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."
"Hmm, Open Source? Nope. Send in the guy from Microsoft with the money-filled briefcase!"
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.
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!
like the DMCA case
....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.
so they don't have to worry about the cost of operating the electric chair.
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"
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.
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?
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.
I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.
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)
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
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
How will this save money?
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,
(And at even greater length -- see the whole exchange
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
You have the best wishes of this particular anonymous coward. I hope you find her soon.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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
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.
...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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
Blogging because I can...
How much of a self-respecting Texan are you????
Jesus H. Christ, man!!! You forgot the beer!!!!!!
mitcharoni = Proud Texan/BBQ Fanatic
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.
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.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
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.
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.
Typical Slashdot. Make a valid point that goes against open source wet dreams, get modded down.
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.
creation science book
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)
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.
creation science book
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
I stand corrected. The extra joy of the Jalapeno would help to put some speed on that bill. Thank you much.
I do believe you've heightened my thirst for Lone Star this evening...
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.
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?
My blog can kick your blog's ass
Unfortunately, this is the "openness" of the open source movement: Disagree, get silenced.
No soup for you!!!
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
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!