off out of your custody than in it. Religion = child abuse.

    4. Re:Please also mention HB1899 by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but here in the US we LIKE to have hundreds of pointless additional laws.

      Let's examine Assult.

      You hit someone with a stick = Assult
      You hit your wife with a stick = Spouse Abuse
      You hit someone with a stick who is not exactly like you = Hate Crime

      Maybe it makes people feel better, or maybe it just keeps the lawyers in business keeping track of these new categories.

      Dan

  19. Interestingly enough by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many other countries seem to have similar considerations on a nation-by-nation basis, whereas the USA, if it even considers the question, does so on a state-be state basis. It's probably the state-by-state basis that will effect any actual change. This, not even on its own merits, but upon financial merits.

    [slightly OT] I wonder how US and State Gov't entities reconcile themselves with their own laws and decrees WRT OS-level stong encryption in such a scenario?

    --
    C|N>K
    1. Re:Interestingly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In cases where open source is considered in relation to government administration (ie. running the government as opposed to providing services to the public), it's appropriate for each government at each level to independently consider open source. It's the same as how each city, county, state, etc. separately considers how to spend money on paperclips, staples, etc.
      In the case of interstate commerce, it becomes more of a federal issue. There are other cases like federal privacy legislation (or any federal legislation or anything else the Constitution grants to the federal government) that it is more of a federal than state issue.

    2. Re:Interestingly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crypto shouldn't be an issue is state government as I doubt they'll be exporting it.

  20. Would be good... by Aliencow · · Score: 0

    If they used OpenBSD... Bulletproof security... *rimshot*

  21. How? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    How will this save money?

    1. Re:How? by *xpenguin* · · Score: 1

      How will this save money?

      Well, they won't have to pay licensing costs but it'll all even out as they have to train employees to use crap (to-the-user) alternatives to the software they had a year ago.

    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft won't be able to raise the rental cost every year!

    3. Re:How? by ctid · · Score: 1

      For most MS Office users, the re-training costs will be negligible, so long as they are sensible in the way the desktop is set up. The issue of spending money on licences versus spending it on training is interesting. Which would you rather do? Spend money on training Texans and broaden their skill base, or spend money on MS's shareholders? I know which I would prefer if it was up to me.

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  22. Bill? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought he was keen on selling Windows.

    Oh, wait. That's not Bill Gates, it's "Texas Bill". Sorry, my fault.

  23. Re:Who is the real threat in the Middle East? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a fine article, albeit with one error: There is no such thing as an "Israeli scientist".

  24. Can't be said often enough! by timothy · · Score: 1
    "By contrast if they require an open standard as default, today they can use Word, and tommorow switch to wordPerfect, and next year Staroffice might win the bid for who supplies word processing software. Even better than can be a mixture."

    My mixture of cynicism and optimism varies by the day, but simply getting the idea across to people there for any given task they do in life, there are (or should be) other ways to do it is the most important thing here. Inertia is probably just as strong a force as horniness, but far less useful IMO.

    People who hit the dashboard with their knees anytime you mention however casually that there might be a document format other than Microsoft Word (TM) remind me of the hitchhiker in There's Something About Mary: "no, *seven minute abs!"

    At greater length,

    "No! No not six, I said seven. Nobody's coming up with Six, who works out in six minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel."


    (And at even greater length -- see the whole exchange ... sure, it's low-brow, but this movie does low-brow the right way.)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  25. Holy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have the best wishes of this particular anonymous coward. I hope you find her soon.

    1. Re:Holy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, this one too...hope your daughter is safe

  26. Re:TEXAS HAS OIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Texans will fight back whereas the Iraqis won't

  27. Re:Who is the real threat in the Middle East? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that article is well over 4 years old...

    this one gives a date of Nov. 1998. We probably would have heard something by now...

  28. Re:Who is the real threat in the Middle East? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they share the same DNA they'd just be killing themselves. Take off the tin foil hat and step away from the microwave.

  29. Re:Beat you by a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm a 'top', not a 'bottom'-- pitcher, not a catcher. get my drift, buddy? now spread those ass cheeks.

  30. MS can solve your problem there too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say people don't need everything in Word. I say "you're right". WordPad has all the features that 99% of the populus needs for creating documents. And guess what, IT'S FREE! It's small, quick, bereft of bloat, and supports open file standards like .txt and .rtf.

    Oh, but because MS made it, it's all of a sudden not worth using, right? Begin the hypocritical stammering.

    1. Re:MS can solve your problem there too. by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      It's not very often that I reply to an AC, but I have to agree with you about WordPad. I like it ok myself, and you know what? I switched over to Linux and nothing else back in 1997.

      I get people all the time who want me to support their Win 95/98/NT/2k/XP boxes, and the weird thing is this: Why is it that less than 10% of them even know of WordPad's existence? Those who *do* know of it seem to use Word anyhow, for various reasons:

      "It's fancier"
      "There's an icon for it right there"
      "It came with it, so I might as well"
      "WordPad makes it look ugly"
      "I want to drag-n-drop *everything*"

      and the list goes on...

      Like I said, I actually don't mind WordPad a bit. I guess it's a question of work style or something. (shrugs - I dunno)

      For sure, though: The anti-MS thing has as much if not more to do with their business practices/ethics as it does with their technology. That's why I like WordPad: text is text is text.
      I've never had a user who can be arsed to "Save As", even if they get the concept of it. Bummer.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:MS can solve your problem there too. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It`s NOT free, you have to buy windows before you can use it.. thus it is effectively a component of something you pay for.
      Compare it to a car battery, sure you get one when you buy a car, but its not free, its part of the cost, and if you want one seperately you have to pay.
      Only you cant get wordpad seperately.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  31. Exactly... to have more control over your own dest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm the network manager for a medium-size city government in Texas. Although city govts are distinct and separate from the state, we can still buy our software off of the "state contract" prices from "QISV" vendors without having to go thru the RFP/open bidding process.

    Half a decade ago we embarked on acquiring only "vendor-supported turnkey software apps" and ditched our in-house written systems (mostly old mainframe stuff) because it was perceived to be more cost-saving route, rather than having to keep our own expensive tech staff on payroll. What we've actually learned over the years is that "vendor-supported turnkey apps" is a farce. The vendors corrall and herd you into a corner where they want you, the support prices skyrocket overnight while the quality of tech support plummets. They force you onto a never-ending upgrade gravy-train which only benefits their bottom line. They do not keep knowledgeable support staff because that is a cost center to them, you get to wait on hold forever only to get to talk to a bubblegum-smacking teenager with a condescending attitude who barely can parrot back the owner's manual to you and cannot solve any real technical problems.

    In the end, running complex computer systems costs a lot of money, whether you pay thru the nose for "vendor supported turnkey apps" or keep your own staff of technical experts it eventually costs the same in the long run. When you do the latter, you are in much more control of your own destiny, you upgrade if-and-when you decide, not when the vendor decides. You can customize the system to fit your own internal business needs.

    I am using open source software everywhere I possibly can in my organization. We're feeling the budget crunch too, and the purchase cost savings of open source is definitely popular with my managers, though they are concerned with "who will support it", well the answer is the same people who would be supporting the "vendor-supported turnkey apps" --- the city's own I.S. staff, because whoever the commercial software's "owner-of-the-day" (the companies are constantly getting bought out by other companies) is generally incompetant anymore.

  32. Re: Money is the reason all right... by Glasswire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but not necessarily because of the Open Source cost advantages. If I were in purchasing for any state, national govt (or corp) for that matter, I would get mgmt to talk loud and publically about how we're considering Open Source. Even if I had no real intention to use it. Why? Anyone who tells you that Microsoft licence prices AREN'T negotiable is ill-informed or naive...

  33. Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a patriotic and loyal Texan who is required by my personal honor to defend the dignity and good name of the Texas Legislature I feel it is my duty to point out that you sir have made a most grave mistake in your amusing little jest.

    You left out the Jalapeno Peppers. You want this taken care of asap don't you?

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  34. Re:But it doesn't say how hard they must consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need the $$$. Do you know what it costs to execute prisoners?!?!?!

  35. Re:But it doesn't say how hard they must consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bruce Bethke: Cyberpunk

    The snoozer went off at seven and I was out of my sleepsack, powered up,
    and on-line in nanos. That's as far as I got. Soon I booted and got -
    CRACKERS/BUDDYBOO/8ER
    on the tube I shut down fast. Damn! Rayno had been on line before me, like
    always, and that message meant somebody else had gotten into our Net - and
    that meant trouble by the busload! I couldn't do anything mor on term, so
    I zipped into my jumper, combed my hair, and went downstairs.
    Mom and Dad were at breakfast when I slid into the kitchen. "Good Morning,
    Mikey!" said Mom with a smile. "You were up so late last night I thought I
    wouldn't see you before you caught your bus."
    "Had a tough program to crack," I said.
    "Well," she said, "now you can sit down and have a decent breakfast." She
    turned around to pull some Sara Lees out of the microwave and plunk them
    down on the table.
    "If you'd do your schoolwork when you're supposed to you wouldn't have to
    stay up all night," growled Dad from behind his caffix and faxsheet. I
    sloshed some juice in a glass and poured it down, stuffed a Sara Lee into
    my mouth, and stood to go.
    "What?" asked Mom. "That's all the breakfast you're going to have?"
    "Haven't got time," I said. "I gotta get to school early to see if the
    program checks." Dad growled something more and Mom spoke to quiet him,
    but I didn't hear much 'cause I was out the door.
    I caught the transys for school, just in case they were watching. Two
    blocks down the line I got off and transferred going back the other way,
    and a coupla transfers later I wound up whipping into Buddy's All-Night
    Burgers. Rayno was in our booth, glaring into his caffix. It was 7:55 and
    I'd beat Georgie and Lisa there.
    "What's on line?" I asked as I dropped into my seat, across from Rayno. He
    just looked up at me through his eyebrows and I knew better than to ask
    again.
    At eight Lisa came in. Lisa is Rayno's girl, or at least she hopes she is.
    I can see why: Rayno's seventeen - two years older than the rest of us -
    he wears flash plastic and his hair in The Wedge (Dad blew a chip when I
    said I wanted my hair cut like that) and he's so cool he won't even touch
    her, even when she's begging for it. She plunked down in her seat next to
    Rayno and he didn't blink.
    Georgie still wasn't there at 8:05. Rayno checked his watch again, then
    finally looked up from his caffix. "The compiler's been cracked," he said.
    Lisa and I both swore. We'd worked up our own little code to keep our Net
    private. I mean, our Olders would just blow boards if they ever found out
    what we were really up to. And now somebody'd broken our code.
    "Georgie's old man?" I asked.
    "Looks that way." I swore again. Georgie and I started the Net by linking
    our smartterms with some stuff we stored in his old man's home business
    system. Now my Dad woudln't know an opsys if he crashed on one, but
    Georgie's old man - he's a greentooth. A tech-type. He'd found one of ours
    once before and tried to take it apart to see what it did. We'd just
    skinned out that time.
    "Any idea how far in he got?" Lisa asked. Rayno looked through her, at the
    front door. Georgie'd just come in.
    "We're gonna find out," Rayno said.
    Georgie was coming in smiling, but when he saw that look in Rayno's eyes
    he sat down next to me like the seat was booby-trapped.
    "Good Morning Georgie," said Rayno, smiling like a shark.
    "I didn't glitch!" Georgie whined. "I didn't tell him a thing!"
    "Then how the Hell did he do it?"
    "You know how he is, he's weird! He likes puzzles!" Georgie look

  36. Good idea on paper but.... by jrwillis · · Score: 5, Informative

    As an I.T. guy/admin for a Texas agency this isn't going to happen. First of all, at least 75% of the tech staff at your average state agency isn't going to be able to learn to support open source software. It's not like in the real world where a good number of people in I.T. are interested in learning new things. Where I work there are techs that are possibly going to retire simply because we're going from Win 9x to 2k. Now if that throws them that much what do you think is going to happen when you put a Linux/BSD box in front of them? Also, it's painfully obvious that the people that run these agencies could care less about saving money. For example, we paied $300 to have a cpu fan replaced in a computer the other day because if we went out and bought one ourselves and installed it we'd be in violation of a contract with the harware repair vender. I deal with things like this every day and there's nothing that can be done about it.

    --
    Keep Austin Weird!
    1. Re:Good idea on paper but.... by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      Also, it's painfully obvious that the people that run these agencies could care less about saving money.

      That's probably why a law is needed to force these dinosaurs to look at saving money.

      I deal with things like this every day and there's nothing that can be done about it.

      Hopefully a law like this will help. If you just blindly pick a proprietary product you'd be breaking the law and hopefully diciplined/fired. It's unfortunate that state employees wouldn't care about saving people money.

    2. Re:Good idea on paper but.... by tmasman · · Score: 1

      I see...
      Sounds like the same mentality that went into why the width of train track are the width they are... (The whole it's the way we've always done it BS)...
      If 75% of your staff isn't willing/able to learn new software, then why are they in the technology industry (& why did you hire them)? The tech world is changing every day, & if your IT staff can't/won't keep up, then you should consider finding some better help. I for one am not going to listen to this "Because that's the way we've always done it" crap.

      ~ tmasman

      What ever happened to "Pinky & the Brain", I need some new ideas on how to take over the world.

      --
      Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
  37. Zingers in the proposed bill by john.r.strohm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a beautiful zinger in the first section of the proposed bill. Paraphrasing slightly:

    "For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."

    If memory serves me, Microsoft's click-wrap licenses, and the Windows XP activation process, and their auto-update processes, do EXACTLY that sort of thing.

    Also note that the bill's definition of "open source software" requires "(E) freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and (F) freedom to modify the software and to distribute the modified software under the same license as the original software."

    This would seem to exclude Microsoft's "Shared Source" hogwash.

  38. Worst. Troll. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir, are a disgrace, why don't you just put a bullet in your head for the good of the whole Slashdot community?

  39. Delusional by mitcharoni · · Score: 0

    You are all delusional if you think for one second that strictly going open-source is going to save TONS of money. And forget the Microsoft Windows argument for one minute.

    How many commercial class, open source databases are on the market that can perform and scale and have the REAL support like Oracle or DB2? You think Windows licensing is outrageous???

    How many commercial class, open source financial systems are there that provide the functionality of SAP or PeopleSoft? How much do you think these cost?

    How much do you think the hardware and support cost for these systems over their expected life costs? Remember, government agencies don't buy for the next 3-5 years. They're buying for the next 15-20 at least. How much do you think an IBM AS/400 plus support costs? Look at the big picture. Nobody in their right mind is gonna run this stuff on some build-it-yourself PC.

    I'm all for Linux. Love it. There's NO WAY Microsoft Windows can compete long-term with Linux and the value it provides. *BUT* in terms of moving from Windows to Linux, the savings are a drop in the bucket. Effectively there is none; it's so small in the whole scheme of things.

    There's more business and government agencies using open source platforms or derivatives than you think. That's not where the big money goes. It goes to the applications and the hardware. That's just an area that open source cannot and will never compete.

    Wake up and smell the fajitas!!! ;-)

    1. Re:Delusional by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      of course there is going to be some things that open source can't do, like oracle or db2. fine. but the problem is that for most average desktop users, kde/gnome, openoffice, evolution, mozilla, xmms, et al., is not only "sufficient", but excellent. besides, not having to drop money on anti-virus, security/lock down, software, remote access software, etc. and deal with admining windows.

      then of course their is the red herring of "re-training". this is crap. i am a school teacher, and am involved in the school-to-career programs in our district. the businesses tell us they want computer literate people. they need basically to know the apps coming in, or be able to learn them on their own, and quickly (meaning computer skills). training takes a ton of time and money, and truth is, the ROI is poor. for many reasons. if they are computer idiots, they will screw up things, and require so much handholding.

      <rant>as in all the teachers who "do macs, not PC's" i had to babysit through untold nightmare inservices so they could do win95</rant>

      contrary to microsoft propaganda, licensing DOES consume a huge cost of the IT budget. not just in CAL, etc., but in the daily accounting, etc. just having to keep track of all the crap we have on our clients is a freakin nightmare.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    2. Re:Delusional by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      Typical Slashdot. Make a valid point that goes against open source wet dreams, get modded down.

    3. Re:Delusional by mitcharoni · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this is the "openness" of the open source movement: Disagree, get silenced.

      No soup for you!!!

  40. While you are at it... by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    remember the Oregon bill too. It has entered the next stage of the process quickly and with little resistance.

    If you live in Texas or Oregon, please take the time next week to make one phone call or write one letter. It will matter.

    Bills like this get OSS into the process which is very important. We need to be part of things in order for greater success later. And the states who are forward thinking enough will get to save some money and possibly build their development communities at the same time.

    These bills are not against Closed software, but simply ask that taxpayers are told why they are being used over freely avaliable alternatives.

  41. Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... by mitcharoni · · Score: 1

    How much of a self-respecting Texan are you????

    Jesus H. Christ, man!!! You forgot the beer!!!!!!

    mitcharoni = Proud Texan/BBQ Fanatic

  42. Re:Of course you don't get it, you're a republican by Moridineas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Republican party isn't a Christian party. Many Republicans are of certain christian beliefs, but that says nothing for the party as a whole. I can tell you for one thing, I don't think a single person at my church (myself excluded) votes republican. Since they're all democrats, does that make the democrat party a christian party?

  43. Help out Kansas by rosewood · · Score: 1

    I just got home from one VERY long day so I am pooped.

    However, I am awake enough to know that Kansas, which is a state also in a budget crunch, needs to save some money. Also, considering Kansas was one of the hold out states in the MS settlement, she should be very pro OSS. Anyhoo, with midterms last week, I missed a lot of the news about Oregon (?) passing such a bill and other stuff like that.

    So, if someone would be so kind to help kind of round up to sources, that would rock. A copy of this bill, the oregon bill, and others like it would help a LOT. Carlos Mayans is going to be the next mayor of Wichita (the largest city *in* Kansas) and Ive helped with his campaign. He is also former state rep. So, I would like him to get this set as a city ordinance that all municipal agencies have to consider OSS. Id also like to pass this on to the state level. But, like I said Im pooped and I need your help.

  44. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree with you.

  45. Multi-vendor solution by xant · · Score: 1

    It is typical for organizations to look for a "single vendor" solution, to reduce the complexity level, even when multiple vendors are more cost-effective on the surface; the costs incurred by consequence of complexity are hidden, and many organizations instinctively recognize that.

    It's a lamentable fact of life that open projects do not have helpdesks, but third parties can provide the necessary support. What I would want to see in any bill of this sort is an acknowledgement of this state of affairs, and legislated willingness to look for a vendor for support in addition to evaluating the particular project for its suitability to the task.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  46. Texas Budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Texas we have a massive budget shortage. Goveornor Rick Perry was supposed to prepare the budget for next year. Instead of actually creating a budget, he allocated $0 for every expense claiming that we didn't have any money to waste. (He wanted to shift responsibility.)

    Open Source software purchases are the only thing that won't go over budget!

  47. Re:MS can solve your problem there too. Um, no by electric_penguin · · Score: 1

    You completely missed the point of this discussion. How is wordpad going to help?

    You can create less complicated documents and sometimes even read simple documents created with Word.

    But incorporating a text editor into an operating system has nothing to do with open source or open standards. Wordpad is free but only if you have a Windows Machine.

  48. Re:It's funny-Unix pioneers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ">I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way."

    "Gee I wonder... what powered that whole "Internet" craze? Sure as hell wasn't Windows 3.1."

    To pick a nit. It was both Unix (closed source), open standards, and a bit of OSS that powered the whole craze. Give credit were it's due, OSS didn't do it all.

  49. Keeping govt money local by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen some posts on here saying that 'it won't save any money', 'training costs are higher','support blah blah', etc. Using open source in some cases may save money. In most cases, however, it'll *shift* money for projects. Money that may have gone to licensing fees may be shifted to larger training budgets or more custom development work. Who will provide those services? More than likely it'll be local companies, helping to create/sustain jobs in the respective areas.

    OpenOffice is a good example. While it's not a perfect replacement for MSOffice, in some organizations, it can serve reasonably well. Let's say a dept of 40 people will be upgrading from Office 97 to Office XP @ $100/seat. That's $4000. Migrating to OpenOffice for those 40 people may require days of retraining, but in reality there'd be some retraining (formal or informal) for some of those people anyway even moving to Office XP.

    So, migrating from Office 97 to anything else will require *some* training. You can have more formalized training, and pay someone local to come in, or shift the bulk of that money out of the region, yet still have to provide training for some of the staff (perhaps during lunch breaks, or overtime, or whatever).

    That example isn't perfect, I know, but the local services factor *needs* to be played up. Money isn't a zero-sum - it floats around in transactions. The more of those transactions a state can keep to itself, the better.

    1. Re:Keeping govt money local by tadelste · · Score: 1

      Our economy grows and slows in relation to the money supply. If the banking system has a reserve requireent of 10% of deposits and you put $10,000 in the bank that turns into $100,000 in the money supply. (Basic economics 101). Another little factoid relates to jobs. Every full time equivalency created in the job market produces 7 additional jobs. So, your premise is correct with regard to shifting money to the local economy. When a company or government takes money out of the economy it reduces jobs in the same exponential rate because of the "reserve requirement". Microsoft's $45 billion in reserves reduces the money supply for the technology sector. Another reason monopolies don't get good press. That $45 billion turns into half of a trillion of investment capital. Oh, and we wonder why the technology sector can't get off the ground. One of the largest VC Funds in the country has one billion in cash and they think they hung the moon. In Texas, would you rather pay Microsoft fees and stop the insurance program for children or keep your insurance program and not pay Microsoft fees? Think Global, act local? Did I read that somewhere?

  50. Except that... by goldfndr · · Score: 1
    "For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
    It's Microsoft's "Intellectual Property", they can make whatever changes they want (Texas edition or Government edition) to comply.

    On the other hand, they'd hopefully need to "prove their innocence".

    --
    Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
  51. 'unauthorized' by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    But, by clicking the agreements, *someone* has given authorization for the data transfers to take place - usually the software won't load/install in the first place, so by the fact that it's running, someone has agreed to it.

    BTW, this one has always bugged me. I know some companies will hire consultants to come in and install new systems or do upgrades. When a consultant comes in a 'click click click's his way through license agreements, and the company hiring him doesn't know what's going on, can the hiring company be held responsible? Or could they go after the consultant for failing to inform them of license consequences.

    I'd guess people doing that sort of stuff probably have disclaimers in a signed contract before doing any work, but I've never had a clear answer to that situation, even though I've known people who've had these consultants come in and 'set up' new systems/software.

  52. Re:Good idea on paper but....Fatalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I deal with things like this every day and there's nothing that can be done about it."

    I agree. I work for the federal government. So when you see triple-figure deficits, Punishing IRS audits, ATF and DEA raids, Ashcroft neutering your freedoms, Congress bought and paid for. Remember "there's nothing you can do about it". BTW Keep the faith. It keeps me employed. Thank you.

  53. Texas Govt. For Yankees by nilram · · Score: 1

    Yeah that sounds right. We we're just talking about this earlier this week. I can't remember the length of the sessions.

    For those interested, representatives are elected for exactly one session and I think senators are elected for 2 sessions for which reps are paid $7,000 per session and senators $9,000 per session. That's their entire pay! Yes that's the right number of zeros.

    And of course the legislature will propose several ammendments to the state constitution again.

    Yeah I know its off-topic but I thought it might be of interest

  54. Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... by bluxus · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. The extra joy of the Jalapeno would help to put some speed on that bill. Thank you much.

  55. Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... by bluxus · · Score: 1

    I do believe you've heightened my thirst for Lone Star this evening...

  56. Texas sucks. by LothDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is funny coming from a state which forces its govermental units (e.g. Texas A&M) to only buy computers from certain tier I vendors (e.g. Gateway). Their idea of a firewall is to install ZoneAlarm on every computer.

    I hate working in Texas - what a backwards place.

    1. Re:Texas sucks. by threadsafe_r · · Score: 1

      so why stay?

    2. Re:Texas sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you could hop on the next train/plane/automobile outta here and take those Dixie Chicks with you. We don't want you to be unhappy.

  57. Re:Open Source? More like Openly Racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a nubian?

  58. No by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

    No, no no. He proposed a "$0" starting point from which to build a new budget, instead of the usual use of last budget's baseline as a starting point and then deciding how much to add to each program. And what magical ability do you have to climb into the Governeror's head and see what his motives are?

  59. How will WordPad help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very easy. One buys an utterly inexpensive Windows 95 licence. In fact, they're cheaper than Red Hat distros. WordPad will be there. There's your inexpensive document creator. Your vaunted OSS Office Suites like like obese whales compared to this lean and sleek piece of coding. Budgets are slashed.

    One does not need the latest OS build from Bill, Steve, or even your precious Linus just to write a letter. In fact, a 1995 still viable product based on a small OS from the 80s is still quite sufficient in 2003 for 99.999% of business correspondence. Where did I get this concept from?

    You guys. The ones who complain about Windows bloat.

    It's time to start practicing what you preach. Commence the hypocritical stammering.

    1. Re:How will WordPad help? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      But is it still possible to buy a *NEW* windows 95 license? Most businesses won't want to buy 2nd hand hardware or software, due to lack of support and guarantees (not that you ever got any guarantees with software)
      Also it would be hard to find hardware to run it on, not all modern hardware still has drivers for 95, and if you planned to network it atall you wouldnt get any security updates for the various holes that are still being found.
      And ofcourse consider the amount of stress caused to users by the instability of windows 95.
      NT3.5 would likely be better, i`m not sure if it has wordpad, NT4 does but its less stable than 3.5, go figure.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  60. More like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hmm, Open Source? Nope. Send in the guy from Microsoft and fill his briefcase with money!"

  61. Texas Bill by stud9920 · · Score: 1
    Texas Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
    Wat will Arizona Joe and Oklahoma Bob do about that ?
  62. Pushing OS economy by siveliini · · Score: 1

    OS products are not currently concidered because there are no companies to support them. When you buy a product, you buy not just the program itself but support, education, quarentee etc which the OS products normally don't have.

    Passing a bill like this would probably encourage more companies to support OS products and the economy around them, which in my opinnion is a healthy direction for the software industry.

    I don't think any of these bills are meant to push poor OSS in the place of good closed software. In every situation you should evaluate as many alternatives as possible and choose the one that fits best, all things concidered. The current situation just is that we lose all the benefits of OSS as they just simply can't be concidered because of the lack of required support available.

    I think that in a situation like this OSS should receive more "special" concideration. This is a question of insight - do you want to take your state/country/economy in the direction of open, safe and evolving software or do you want to swim around in this giant pool of shitty software for another decade just to keep our unhealthy software economy afloat and coding the same mistakes over and over again?

  63. Re:Exactly... to have more control over your own d by mpe · · Score: 1

    We're feeling the budget crunch too, and the purchase cost savings of open source is definitely popular with my managers, though they are concerned with "who will support it", well the answer is the same people who would be supporting the "vendor-supported turnkey apps" --- the city's own I.S. staff, because whoever the commercial software's "owner-of-the-day" (the companies are constantly getting bought out by other companies) is generally incompetant anymore.

    Especially if you have the senario where your IS staff end up knowing more about the software than the people in the vendor's "hell^Hpdesk" call centre. With open source they actually have the source to examine/alter and typically some contact details for whoever wrote it in the first place.

  64. Re:What is the current policy? - Staff. Real Life. by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

    Many, many organizations have IT groups who consist of people who started out changing printer ribbons and "worked their way up." They learned whatever they needed in their environment, painfully. That is they learned all the quirks of MS stuff slowly over time.

    Reality is, that many organizations know only MS. and the people with the biggest "investment" in MS are those who spent the last ten years learning the foibles. The IT staff are the biggest obstacle to widespread adoption of Linux & OSS. They will estimate huge training costs because they need to get the same level of expertise that they themselves have acquired with MS.

    It is painful to watch, but true. I don't know what the solution is. It is chicken and egg.

  65. Re:What is the current policy? - Staff. Real Life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Macs. I worked at a place that said we don't know them so we don't support them. Yet for 2 years the Macs continued with no 'professional' help needed. When hardware updates were needed they were vetoed so we could get the 'good stuff'.

  66. Governor of Texas, Rick Perry uses Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In fact.. Since the Texas Govt. is broke they are cutting back on all expenses. They even wrote the Governor's website using opensource software... and SURPRISE Its been *very* successful!! Have a look at Governor Rick Perry's Website which is running the Zope application server with the Plone Content Management System

  67. Re:Of course you don't get it, you're a republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to Bush Jr as he gives mass during his weekly fucking radio addresses. If it were up to him, the US would be a white christian paradise with everyone else deported.

  68. I know you're just trolling.... by jrwillis · · Score: 1

    but I think you've missed the point of my post. There's nothing more that I'd love than to see this law passed. I've been pushing open source at my agency for years now, but every time I do I get told to stop being so sill and that we'll NEVER go to such a setup. A good amount of things need to change in the State gonvernments but I don't see the employees there wanting to change.

    --
    Keep Austin Weird!
  69. Re:Of course you don't get it, you're a republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but it does mean you attend the world's most ignorant church. Get out while you can.