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!
....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
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.
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
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.