Oregon's Open Source Bill Stalled by Microsoft

Wanker writes "Previously on Slashdot we read about an Oregon bill that would require government agencies to consider Open Source software in addition to whichever software they would normally consider. Unfortunately, House Bill 2892 is getting stalled by "stiff opposition" from such unsurprising places as Microsoft. All you Oregon Slashdotters, it's time to call or write your representatives."

Comments

Good

[donutello]

The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most.

The individual departments should already be considering the most appropriate software that meets requirements, buying the best software at the best price for the job. This should be covered by existing laws.

We don't need additional laws promoting one kind v/s the other.

Re:Good

[Jason1729]

But most of the people making the buying decisions in the private sector are idiots who don't know what they're buying. They buy MS because they're following the pack, not because they think it's good.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Good

[einhverfr]

If the law only mandates that open source must be considered, I don't see how this is a bad thing. It means that proprietary software may be considered too.

But, IMHO, I think that the law is -1 redundant. The press coverage which has lead to the consideration fo the law has already meant that departments are going to think twice about Microsoft software and seriously consider open source. I think that in this case, the law would not change anything, and would probably increase the paperwork of such considerations. So, I agree, this law is irrelevant, and should not be passed, and Microsoft is probably doing themselves more damage by opposing it...

Re:Good

[davidstrauss]

The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most.

Many existing laws require certain "certifications" that only exist for commercial packages or are so expensive that only for-profit corporations can foot the bill. If the government has baseline standards that eliminate open source as a choice, change is necessary.

Re:Good

[Billly Gates]

The paperwork for any purchase by the government is incredible. I would not be supprised if it favors microsoft based solutions getting the least paperwork or the most points for any purchasing decision. The whole reason infact that NT has a possix layer is because of government paperwork requiring possix compatiblity for government contracts.

Now its possible that win32 is the new requirment for any purchase and Microsoft would like it to stay this way.

Re:Good

[BWJones]

The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most.

I don't want to see any law enacted that dictates any tools with which to perform a job. The best tool for the job should be decided upon by the individual(s) performing the work or defining the work. For instance, several years ago, the IT department attempted to tell me that I could not use a Macintosh to perform my work and that furthermore, I had to purchase a Windows machine. I informed them that there was no way that some IT knucklehead (no offence to Slashdot IT folks) was going to dicate to me the tools with which to perform my job and that I in fact was going to purchase a Macintosh from my grant.

I would however be in favor of laws (and I suspect they already exist) that indicate government contracts have to be bid out and decided upon by 1) The best solution and 2) the lowest bid.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Just as I don't think government should be required to support the GPL license, or any other license by law. You can't just apply a license to every government situation with a magic wand, and have everything go well.

I personally would think that the BSD license would be the best, because corporations pay taxes. I think they should be able to close the source as well. That's just my opinion though.

Re:Good

[chazwurth]

The law is pretty much useless even if passed since the provision requiring justification of proprietary software purchases has been removed. Laws aren't worth anything if they don't have teeth. And as for the justification for such a provision, I think its obvious from the taxpayer point of view -- I don't want my government spending money on something if an equally good tool can be had for less or for free.

Re:Good

[Phroggy]

The consideration for open source should already be included...

Should be. Wish it worked that way. ;-)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that nobody bit on the "possix" thing.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what? The law is essential because:

1. Gates flies to countries cash in pocket every time one considers OSS. Open source won't have a fair shake in this kind of world.
2. The news about this, if anyone paid attention at all, will have the life of a fruit fly. Memories are short, laws are not.

You admit it's good, why not then?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked on a couple State of Oregon development projects (hence the posting as AC). The open-source vs. closed-source debate is a bit more complex than it would seem here. A few relevant points:

• The vast majority of people using computers in government are not techies. They are just people trying to do their jobs and they want familiar and easy-to-use tools to get those jobs done. For most non-tech-savvy users, the simple and familiar closed-source apps are going to be much easier to use.
• The state IT department is (to my knowledge) a Windows shop. Two different departments that I've worked with have been told that they will not get IT support for open-source applications.
• Open source requires a higher level of technical ability to install and maintain. Though I've met exceptions to this rule, you're not likely to find a whole lot of qualified 'nix sysadmins in state government. This is a potential security and support minefield.
• Why would any admin recommend moving from a Windows environment with 100% compliance with existing workflows to a hybrid or open-source environment with unknown compliance and a tremendous expense in lost productivity as people learned the new tools? There's a huge hidden cost here.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I use open-source whenever possible. I drink the Kool-Aid; last year I moved one Oregon agency from a closed-source to an open-source extranet system. But the software/operating system is only one part of the computer systems involved, and the computer systems are only one part of the workflow/people involved. Let's not pretend that open source is always the best path to a solution. It isn't.

Re:Good

[MAXOMENOS]

The law is not -1 redundant, unfortunately. There are several state agencies that can only aquire software from selected, approved vendors. If the vendor doesn't carry open source, you have to go proprietary.

This makes for a real pain in the ass when you have to get a solution in place now and you have a budget of $0 for aquiring the necessary software from the approved vendor. This, sadly, is the case in a lot of state agencies.

Re:Good

[Hubert_Shrump]

decided upon by 1) The best solution and 2) the lowest bid.

It might be more prudent to look at the average bid, as the ones at the extremes of the scale are likely to be bogus. Too low usually means they're smoking some sort of crack about their ability to deliver. Too high is probably old tech trying to stay relevant. Just a thought.

Re:Good

[buffer-overflowed]

What's possix, did you mean POSIX?

Windows NT sure as hell does not fit cleanly into the POSIX standard.

Cooperative multi-tasking, yay!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The law is not -1 redundant, unfortunately. There are several state agencies that can only aquire software from selected, approved vendors. If the vendor doesn't carry open source, you have to go proprietary.

Ironically enough, I think Microsoft's own spokeswoman called this one right. From the end of the article:

"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.

Laws shouldn't take sides in trade competitions, either way. They should mandate that the governing bodies exercise due care in examining all relevant options and then choose the one that is most in the interests of those they represent, and leave it at that.

IMHO, they shouldn't say "you must/should/might consider open source" any more than they'd say anything about Microsoft, Dell, GPL or BSD licences, or any other specific named player in the field.

Re:Good

[jez9999]

As you have stated several times, you're concentrating on *short-term* costs of retraining people to get used to the way Opensource OSs and tools work. That's just as blinkered a way of thinking as always buying Microsoft, and you shoulod be looking at the long term picture! Once people WERE retrained, and OSS admins WERE plentiful, the long-term savings in software licensing costs would be tremendous.

Re:Good

[BWJones]

It might be more prudent to look at the average bid

Actually, I'd buy that argument as you typically get what you pay for.

Re:Good

[Quickening]

Exactly, and the inevitable conclusion of that logic is a microsoft monopoly forever.

Re:Good

[jdray]

"Actually, I'd buy that argument as you typically get what you pay for. "

Not true in the world of small vendor-based software. If a vendor (consulting group with a software product) has a software package that is in use by three or four government or big industry (or, in the case of my experience, utility) entities, they have to charge outrageous licensing and maintenance fees to keep their staff of programmers employed. Annual maintenance fees on the order of US$500,000 are not too far out of the ordinary. And, when the requirements of a small community are trying to be met, all the whims of the few get incorporated into the software, making for dubious overall quality. Furthermore, licensing terms usually keep the customers from talking to one another, so a community doesn't develop.

It's all ugly out there. It will be a great day when all vendor-based software is at least as well developed, integrated and low priced as that from Microsoft. By that time, though, OSS should be the obvious choice for everyone and snow will fall on the devil's lawn.

Re:Good

[AndrewNelson]

What makes you think they're idiots?

And why is this insightful?

Re:Good

[CableModemSniper]

You know whats really funny? NT is POSIX while Linux isn't.

Re:Good

[sheldon]

Having read the law, the specific wording is such that if you don't use open source software you have to justify why. That means paperwork.

How many people who just want to create a small database for their department is going to want to write up a 40 page paper justifying the use of Microsoft Access? They won't, so they'll find something which takes less work to acquire even if it is actually more expensive to setup and use.

The people sponsoring this bill obviously understand how government bureacracies work, and they have setup wording that sounds reasonable on the surface, but would have devastating impact. It's manipulative, but that's frequently how you get bad laws passed.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they ARE idiots. I take it you do the purchasing for your organization, idiot?

Re:Good

[EugeneK]

c)Provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired rather than open source software;

I couldn't find anything about 40 pages in there.

Re:Good

[marcmcn]

WarOfLies waroflies.org

Re:Good

[gi-tux]

I would however be in favor of laws (and I suspect they already exist) that indicate government contracts have to be bid out and decided upon by 1) The best solution and 2) the lowest bid. This would likely eliminate OSS in the process. After all who is going to do the bidding with OSS when the software is all that is needed, such as a web server? While I don't think that laws should be passed demanding that OSS always be used, I think that it should be considered before the purchase of any software. If a suitable substitute exists, then it should be used. And I also believe that all specifications should be thoroughly checked to verify that they haven't been written so that only one vendor/product can meet the specs.

Re:Good

[BWJones]

This would likely eliminate OSS in the process.

Not necessarily. After all, someone needs to get paid to implement said system and those funds could be counted into the bid price.

Re:Good

[An Onerous Coward]

There are plenty of people going out and bidding on contracts using open source software. See, if I'm bidding for the right to set up a database, and I'm paying $150 per W2K server license that I install, that money goes to Microsoft, not to me. I could itemize it for $300 a server, but I still come out looking bad because my competitor is charging $150 a Linux server, and putting it all in the bank.

Now, if a company like Oracle or Novell is setting up a solution with their own software, then they're in the same position as the open source vender: charging for CDs is like printing their own money.

Re:Good

[bmajik]

actually the provision that was struck down was that a closed-source software purchase had to be justified. i.e. if a department wants to buy something that does w, and they opt for a non-open-source version, they have to justify that decision

Re:Good

[sheldon]

"I couldn't find anything about 40 pages in there."

But you did find the justification section. That shows that you can at least read.

Now go find yourself a job with state government and you'll understand the 40 page comment.

Re:Good

[gi-tux]

I understand what you are saying for a system. But who is going to bid Open Office for an office solution (unless it is going with a computer), or who is going to bid Apache if they are looking for a web server (unless it is part of a complete system). There are places like this that Open Source Software can make major inroads but presently can't even compete.

Yes, if given the opportunity OSS can compete on projects. The other part of that is given the opportunity to compete. Remember that many governments have a bid list and if you aren't on the bid list, you don't even get an invitation to bid on projects.

I still support a bill that would require OSS to be given a fair footing.

Re:Good

[bigchris]

Er, how does that link relate to the story? I realise you don't like the war, but how does it affect open-source licensing/purchasing?

Re:Good

[bigchris]

Is NT4 a cooperative multitasking O/S (uh... no it's not)? or is that last line a part of your sig?

Re:Good

[SiberiaSam]

The future of IT and our economy is too important to be left in the hands of free market zealots. With apropriate laws and planning by the state we can have a just and equitable planned economy that is more fair for everyone.

This law is the right approach, and hopefully just the beginning of a planned approach of innovation and creativity that is better for everyone. Why should Microsoft, Intel, IBM etc. get all the breaks, or worse yet some geek that by sheer luck stumbles on to a new idea that will line his pockets with millions. Let the state do it and we will all benefit.

Wellness and Equity, and Social Justice...

Huge lobby

[absurdhero]

Considering that Microsoft has one of the biggest lobbying groups,if not the biggest (I don't remember), it really is no surprise. It will take persistance and a unified front to keep MS from blocking it. Unfortunately, politics isn't about what makes sense or what is best for the people. But if enough citizens complain to their representative, they have a better chance of listening.

Good luck Oregon.

Re:Huge lobby

[ziekke]

Its kind of sad that Microsoft bothers with lobbying these types of things, even with a law that states consideration is mandatory, that doesn't mean they wont still go the way of the higher cost. You need to keep in mind, you are given budgets for things, if you do not spend the money in the budget it looks like you don't need all that money. As much as that makes sense and is true, departments that don't spend the full budget lose that extra money. So they find ways to spend the leftover cash. I think its silly that they bothered to instate such a pointless law, all they have to do is say "Yea, we considered it BUT we're still going Microsoft". That will just feed MS adverts "We were chosen even when they were forced to consider open source!" No matter what they spend the money on, the money is still going to them. Gov't knows how to spend their budgets ;)

Re:Huge lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont we take a popular linux distrubution stuff it with bugs jack the price up $300 and call it Quality Assured... erm wait microsoft did that with dos allready whoops, i guess microsoft has a monopoly on that too

Re:Huge lobby

[nija]

you are forgetting one other thing that will be needed to shove Microsoft aside, and that is money. The grassroots campaign may have numbers, but Microsoft has what politicians care about.. money.

Re:Huge lobby

[Gonzoman]

It appears to me that what this law is trying to do is to create an open market. Because of Microsoft's huge presence and aggressive posture in the software marketplace, laws like this are necessary to bring open source solutions to the attention of the purchasers.

In a truly open market open source has many advantages over closed source. However, open source cannot compete against the massive amounts of cash Microsoft is able to put into their marketing (propoganda) campaigns.

Re:Huge lobby

[b!arg]

Actually politicians only care about votes. The problem is that the money allows them to buy media exposure which most people seem to base their voting decisions on. It's really the failure of the media that has made money so important and thus turned over control to corporations with tons of money. A free and responsible media is necessary for a democracy.

Required by law?

[m0i]

"Oregon bill that would require government agencies to consider Open Source software"
Ain't that a bit worrying? You've got to make laws to prevent government to waste your tax dollars by giving them to rich software companies, without even thinking that there are free alternatives. Duh!

Re:Required by law?

[Meshach]

If we really believe in open source we should trust it to be able to stand on it's own two feet. My local school district uses open source extensivly and we have no law requiring it. They just use it because it is a better, not because there is a law

Is the next step to pass a law that non-open source must also be considered? Let open source stand on its own two feet

Re:Required by law?

[rsklnkv]

Of course. It only makes sense, considering the fact that this government is controlled, owned, and manipulated by corporations just like microsoft. A bunch of people will think I'm trying to be flaimbait, and yes, that is frightening.

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

Ain't that a bit worrying? You've got to make laws to prevent government to waste your tax dollars by giving them to rich software companies, without even thinking that there are free alternatives. Duh!

I slightly agree with Microsoft on this. Software should be used based on it's merits and it's support. If there were real open source support contracts out there, and it was competitive, people would use it without it being mandated.

I think it's bullshit that this bill is, in effect, forcing people to consider what could be an inferior solution. I would like to see a bill that requires compotent systems architects familiar with both proprietary and open source systems in each district to make recommendations as what the best tool for the job is.

Fuck anybody being forced to think of open source.

Re:Required by law?

[outsider007]

A bunch of people will think I'm trying to be flaimbait, and yes, that is frightening

flaimbait hmm.. sounds like a french method of cooking worms. very frightening.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

Look. The point is that many people in positions of making purchasing decisions think that open source is the same as shareware and there is no support, and it's probably illegal.

A bill which enforces consideration is unable to force people to make the wrong decision. It is, however, able to educate people that alternatives exist.

Seriously, there are people in IT who have not heard of Apache, and that don't realise RedHat will provide support.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

There are many years of marketing to undo. What's wrong with speeding the process?

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

Look. The point is that many people in positions of making purchasing decisions think that open source is the same as shareware and there is no support, and it's probably illegal.

Uhm, no. This is just FUD and idiocy. I know several people (I work in an academic company) involved in the education system who know very well what open source is.

A bill which enforces consideration is unable to force people to make the wrong decision. It is, however, able to educate people that alternatives exist.

If someone made you consider buying Windows and justifying not purchasing it on your computer, you would be pissed and say it isn't your right. I would prefer to never force anybody to consider anything, just hire people with a clue.

The fucked up thing about working in the public sector is that they usually require experience that isn't going to go work for them. They don't like to hire people without college degrees, regardless of experience, nor do they like to hire people who are "young." These leads to hiring people who have been doing the Microsoft, IBM, Sun way for pretty much their entire career.

Enforce different hiring qualifications, not considerations. Thought police, in any form, is wrong. I find it amazing that the Slashdot crowd actually is hypocritical enough to think that as long as people are forced to think about open source solutions, it's good. What if Open Source had a hold on the civil servant IT personnel and Microsoft demanding considering using their products. You would have the exact opposite sentiment.

Seriously, there are people in IT who have not heard of Apache, and that don't realise RedHat will provide support.

And there are people in IT who think that Linux can do anything Sun and Microsoft can do. The fact is, it can't. People are idiots, you can't leglislate against that, just try to make it easier to hire non-idiots.

If the municipal sector opened up to experienced, younger IT workers, and brought them in at competive wages, you would see more open source work and also lower TCOs for the hardware and the software, but increase in the worker wages. I'd prefer to see money go to people, not companies, but I'll be damned if I ever back a bill that makes people think anything.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

There's a (fairly obvious) difference between public sector gernerally and the 'academic' sector of which you have experience.

I am forced to consider Windows solutions when evaluating software. I work in a large company with a range of platforms - mainframe, Unix (AIX), Novell, Windows and now (with resistance) Linux. IBM and Novell rule the roost because 'no-one got ever got sacked' (no-one actually says that, but, well, someimes they do say it) and the freebies are good. The IT organisation actually does quite well in terms of running a stable ship but if they would open their minds to Open Source the cost savings could be absolutely disgusting.

Anyway, other than being 'pissed' when I have to consider Windows, what harm does it do? In fact it encourages a depth of analysis which might otherwise not happen given pressure to meet deadlines. Individual's skills and experience are important, I can't argue with that, but by requiring things from new staff rather than stipulating a requirement in project work, you're just turning an IT procedure policy into a recruitment policy. I'd say the sensible choice is to do both.

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

There's a (fairly obvious) difference between public sector gernerally and the 'academic' sector of which you have experience.

Except for the fact that over half of the people I work with used to work in the public sector until they started working here. So no, there isn't a difference. We have everywhere from Administrators to teachers, so don't talk about things you don't know about, ok?

I am forced to consider Windows solutions when evaluating software. I work in a large company with a range of platforms - mainframe, Unix (AIX), Novell, Windows and now (with resistance) Linux. IBM and Novell rule the roost because 'no-one got ever got sacked' (no-one actually says that, but, well, someimes they do say it) and the freebies are good. The IT organisation actually does quite well in terms of running a stable ship but if they would open their minds to Open Source the cost savings could be absolutely disgusting.


First, I doubt you have the insight or the scope to actually qualify the statement of how much money Open Source would save your organization. Second, you aren't forced. There is a big difference between "forced due to legislation" and "forced due to company policy".

Anyway, other than being 'pissed' when I have to consider Windows, what harm does it do? In fact it encourages a depth of analysis which might otherwise not happen given pressure to meet deadlines. Individual's skills and experience are important, I can't argue with that, but by requiring things from new staff rather than stipulating a requirement in project work, you're just turning an IT procedure policy into a recruitment policy. I'd say the sensible choice is to do both.

It's a good thing that thought police is a good idea for you... I know of several countries where you will fit in just fine. If people are told what to think, consider, and justify, no matter what the realm and breadth, it leads to a world where thoughts are dictated. This is never a good thing.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

so don't talk about things you don't know about, ok?

Well, you know nothing else about me but what I've told you; I've worked in the public sector, many people in my family work in the public sector. I know about the public sector.

Anyway this deviates from my original point which was that many people in positions of making purchasing decisions think that open source is the same as shareware and there is no support, and it's probably illegal.. Public sector, private sector, whatever, this is the case. You may have a "different experience" of it but that's allowed statistically.

First, I doubt you have the insight or the scope to actually qualify the statement of how much money Open Source would save your organization.

This continues the rather defensive tone of your first paragraph, and adds a hint of insult. Anyway, your doubts, beyond being simply arrogant and incorrect, are neither here nor there and lend nothing to your argument.

As it happens, my employer spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on software for which there are free software alternatives. You get support for that price, yes. I've investigated third-party support. It's available at a fraction of the cost.

Second, you aren't forced. There is a big difference between "forced due to legislation" and "forced due to company policy".

Legislation is the company policy of government. The end result of both is that the policy get's implemented. Tell me what the big difference is.

It's a good thing that thought police is a good idea for you... I know of several countries where you will fit in just fine. If people are told what to think, consider, and justify, no matter what the realm and breadth, it leads to a world where thoughts are dictated. This is never a good thing.

I'll ignore the frankly childish comments about thought police. The rest of your comment merely shows deep naivety. People are constantly being told what to think, consider and justify, whether this is explicit or subtle. If you think you are free from such pressures, fly off into the sun, Icarus. When the pressure is encoded into a policy then at least it has to stand up to public inspection.

In the final analysis, this proposed law is merely asking that something is considered, presumably on it's merits. What the fuck is your problem with this?

Anyway, I looked at your web page and it's clear you just have a general attitude problem.

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

Well, you know nothing else about me but what I've told you; I've worked in the public sector, many people in my family work in the public sector. I know about the public sector.

You are right, but you are the one who said that the people I work with are different than the public sector. This is bullshit, and incorrect, as they all came directly from the public sector.

Anyway this deviates from my original point which was that many people in positions of making purchasing decisions think that open source is the same as shareware and there is no support, and it's probably illegal.. Public sector, private sector, whatever, this is the case. You may have a "different experience" of it but that's allowed statistically.

Most people don't have a clear grasp of what open source is, but I don't know anybody who thinks that it's illegal. That seems like you are just spreading FUD, pure and simple. Feel free to qualify where you got that information from, though. No one is stopping you from backing your points.

This continues the rather defensive tone of your first paragraph, and adds a hint of insult. Anyway, your doubts, beyond being simply arrogant and incorrect, are neither here nor there and lend nothing to your argument.

They do, because you are parroting the FUD that so many others are. Without actually backing up any of your outlandish statements.

As it happens, my employer spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on software for which there are free software alternatives. You get support for that price, yes. I've investigated third-party support. It's available at a fraction of the cost.

Good, when you start working for a real company that spends millions on software come and talk to me, ok?

I'll ignore the frankly childish comments about thought police. The rest of your comment merely shows deep naivety. People are constantly being told what to think, consider and justify, whether this is explicit or subtle. If you think you are free from such pressures, fly off into the sun, Icarus. When the pressure is encoded into a policy then at least it has to stand up to public inspection.

And you accuse me of arrogance... purely ironic. You think people are some special variety of sheep, while pushing yourself into a savior role saying that these types of measures are justified because people can't be trusted to make decisions on their own. Here's a newflash, sparky, if you make people consider something they don't understand they wont pick it anyway.

In the final analysis, this proposed law is merely asking that something is considered, presumably on it's merits. What the fuck is your problem with this?

It's forcing someone to think about something. That is my problem with it. It's fucking dumb to make anybody think about something. The original bill forced a justification as to purchase of proprietary software. That is just retarded. I would rather have people running a system they are familiar and comfortable with, than an open source solution nobody knows what the fuck to do with it.

Anyway, I looked at your web page and it's clear you just have a general attitude problem.

It's not a problem.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

You are right, but you are the one who said that the people I work with are different than the public sector. This is bullshit, and incorrect, as they all came directly from the public sector.

That's odd, your original post says over half of the people I work with used to work in the public sector until they started working here. Granted, all is indeed over half; however, the fact that you didn't say all in the first place shows that you are now talking out of your rusty sheriff's badge, and that I'm not.

Most people don't have a clear grasp of what open source is, but I don't know anybody who thinks that it's illegal.

Organisations often have a policy of running only "licensed software" because the software industry tells them that "unlicensed software" is "piracy". You and I know that free software is licensed and perfectly legal. Some people do not.

Some people think that if you didn't pay for the software, it must be stolen. Some people got into IT before the Internet was invented and their sum total experience of IT is four years in an isolated university followed by god-knows-how-long in a less than dynamic mainframe environment.

I speak from experience of seeing these people around me, in all the places I have been - two different schools, defence sector, community education, health service, finance.

Good, when you start working for a real company that spends millions on software come and talk to me, ok?

The company I work for does spend millions on software. Anyway, I said my employer spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on software for which there are free software alternatives. I could have qualified that further by saying which I have spent time thinking about. At least read what I am saying before ranting back at me.

You think people are some special variety of sheep, while pushing yourself into a savior role saying that these types of measures are justified because people can't be trusted to make decisions on their own.

You say "sheep", not me. I say that there is constant influence on people, and people are influenced. That is not indicative of sheep, but of people who live and work together and affect one another. I include myself in the group "people", so I don't cast myself as saviour; far from it, I believe all sane people recognise this. Currently I'd have to categorise you as insane.

It's forcing someone to think about something. That is my problem with it. It's fucking dumb to make anybody think about something.

I can see that I have yet to make you think about anything. I doubt anyone ever could. What are you so worried about? You live on your own planet, where only your rules apply!

The original bill forced a justification as to purchase of proprietary software. That is just retarded. I would rather have people running a system they are familiar and comfortable with, than an open source solution nobody knows what the fuck to do with it.

But your logic doesn't follow. Read it yourself. Think about the difference between the concepts "consider" and "implement". I'm sure you'll get there, you seem fairly intelligent, though you're a bit slow.

It's not a problem.

It's a problem when you it makes you look like a twit :)

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

That's odd, your original post says over half of the people I work with used to work in the public sector until they started working here. Granted, all is indeed over half; however, the fact that you didn't say all in the first place shows that you are now talking out of your rusty sheriff's badge, and that I'm not.

Ok, don't take me out of context. When we're talking about "the people I work with that come from the public sector" I can say, "they all came directly from the public sector." Try to work with a 7th grade reading level, here.

Organisations often have a policy of running only "licensed software" because the software industry tells them that "unlicensed software" is "piracy". You and I know that free software is licensed and perfectly legal. Some people do not.

Some people are idiots and can't properly understand ideas presented in their native language, what's your point? Some people don't believe that copying music over the internet is illegal, it doesn't change what a fact is. They are still in the vast minority of people out there, but it doesn't matter. You can't back up and give one concrete example of a municipal system going with proprietary over open source because they thought open source was illegal. Feel free to try to find any information on this.

I speak from experience of seeing these people around me, in all the places I have been - two different schools, defence sector, community education, health service, finance.

Let me just put you down here. I work for a company that is closely tied to municipal work. In fact, the majority of our revenue comes straight from local governments. The company I work for is based in Oregon. I live in Oregon. All the work I do now, is mostly classified as municipal charter work, hence, public sector. I work in this industry, it doesn't sound like you do. So, in the most blunt way of putting it, you don't know shit about how things work out here.

I can see that I have yet to make you think about anything. I doubt anyone ever could. What are you so worried about? You live on your own planet, where only your rules apply!

No, I live in the real world. With chartered contracts with state governments, following standards and specifications to ensure conformity and support. I live in the world this affects, not you. Nothing you have said could possibly get me to change my mind, because you don't work in my industry. You aren't my co-worker. You aren't my boss. You aren't his boss. You aren't anybody who matters, in other words.

But your logic doesn't follow. Read it yourself. Think about the difference between the concepts "consider" and "implement". I'm sure you'll get there, you seem fairly intelligent, though you're a bit slow.

I'm a bit slow, yet you are the one who is telling me to reconsider my stance when you don't have any grasp as to the actual situation. Keep going.

It's a problem when you it makes you look like a twit :)

Unfortunately in this case, it makes you look like a cock-monger who is out of their depth trying to salvage some dignity defending an unjust bill because it agrees with your ideology. Look past your ideology and do what's right... you expect other people to do the same. If I have to justify to a charter board why I picked a proprietary system, I think I'll exit this industry. Right now, I like it. I get to make decisions, influence the higher ups, and promote open source where it belongs based on it's own merits. Open Source doesn't have a right to be considered any place the people don't have a clear understanding of what it is. If people don't have a clear understanding, I don't want them implementing or considering it.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

Ok, don't take me out of context. When we're talking about "the people I work with that come from the public sector" I can say, "they all came directly from the public sector." Try to work with a 7th grade reading level, here.

See, I can't get past your inability to make sense, or to see it. Read what you just wrote.

Some people don't believe that copying music over the internet is illegal, it doesn't change what a fact is.

You approach ideas from one angle and that's the only angle you see. You don't care that there is detail that may make the world different to your model of it.

I have ripped my entire CD collection to Ogg format (yes I use Ogg, yes I am a free software bigot). I make them available in a protected web site so I can copy them to my PC at work and play them there when I'm working late. This is "copying music over the Internet". No, it's not illegal.

You can't back up and give one concrete example of a municipal system going with proprietary over open source because they thought open source was illegal. Feel free to try to find any information on this.

Why do I need to do this? I never claimed that I could.

Let me just put you down here.

Thanks. You like doing that, don't you? It's your substitute for reason.

I work in this industry, it doesn't sound like you do. So, in the most blunt way of putting it, you don't know shit about how things work out here.

In the past I worked for a defence contractor and for local government. If that's not public sector, what is? Oh, abuse again.

Right now, I like it.

Aha! Finally you admit that this is about how you don't want to be told what to do. In other words, you like the free expression of your unchecked ego. You are a child.

Open Source doesn't have a right to be considered any place the people don't have a clear understanding of what it is. If people don't have a clear understanding, I don't want them implementing or considering it.

Only by considering something can one reach a clear understanding of it. Show me how I can understand something by ignoring it.

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

See, I can't get past your inability to make sense, or to see it. Read what you just wrote.

Those sentences spliced together make perfect sense. You are just an idiot. "The people I work with that come from the public sector, they all came directly from the public sector." This means that people that have come from the public sector, at some point in their career, came directly from the public sector, without interim positions at private companies. This is not complex, and is as clear as I can possibly make it for you.

Aha! Finally you admit that this is about how you don't want to be told what to do. In other words, you like the free expression of your unchecked ego. You are a child.

Uhm, no. "If I have to justify to a charter board why I picked a proprietary system, I think I'll exit this industry. Right now, I like it." Meaning, I like the industry right now. If I don't, or if I have to justify my choices to bean counters than I won't like it as much. Part of the reason why I like it is because of the direct influence in design and architecture. This is what I'm good at, and why I maintain a very well paid position.

I have ripped my entire CD collection to Ogg format (yes I use Ogg, yes I am a free software bigot). I make them available in a protected web site so I can copy them to my PC at work and play them there when I'm working late. This is "copying music over the Internet". No, it's not illegal.

Uh-oh! I don't have an argument anymore so I'm going to counter with a completely irrelevant, yet again taken out of context example. Just admit you don't know what you are talking about and shut the fuck up. You are just making yourself look like a cave-dwelling, illiterate slut of the IT world. You read a book on programming with a horse on it and now you are all l33t.

Only by considering something can one reach a clear understanding of it. Show me how I can understand something by ignoring it.

Right. So you agree that you should be forced to consider all possible solutions then. Sure thing. The next project you have, go spend a couple weeks hunting down every software project (both proprietary and open sourced) and consider each one, make sure you fully understand it, then decide what to get.

This really takes the cake as to the extend of what fucked up ideas you have.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

This means that people that have come from the public sector, at some point in their career, came directly from the public sector, without interim positions at private companies.

You got me, I missed the significance of the word "directly", but who gives a fuck: what's the relevance of your statement? What does it matter whether they had interim positions? You said you worked in an academic area of the public sector, I said that is rather different from the public sector as a whole, and this is your response?

Uh-oh! I don't have an argument anymore so I'm going to counter with a completely irrelevant, yet again taken out of context example.... [miscellaneous insults]

No, I was making the point that you have difficulty seeing that the truth depends on the details.

Right. So you agree that you should be forced to consider all possible solutions then. Sure thing. The next project you have, go spend a couple weeks hunting down every software project (both proprietary and open sourced) and consider each one, make sure you fully understand it, then decide what to get.

No, as it is I choose to consider a balanced cross-section of possible solutions. I don't spend months hunting down every project, I go to reasonable lengths to ensure I'm not missing some gems. I've found gems that way.

*(I am forced to consider proprietary software, so I choose to also consider free software; I think I should be forced by policy).

This really takes the cake as to the extend of what fucked up ideas you have.

What are you on about?

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

You got me, I missed the significance of the word "directly", but who gives a fuck: what's the relevance of your statement? What does it matter whether they had interim positions? You said you worked in an academic area of the public sector, I said that is rather different from the public sector as a whole, and this is your response?

My response is what I just said, and you failed to read. The fact that the majority of our work comes from chartered schools in the public sector. This means that we have to comply with all local, state, and federal laws when dealing with software products.

No, I was making the point that you have difficulty seeing that the truth depends on the details.

Ok, then I'll revise my statement. There are people that think that downloading music, they have not purchased in any form, is illegal. Satisfied? People are idiots, you can't legislate and change that.

No, as it is I choose to consider a balanced cross-section of possible solutions. I don't spend months hunting down every project, I go to reasonable lengths to ensure I'm not missing some gems. I've found gems that way.

I'd worry about any company that puts you in decision making roles, but I'll just satisfy my own fears and say that you don't. My guess is you report to a low level manager, and he does. When you have a project, you look at what will do the job best. If it costs money, than so be it. Public sector behaves the same way. They do what fits the job best, that they know about. My original point is that they need to hire more compotent and educated people, instead of lower wage second-rate IT workers who aren't knowledgable enough to pick something they aren't familiar with.

If you give a bad driver a sports car, they're still a bad driver, they just do more damage.

Re:Required by law?

[sydb]

You simply don't make any sense whatsoever. I give up.

Re:Required by law?

[Xerithane]

You simply don't make any sense whatsoever. I give up.

Here's a quick and easy way to understand what I'm saying: Go purchase Hooked on Phonics, or go back through High School English, and possibly an English 101 course at your local college.

Then you won't have to feel like such an idiot!

Re:with lasers

[m1chael]

no, there are sharks with lawyers attached to their heads or is it the other way around?...

In other news...

[NilObject]

A bill in congress that would require Senators to consider free alternatives to typically pricey local hookers was shot down by the local Brothel Union. "Faithfulness to wives is simply not an option," said the B.U. prez, Vixie, "our senators work sooo hard doing all that... senator-stuff. They don't have time to spend taxpayer dollars rationally. Have you gone nuts?!?"

As usual, senators refused to comment.

Re:In other news...

[Billly Gates]

Unfortunatly most Americans are idiots and base their voting habits on commercials paid for by special interests. Senators know this and if they do not work with Microsoft, Microsoft will just fund an oponent with a whole bunch of negative ads. Voters will see them and then vote agaisnt the senators who are pro-opensource.

Its a sad state indeed but less the %25 of Americans even read the paper or watch the news. They are uninformed and get there information from commercials.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In other late-breaking news, the sky is blue and computer chips contain silicon. Film at 11."

Have you actually been to Oregon? Blue skies would be breaking news there!

Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish interes

[Futurepower(R)]

In my opinion, the forces of government corruption are strong in Oregon: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.

big deal

[Squarewav]

A good admin will try to install the best software for the job, sometimes windows, sometimes oss. A bad admin will just install what they are used to. forcing them to "chose" wont change anything.

Re:big deal

[Phroggy]

Admins trying to install the best software for the job isn't the problem - the problem is non-technical department heads choosing the software with the best-sounding sales pitch, and then hiring admins who can install that.

The bill would mean that instead of just buying MS Office, they'd have to look at StarOffice and decide which would be better. Then they can still go ahead and buy MS Office anyway, if that's really what they need.

Re:big deal

[TheRealRamone]

"sometimes windows, sometimes oss"

No-no-no - For organizations with very limited budgets, such as schools, a better admin would also consider the most economical solution:

windows (which ever version is already installed) AND oss (Open Office)

And that's probably what's got Microsoft's panties all tied in a knot.

Re:big deal

[jvervloet]

I think every admin will install the software of which he thinks it's the best for the job. The question is, how does he know ?

Did he try the different alternatives ? Or did he hear it from someone ? A problem here is that people tend to have more trust in what well known big companies say, than in strange ideas of those even stranger geeks.

Motivation

[dtfinch]

Microsoft donates a lot to public schools. If government agencies were to start promoting the alternatives, well, you know...

Re:Motivation

[Exiler]

People might actually get an education in something other than a government supported monopoly? Oh, I shudder at the thought.

Re:Motivation

[dtfinch]

I didn't mean to suggest that they should keep using Microsoft products, but that does play a role.

Keeping track

[aicra]

Does anyone keep a record of how often this happens? I know this isn't the first or last state and time.

Re:Keeping track

[Mr. Firewall]

Actually, Oregon IS the first. Not the first state to have an open-source bill introduced (that honor belongs to California), but the first state where an open-source bill actually got a committee hearing.

Re:FP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should find somewhere easier to get first post.

Re:Required by law?-Balanced books?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the industry continues to oppose some requirements.

"The proposed amended bill still says that in every new software acquisition, state agencies shall consider open-source solutions," said Jim Craven, lobbyist for the American Electronics Association, which opposes the bill. "It still has a 'shall' in there. I am not lobbying in opposition to open-source systems. Our concern with the bill is the mandate to state purchasers that they 'shall' do this or 'shall not' do that." "

And is there an implicit "shall" in the present framework towards commercial software, and if so? Why shouldn't there be a counterweight.

Re:Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish inte

[dtfinch]

Yes, they are very strong. We failed to pass a 0.5% income tax increase, and they struck back by tripling road construction and taking 100% of the deficit, and then some, out of schools. I'm not voting Replublican ever again.

Or maybe 7.

[Futurepower(R)]

On the Troll scale of 1 to 10, I'd give you a 6.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[gl1b]

except for the crushing unemployement, the unworkable tax structure, unaffordable housing, lack of culture, shortest school year in the union due to funding cuts., state controlled liquor stores, a shitty state college education topping $4k without for tuition before fees, &c... but yeah it's "great" here

Re:Oregon Rulez

[Blaine Hilton]

And I always thought moving to Oregon was the " thing " to do!

Re:This is a Good Thing (TM): satire, or what?

[mbaudis]

nice satire...

but then, i am not sure. after some years in the u.s. (even california), i can not be sure about the fun / troll status of the post above...

[old european]

Also OT but Oregon-related...

[LightningBolt!]

This was previously reported on Slashdot, but be sure to check out this site.

On Thursday, March 20, 2003, our friend and colleague Maher (Mike) Hawash was arrested ("detained") as a "material witness" by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force in the parking lot of Intel Corp's Hawthorne Farms offices. Simultaneously, FBI agents in bulletproof vests and carrying assault rifles awoke Mike's wife Lisa and their three children in the home, which they proceeded to search. Since then, Mike has been held in the Federal Prison at Sheridan, OR.

And for the tech geek in you...

As a lead engineer on the Intel's MMX technology software team, he developed the MMX technology emulator and optimized MPEG video decoders. As part of the Intel Architecture Labs (IAL), Mike developed several new video technologies, including Intel Indeo Video and ProShare products, the Intel Smart Video Recorder, and Intel's contribution to Microsoft's VfW (Video For Windows) and ActiveMovie. Later he worked on building one of the first WiFi enabled wireless devices used in healthcare industry for writing electronic prescriptions. The project produced one of the first wireless devices with speech recognition and built-in WiFi. Mike continues to work at Intel Corp as a contract employee.

Help this guy out.

Re:Also OT but Oregon-related...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

A judge ruled he has to be presented to the Grand Jury by 25 April.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[justin_speers]

But we have good beer :)

House Bill 2892

[rsklnkv]

72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 2937

House Bill 2892

Sponsored by Representative BARNHART (at the request of Ken
Barber)

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Requires state government to consider using open source
software when acquiring new software. Sets other requirements for
acquiring software.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to software acquisitions by state government.
(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) The cost of obtaining software for the state's computer
systems has become a significant expense to the state;
(b) The personnel costs of maintaining the software on the
state's computers has also become a significant expense to the
state;
(c) It is necessary to the functioning of the state that
computer data owned by the state be permanently available to the
state throughout its useful life;
(d) To guarantee the succession and permanence of public data,
it is necessary that the state's accessibility to that data be
independent of the goodwill of the state's computer system
suppliers and the monopoly conditions imposed by these suppliers;
(e) It is in the public interest to ensure interoperability of
computer systems through the use of software and products that
promote open, platform-neutral standards;
(f) It is also in the public interest that the state be free,
to the greatest extent possible, of restrictions imposed by
parties outside the state's control on how, and for how long, the
state may use the software it has acquired; and
(g) It is not in the public interest and it is a violation of
the fundamental right to privacy for the state to use software
that, in addition to its stated function, also transmits data to,
or allows control and modification of its systems by, parties
outside of the state's control.
(2) The Legislative Assembly further finds that:
(a) The acquisition and widespread deployment of open source
software can significantly reduce the state's costs of obtaining
and maintaining software;
(b) Open source software guarantees that its encoding of data
is not tied to a single provider;
(c) Open source software ensures interoperability through
adherence to open, platform-neutral standards;

(d) Open source software contains no restrictions on how, or
for how long, it may be used; and
(e) Since open source software fully discloses its internal
operations, it can be audited, at any time and by anyone of the
state's choosing, for internal functions that are contrary to the
public's interests and rights.
(3) Therefore, it is in the public interest that the State of
Oregon consider using open source software in its public
computing functions.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) As used in this section:
(a) 'Open source software' means software that guarantees the
user, without further cost:
(A) Unrestricted use of the software for any purpose;
(B) Unrestricted access to the respective source code;
(C) Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the
software;
(D) Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of
the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user;
(E) Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and
(F) Modification of the software an

I'm confused

[justin_speers]

Okay, so I'm an Oregonian, and I see absolutely ZERO point to this bill...

This bill says Oregon should have to consider open-source software when upgrading systems... Where is the law that says Oregon CAN'T do that already? What a stupid waste of legislation, no matter how big you are on open source. Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?

Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.

Re:I'm confused

[Slowping]

Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.


This is exactly why we need this bill.
Because by your argument, we shouldn't have the DMCA. All those things are better covered by existing laws. But the DMCA exists. We need to be a little more realistic and support laws like this to gain some ground.

Yes, laws Should make sense, but they don't; so we need to play the political game.

Re:I'm confused

[justin_speers]

Yes, laws Should make sense, but they don't; so we need to play the political game

Sorry, but I don't share that attitude... Somebody needs to stop this insanity!

Everything is so over-legislated nowadays. There are zillions of laws saying you can't do this, you have to do that, congress "shall" do this.. etc.

You're never going to make it better by playing the political game and heaping on "good laws" as band-aid fixes for all the bad ones.

Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but down the drain is if people can someday stand up and vote for some candidates who will actually reduce the size of government and bring some efficiency to the table. I may sound a little too idealist, but there are alternatives to democrats and republicans out there.

I'd rather be a naive idealist than someone who is perpetuating the horrid status quo...

Re:I'm confused

[rsklnkv]

Wasting money and getting paid to sculpt bullshit is the idea.

Re:I'm confused

[Phroggy]

Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but down the drain is if people can someday stand up and vote for some candidates who will actually reduce the size of government and bring some efficiency to the table. I may sound a little too idealist, but there are alternatives to democrats and republicans out there.

Tip: the phrase "reduce the size of government" doesn't actually mean anything to most people, except that it makes you sound like a hardcore Libertarian screwball or an anarchist. If you want to convince people who aren't already Libertarians or anarchists, don't use that phrase.

You're right, though.

Re:I'm confused

[Ledskof]

I disagree. I think this law is useful. It can save a lot of tax dollars for now and the future, increase the security and stability of government systems, and help break apart the commercial dominators on the playing field... If they were required to evaluate OSS software (which is free as far as capital goes), then they wouldn't be able to just choose whatever commercial software company's slick salesman talks them into. They would have to really take a look at a free solution. If they decide the free soultion is better, then we are really benefiting. If they don't, well, the time they spent evaluating the free software won't even compare to the money they will spend on the commercial software.

One more thing... The less influence that commercial software has on the government, the better. Because that means the less influence some company, whose primary concern is their own income, will have over our lives. Maybe you disagree but I'd rather have the people we voted into office making decisions for my life than a corporation like Microsoft.

Re:I'm confused

[justin_speers]

Well your post made me laugh. :)

I AM a "Hardcore Libertarian screwball", I'm even proud of it! (plug: web site). And I've heard lots of politicians use the phrase "reduce the size of government", one example being Bill Clinton (who obviously didn't actually do that, but it sounded good to everyone at the time...).

Since no one is accusing Bill Clinton or Bob Dole of being "screwballs" or "anarchists", I'm not afraid to use that phrase.

But rather than calling members of political parties bad names, why don't you point out what makes that such a dumb thing to say?

But I'm glad you think I'm right!

Re:I'm confused

[justin_speers]

One more thing... The less influence that commercial software has on the government, the better. Because that means the less influence some company, whose primary concern is their own income, will have over our lives. Maybe you disagree but I'd rather have the people we voted into office making decisions for my life than a corporation like Microsoft.

Personally, I find the one major group you can trust less than Microsoft in this world is the Government!

Also, the anti-corporation argument doesn't make much sense in reality. It's not like a bunch of government workers are going to be running over to freshmeat to get their software, I would imagine the OSS would still be provided and supported by an "evil corporation". It would probably just be more along the lines of Red Hat, IBM, or HP.

Re:I'm confused

[InsaneGeek]

You've fallen into the old trap: OSS is not free as far as capital goes. There have never been any statements that OSS is free or that it *even* costs less to purchase. Remember free as in speach not as in beer.

Re:I'm confused

[Ledskof]

I'm not playing the "evil corporation" bs.
I'm saying that corporations are out for their wellfare and that's ALL. Everything else is a result of them trying to GROW and make more money, no matter how predatory or apathetic they have to be.

We don't vote corporations into office.

Re:I'm confused

[Ledskof]

OSS is free as far as the cost of software goes.
It's not as if you can buy microsoft or oracle, or what have you, without paying people or having computers to run it. Evaluating it is often cheaper as well, and only *isn't* cheaper when the commercial software offers a free eval period.

We've evaluated many "free" OSS solutions at my company and it hasn't cost us ANYTHING beyond our normal operating costs. We have a test environment where I've loaded Gentoo Linux, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD, to test out several different apps and servers. We had to invest nothing to perform this eval. We also would spend nothing if we implemented parts of it.

Are you talking about something beyond the same capital that is required by commercial software - the software cost?

Re:I'm confused

[InsaneGeek]

No you are incorrect. OSS does not mean it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mean that you aren't putting out commercial software, it means you have additional rights.

Check out http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html the granddady of the "movement" (hate the word movement but can't think of anything better) RMS even says it.

The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial...

There are lots of no-cost non-OSS software out there, goto your favorite utility website and download something. I can download winamp and use it at no-cost, is it OSS??? No. Again no-cost != OSS, if it did the bill would say that they are forced to look at no-cost software instead of OSS.

Re:I'm confused

[Feztaa]

It's not like a bunch of government workers are going to be running over to freshmeat to get their software

And all I have to say is, why the fuck not? freshmeat not good enough for them? They have to spend taxpayer's money to get the same stuff at an inflated cost?

Re:I'm confused

[InsaneGeek]

No you are incorrect. OSS does not mean it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mean that you aren't putting out commercial software, it means you have additional rights.

Check out http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html the granddady of the "movement" (hate the word movement but can't think of anything better) RMS even says it.

The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial:...

There are lots of no-cost non-OSS software out there, goto your favorite utility website and download something. Winamp is a perfect example of this, it's free to download, install and use; doesn't cost a dime, is it OSS no, among other things against it where's the source?

Again no-cost != OSS, if it did the bill would say that they are foced to look at no-cost software instead of OSS.

Re:I'm confused

[skillet-thief]

Tip: the phrase "reduce the size of government" doesn't actually mean anything to most people, except that it makes you sound like a hardcore Libertarian screwball or an anarchist.

He could be just a regular hardcore Reaganite. Reagan talked constantly about reducing the size of government, while running up the biggest deficits anyone had ever seen.

Usually reducing the size of gov't means cutting Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, but spending tons on defense.

That reminds me of someone else...

Re:I'm confused

[skillet-thief]

I'd rather be a naive idealist than someone who is perpetuating the horrid status quo...

It would be nice if this attitude worked. In fact, it does do some good to have a lunatic-fringe out there, being naive.

Unfortunately, if you actually want to the world to be a better place, you have to play the political game. That is just the way it is. Politics isn't perfect, but that is the way stuff works. If people hadn't voted for Nader, Gore would be president right now.

Re: I'm confused

[Black Parrot]

Ah, clever! Post your talkback twice and you can get more than the legal karma limit for it.

And the editors can hardly complain about double posting! (Ehrm, you wouldn't happen to be one of the editors, would you?)

Re:I'm confused

[jez9999]

If the American political system worked, Gore would be president right now. :-)

Re:I'm confused

[jez9999]

*sigh*

And that comment was supposed to be surrounded in <constroversy></controversy> tags, but Slashdot filtered them out :-(

Re:I'm confused

[jez9999]

freshmeat not good enough for them?

No.

They have to spend taxpayer's money to get the same stuff at an inflated cost?

Yes, I think that's precisely the point. The same software, but also support (for people used to Microsoft software simplicity), and someone to blame if it all goes wrong.

Re:I'm confused

[Gonzoman]

This is a very good point. We are currently implementing a Linux terminal server system for public access internet at our library. Cost was one factor, but other factors were more important.
These included licencing issues, stability, ease of administration, and support issues.

By using this solution we are not forced to buy new hardware when Microsoft ends support for the OS's we are using. We can end the software upgrade/hardware upgrade spiral, and use our resources for our core functions.

Re:I'm confused

[Ledskof]

Oh well... Neither me or my company has had to use any OSS yet that requires either licenses, or has any limitation on usage.

I really can't think of any OSS that costs a company to purchase either. Other than having to pay for a distribution CD. You still aren't paying licenses. Who would want to contribute freely to an open source project that is going to turn around and sell the software to profit off your work that you aren't rewarded for?

What is an exmaple of this? I'm always willing to reduce my ignorance.

Re:I'm confused

[Thing 1]

Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but down the drain is if people can someday stand up and vote for some candidates who will actually reduce the size of government and bring some efficiency to the table. I may sound a little too idealist, but there are alternatives to democrats and republicans out there.

And they'll never get into office in any substantial way (I know New Hampshire (or Vermont?) has some libertarians in office, and Jesse Ventura was from a third party as well).

Why? Because of the way the money situation is set up. Campaign contribution limits. Most people are for them -- "Don't let the politicians waste our money!" But people don't understand the real issue.

Republicans and Democrats have a huge donation-base. If everyone is limited to $100 a year, they're still taking in a lot of money. However, any third party has a significantly smaller population that can and will donate, so they're limited.

Even if that third party has a very wealthy backer, s/he is not able to pour all his/her funds into the party. And this is what is keeping third parties from growing.

I remember reading an article a co-worker had which described this in terms of the "big 3" television networks, back in the 70s. They wanted to pass laws restricting the newcomer, cable TV networks. They failed. But at the same time laws were passed restricting newcomer political parties, described as "benefitting the public", and they succeeded.

So well, in fact, that our most recent presidential election could have been called either way. By the only two parties able to (effectively) spend money.

Re:I'm confused

[Dirtside]

Well, the whole point of "matching campaign funds" is that if your party garners a large enough percentage of the vote in an election (5-10%), then you're eligible for matching funds from the government, to help your campaign, for the next election. Basically they'll match any money you spend up to a point. The idea is to help small parties have a chance.

The problem is that in, for example, the national Presidential election, a party has to get 5% of the vote to get matching funds. Since that almost never happens -- except for the Democrats and Republicans, of course -- other parties almost never get a chance for matching funds, so they stay small.

A better method would be to give the top 5 parties matching funds, so that if the Dems get 48%, the Repubs get 48%, and then you've got (e.g.) the Libertarians with 3%, the Greens with 2%, and the Slightly Silly Party with 1% (and all other parties with less than 1%), now the Dems, Reps, Libs, Greens, and SSP all get matching funds. Now the smaller guys have a chance to break in to the big-time.

Alas, the DemoPubs have no interest in that happening, so it probably won't for quite a while. (And before a dear reader jumps to conclusions, I'm not a Libertarian, either.)

This is sarcasm, no?

[LightningBolt!]

They give away software, write it off as if were cash donations, and by doing so, further tighten their grip on the PC market.

I sure wish I could donate bits and call it money...

Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[LightningBolt!]

Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?

The wording of the bill isn't to say they "can" consider open source. It says they "shall".

Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[justin_speers]

Sorry my confusion is still there...

My basic point is that there shouldn't have to be a law here. The government should ALWAYS consider all their options, rather than just automatically going with Microsoft.

On top of that, it's a wasteful law that won't actually accomplish much. Does anyone really believe that they're going to start using OpenOffice.org at the DMV? I think this is a publicity stunt here, they're just trying to put a little pressure on Microsoft.

I just believe they should be using the best tool for the job at the best price point for taxpayers. The fact they need to pass a law to do that is a sad example of how incredibly unefficient government has become.

What's next? Will they require a law that says they have to consider something cheaper than "Charmin" for the toilet paper rolls in the capital bathrooms?

Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[Ledskof]

Yeah, in other words, instead of just picking the first thing that comes along, which is ALWAYS commercial software, they would be REQUIRED to consider an OSS alternative.

A few good points:
1. Good chance at finding a cheaper solution for the initial implementation.
2. Good chance at finding a more secure solution.
3. The solution would be maintainable, and free to upgrade to meet future technologies.
4. No source code is hidden from you.
5. If they decide not to use an evaluated OSS solution then the resulting report could greatly benefit that OSS projects future.
6. If the OSS solution is decided on, it will bring this OSS project further into the public for other's to consider using.
7. The more OSS solutions that organizations are aware of and implement, the more organizations that will be aware of and implement them as a compounding result.
etc
8. Future change: If something is free, you aren't held back from changing because of all the money you already dumped into it. And you most likely wouldn't get involved in a platform that was designed to lock you into it with no escape (microsoft), so you'd have a better chance at changing in the future as well.

Someone else list bad points; I'm going to bed.

Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to pass this bill because the the PHB at all the large companies have the dummer, less attractive PHB (pointy haired brother) working in the various government agencies. They do pretty much act like sheep and just buy whatever Microsoft et al. are pushing. I support this bill, because it will all others to suggest solutions that could just as good if not better and cheaper. It's sad, but sometimes you just have to force people to look outside of their narrow view of the world and see that there are other options.

Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[pantherace]

That would be nice.

At a local university, I have contact with a student group, with about 20+ (not much more than that), and recently due to the fact that if money is not spent, it is lost to the organization, the president wanted to get Adobe's PDF generator. (about 200 dollars) The reason? It had one feature, either not present or which had not been found, which was not needed (User Editable PDFs (sort of a 'cool I could do this, but I don't need to.')), and the allocated money (to the student organization) didn't have something that it needed spending on.

This pisses me off (The software was not bought) However, the attitude is unfortuantely rather commonplace. I have money, so I spend it, if I need to or not.

Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly.

[Hubert_Shrump]

also:

if the agency decides against the OSS solution, the letter explaining why would be available to the project maintainers. good feedback.

Re:Good?

[jkrise]

" The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most."

Exactly how will this help in benefitting the taxpayer? In the matter of H1Bs, the legislation was specifically phrased "foreigners may be employed ONLY WHERE such talent is not locally avbl". Only a similar strong wording can promote Open Source.

I'd like a legislation which states "Agencies which consider software purchases must consider commercial closed-source s/w ONLY WHERE Open Source products satisfying the needs, are not available". The penalty for non-conformance to this legislation should be the loss of the taxpayer's money i.e. the (extra) price paid for closed-source s/w.

The problem with society is there is no legislation against apathy and stupidity.

But if its free how do you pay for it?

[sneakybilly]

I am a contractor for a state government in Australia and that is the managements thoughts on open source software. They don't think anything is good if you can't pay for it.

Re:But if its free how do you pay for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The taxpayers will be happy that their money is spent wisely (or not at all).

If the contractor *really* wanted to spend money, it could always buy boxed copies of RedHat Linux (or equivalent), one per system (this is unnecessary, but if the contractor has an amount to spend, buying a thousand unnecessary boxes will certainly cause the disposal of taxpayer's funds).

Re:But if its free how do you pay for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, that law would be a real PITA.
You see, evaluations are only perfomed on MS software, on MS OS'es.
The public servants here would have no idea, or if they did, they would be making it up on heresay, given that MS Innovation Centres already do the 'hard' MS evaluations for the dears.
If not the FMA (Financial Management Act), and approved suppliers gives them a loophole.
Possibly, 'Open Source' is not a term understood by our congresscritters, whom many are decendants of British penal stock.

Re:But if its free how do you pay for it?

[rump_carrot]

Air is free. My thoughts are free. Free is ok.

Re:Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish inte

[chanceH]

ya I hate it when my taxes don't go up. Why can't more of my hard earned money go to fund the parasite classes? Paying for things like roads, when we could be spending more money on superviser of the supervisor of the guy in charge of the 'my-two-daddies' seminar tought to 7 year olds, what the hell are they thinking?

republican bastards.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[Phroggy]

The tax structure is perfectly workable, it's the property tax cap that's unworkable. It all goes back to Measure 5. Thank God the governor and state legislature are finally starting to figure this out.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, $4k! Jesus! I'm from Oregon and that blows my mind. I mean, what's next, paying $30k for a private school?

Don't whine about $4k.

Wait, isn't this immature?

[essdodson]

Just today I read how IBPhoenix advocating their user base express their opinions to Mozilla over naming Phoenix as Firebird was to be considered immature. So why isn't this immature? Pot, kettle, black...

Re:Wait, isn't this immature?

[dpete4552]

Nobody said that user base expressing their opinions was immature. What was considered immature by some was the tactic of just randomly spamming anything and everyone even remotely related to the Mozilla project, and at times being insulting on top of it.

If slashdot told everyone to randomly spam anyone and everything related to the Oregon's government, then it would be immature. But, as the IBPhoenix project has done, they are simply asking people to complain to the people that have the power to do something about it.

Like the man says. Read my lips....

[Anonymous Coward]

"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a
Microsoft spokeswoman.

There is only patch and bug value in any of our software so it looks like open source has the merits and real value.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[NiceGeek]

Ok...I'll agree with a lot of your points..but lack of culture? Are you insane? Tons of local bands & artists, lots of big name music acts, and cool things like the Saturday Market.

"Value" of commercial vs. open-source software

[TerryMathews]

Consider the following: If the value of software is the ability/price, then all commercial software would be some value x / some value y, as all commercial software has a cost related to it.

Open source software is given freely, therefore it's price is 0. As any student who has taken Calculus can tell you, Any real number 0 x infinity divided by 0 = infinity.

Therefore, open-source software is infinitely more cost effective than commercial software. Theoretically.

Re:"Value" of commercial vs. open-source software

[dorfsmay]

But anybody who has ever worked in IT will tell you that the initial cost for the acquisition of the software is peanuts in comparison to the "cost of the software". You need somebody to install, to train the users, to update the software etc...

In a lot of cases oss software will be more cost/effective (say apache vs. anything out-there), but in other cases there is no oss solution for a particular problem, or what exist is so feature-less, or so complicated to install/maintain that a comercial equivalent is more cost-efficient.

My Response as an Oregon Resident

[aSiTiC]

I sent a response to the given lawmaker site:

I'm very disappointed to hear that House Bill 2892 is being stalled because large corporations fear it's implications. Open Source software should be consider equally along with other costly software! If the Open Source software is more cost effective and achieves the same purpose it should be used in Oregon government applications. This would be a perfect oppurtunity for Oregon lawmakers to show their commitment to maximize taxpayers money! Thanks and please consider my thoughts.

Re:My Response as an Oregon Resident

[gimpboy]

is there something in oregon law preventing open sour software from being considered now? i really think you should instead tell your representative to support a bill forcing the use of open file formats in the government. here "open" should be formats not incumbered by patients and copyrights which are freely available to everyone. it is your data, as a citizen of oregon, and should not be crippled by the format in which it is stored.

the government should use the best tool for the job. you can give opensource a leg up by specifying that the file formats used be open. microsoft can still play, they would just have to open their file formats - indirect attacks are much better ;).

Not exactly stalled....

[Colonel Panic]

It appears that the Oregonian read a little too much into the fact that the bill wasn't discussed in the General Committee today. Here's part of a post that showed up on the Portland Linux User's Group this evening (Note: Representative Drummel is a committee member and supporter of the bill):

"Behold! Representative Jerry Drummel, at 16:52PDT, calls me back.

I spoke with him for about 10 minutes. To summarize:

* He scratched out the discussion of the bill in the general committee because he wasn't happy with the amendments. Two issues:
- Issue with the "where as" clauses. I didn't know what this meant.
- Issue with parts of section 2, did not go into details

* He has been working with Barnhart and and Ken Barber [co-sponsors of the bill] since the bills creation.

* He is the one who invited Riverdale and the MESD down to testify.

* Once the bill is finalized and approved through the General committee,
he would be a yes vote. ....
So, I don't think the bill is dead, just standard government bureaucracy. I've never had a representative call me back though, which
was impressive. Then again, maybe I'm easily impressed when it comes to
legislature. "

So it would appear that The Oregonian was a bit premature in declaring the death of this bill. It looks like it will go through some more revision, though.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[aSiTiC]

Lack of culture.. You've never been to Portland.

Oregon is perfect for outdoor people (i.e. will not draw /. folk) with mountains, desert, valley and coast along with a moderate climate.

The Universities are good and cheap $4K and the Engineering college at Oregon State University is much, much better than average.

But there are many problems including a population that do not want to pay taxes, which has caused almost every single problem existing Oregon to date.

Re:Good? let's make it better..

[jkrise]

"I think that the law is -1 redundant."

And I think your post is a reply to a redundant post! Here's my suggestion to give some real TEETH to the law.. Closed Source software must be considered IF and ONLY IF open-source alternatives which satisfy the stated needs of the govt. agencies don't exist. Any agency in wilful violation of this legislation will be penalised... and the penalty terms could be laid down.

The fact of the matter is that Open Source is a special category of software and needs legislation. It's like an endangered species - it cannot sustain itself without public awareness and legal protection. It is highly useful though.

Re:Good?-Absent without measure

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem with society is there is no legislation against apathy and stupidity. "

What happens when an apartment is run by an absentee landlord? What happens to government when it has absentee citizens?

BTW: OT Konq. allows spell-check in this text area, as well as D&D from one konq to another. Highlite text, drag to another window. Same with URLs. We've come far.

School districts are bad too

[Treegezer]

I am a high school student and I wrote a grant for hardware for three workstations. I was at first going to use Linux but the district refuses to approve the software for use. They state that it is "insecure"... first time I have heard Linux called that. Now I am stuck trying to get licenses for windows and what not to make the hardware useful all which must comply with an approved list of software the newest piece of software approved being windows 98. The list contains 30 titles highlights being reader rabbit and Microsoft word 3. Guess all I can do is type in word even the Macs at school can do a half way decent job at that. By the way if I went with Mac I would not have to get software approved. Does anyone have a logical explanation as why people resist Linux so much?

Re:School districts are bad too

[b17bmbr]

i am a teacher, and i think i can give you some insight. there are several reasons. one, software companies see schools ans students like drug dealers do. they will damn near give away there software because if you get "hooked" on their stuff, when you leave, you only kow there software. and the district level people see the supposed great deal they get. two, in our district, some of the technidiots have gone to microsoft seminars, and come home with all sorts of freebies. it's like freakin halloween. so, they are not going to be the one that suggests OSS when they lose their sugar daddy. three, most school tech people are bottom of the barrell. for instance, i run linux inmy classroom, and the technidiots can't figure out how i can access the internet nor my novell network shares from linux, since "novell doesn't support linux". ipx_configure and ncpmount. districts can't pay going wages. so they get those least able to find jobs in the private sector.

something else, too. they just don't know linux and don't want to. they have no need to save the district money nor do they have any need nor desire to improve their skills. school district jobs are permanent jobs. they don't want to rock the boat. if the district dared move to linux, they'd be out of work or would have to retool their skills. they want neither. i could go on with endless stories but i won't bore you. keep up the fight, and take it to your school board. here's what you do. find just one area that OSS can do more, for less. it shouldn't be too hard. present it to the school board. they have their meetings open to the public. these people are elected. they care about votes. if they can say they saved money and improved __________ (fill inthe blank), let them get the credit, and you'll be more successful. for instance, give them examples where this "linux thing" has been adopted by companies, to show that it is a viable, powerful, etc., solution. i'd love to help.

i have run into lots of problems too. keep up the good fight. the latin phrase goes something like non illegetimum carborundum. don't let the bastards get you down!!! email me if you need assisstance. rmandel AT hartdistrict.org (sorry for the typos, it's 1AM where i'm,at)

Re:School districts are bad too

[MacDaffy]

i have run into lots of problems too. keep up the good fight. the latin phrase goes something like non illegetimum carborundum. don't let the bastards get you down!!! email me if you need assisstance. rmandel AT hartdistrict.org (sorry for the typos, it's 1AM where i'm,at)

Dude, you're a teacher! I hope you don't allow your students to use time-of-day related excuses for sloppy work. There's no such thing as a bad time to set a good example (and it's illegitimati non carborundum).

Pie Jesu Domine...dona eis requiem...WHACK!

Re:School districts are bad too

[russh347]

A teacher?... I think not. Though you have a valid point about software and computer companies hooking our youth, your presentation of information is well below grade avarage. As a respresentitive of the teaching profession you should at least use proper semantics and syntax.

Re:School districts are bad too

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheeh guys, lay off the grammer spelling stuff OK? I don't do very well at 1am when I'm typing a response. Teachers get tired too. Cut them a little slack - it's a very hard job at very low pay. They can't be perfect all the time - proper spelling and grammer take considerable effort late at night.

Pay attention to the point. Software companys treating schools like drug dealers do. That's an excellent way to put it.

Never let spelling or grammer distract you from a good idea. Correct them if you must, but for goodness sake pay attention to the idea!

Re:School districts are bad too

[ntrfug]

1. Write the grant for the hardware only.

2. If you are forced to include software choose the cheapest version of Windows you can find.

3. Include no other closed-source software, or as little as you can specify to get the grant approved.

4. When you get the money, buy the stuff you said you would buy.

5. Build the computers. Leave the closed-source software in the box. Install Linux and open-source applications.

6. Don't announce your intentions ahead of time -- just do it.
Once you have the network up and running it will be hard to claim it doesn't work.

Re:School districts are bad too

[Anonymous Coward]

A teacher? Heh... Bullshit!

Re:School districts are bad too

[NtroP]

I am the senior Systems Administrator for a large school district, so let me take a stab it. First, kudos on getting off your butt and doing something about the problem! I wish more students would get involved like you did.

About the "approved" software lists: It sounds like yours aren't kept up to date - which is a bad thing, but most likely they are only dusted off when "the management" needs to make a point or back it's position. That being said, they are there for several good reasons. They are intended to help agregate the functionality of software classes so that software that performs very similar tasks aren't duplicated (ie if you use MS Office, why buy WordPerfect too?, etc). Another reason is, quite simply, to make it easier on us :-) Most people don't know this, but IT and helpdesk staff aren't magically endowed with the ability to be instant experts is every piece of software ever written. Yet people will go out to Wall-Mart, buy a smartly packaged app, install it and call the helpdesk when they can't figure out how to use it or when it breaks somethig else on their system. We've never even heard of it before, do not have a copy to put up in front of us, yet we are supposed to solve their problem? The other day I had one of our accounting people call me to ask how to do something esoteric with MS Access. How the hell should I know? I use MySQL. So I fired up both google and Access and hit "help". Sure enough, I came up with the answer. But, geeze, give me a break! This happens all the time. Now you want to add a whole new operating system to the works? Like I said, the helpdesk technicians aren't going to just know how to troubleshoot it. And don't say "We won't call the helpdesk" - it always happens :-)

But, getting down the OSS issue. I am happy to anounce that I have been finally given approval to deploy OSS software as a "standard" at all of our 35+ locations. All new computers ordered (whether PC or Mac) will be delivered with Open Office! Those who find a specific function that it will not support which keeps them from doing their job, will be allowed to purchase MS Office (those with current licenses will be able to keep them until they need to upgrade).

In addition to this, we will be moving off Active Directory as our "primary" Directory Service and moving to OpenLDAP this summer (Active Directory will take it's queues from LDAP). Along with this change, we will be implementing an "Integrated Learning System" for managing student accounts, folders, hand-in/hand-out, attendance, etc. which will be developed in-house and be based on existing Open Source Software (I won't mention the name yet, because I have yet to get the blessing the authors about working\modding it to the extent we eventually want to). When it is completed, we plan on re-releasing our implementation back to the Open Source community. (we'd also like help from them ;-)

As far as Linux-on-the-desktop is concerned, I'll be frank with you. It's a tough sell. All of our technicians actually use it as their primary or close secondary OS at work (and home) - Administratively, there is just so much you can do with it. That being said, putting it in the classrooms is a completely different situation. First, like I said earlier, there is the support issue. Yeah, I know, I just got finnished saying that we all run it ourselves. That's true, but 1) the helpdesk techs don't and 2) I may log in to Gnome or KDE and fire up a browser every now and then, but honestly, I mostly fire up a terminal window and go to town from there. If someone called me and asked why The Gimp kept crashing, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an immediate answer. With Photoshop on OS X or Win2K I can call tech support if I really get in a bind. What's more, it isn't just "our" fear of the unknown, end-users, when presented with an unfamiliar OS or interface are more likely to simply throw their hands up in exasperation then

Re:School districts are bad too

[Anonymous Coward]

lay off the grammer spelling stuff OK?

We will, if you promise to start spelling "grammar" correctly so we don't have to keep re-parsing your sentences.

Seriously, though, grammar and spelling need to be developed as good habits; then it doesn't matter what time it is. If one starts paying attention to grammar and spelling all the time, after a few years one finds that one no longer needs to pay attention.

Furthermore, spelling and grammar unavoidably affect the strength of one's argument -- mistakes jar the reader and distract him or her from the flow of the author's discussion. The reader has to spend his or her time trying to figure out what the author meant to write instead of thinking about what the author meant.

In other words -- you say "pay attention to the idea"; we say "stop distracting us so we can."

Re:School districts are bad too

[DanAnderson26]

"avarage. As a respresentitive"

Pot: "Kettle, you are black!"

Dan

Re:School districts are bad too

[russh347]

Good catch Dan. I'd be embarrassed, except it was actually my wife who wrote that post. Guess what... she's a teacher. Having said that, I have to point out that there is a quantitative difference between one simple mistake and the consistent indifference to (ignorance of) the English language demostrated by the post to which she was responding.

Re:School districts are bad too

[DanAnderson26]

"one simple mistake"

"avarage. As a respresentitive"

I'm not a teacher, but I count this as two. :-)

Dan

Re:School districts are bad too

[russh347]

I'm not a teacher either... I'm a developer. There's a reason I have computers around to count things for me :-)

based on.... Marketing?

[Ledskof]

"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.

In other words, it should be based on how well that software is Marketed, not on how well it performs.

Would they not discover the "overal merits and value" by evaluating software instead of ONLY listening to the production of one of the most aggressive marketing engines in the world, and online opinion?

I'm a State of Oregon Sysad

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got Linux, OpenBSD (firewalling a couple of Winbloze servers), and Netware servers on my network. A couple of Linux workstations and 150 Winbloze boxen. But, those Windoze boxes are all running Mozilla and OpenOffice, and I certainly wish some masochist would port Evolution to Windoze, cause then I could get rid of Eudora, too (no Outlook for me ;-) )

We're in the process of dumping Office, because of the proprietary file formats, and I've got test users right now using OpenOffice who don't realize that it's *not* Office. If only some true masochist would port Evolution to Windoze, as I'm one app away of being able to dump Windoze from the desktop as well. I will personally *never* buy something when I can get an acceptable substitute for free (and the folks who deal with my IT budget like this a lot).

Our school districts are now also making heavy use of open source, especially around Portland. Down here towards Eugene, OpenOffice has also been popping up on Windows machines in schools, and there are beginning to be a number of Linux Terminal Servers popping up in the districts. The state governments web servers are mostly running Apache. At the university I work at, there's linux all over on the desktop and in server space. Most public access computers here are Linux thin clients.

The people in charge of procuring IT in the state Department of Administrative Services are proponents of this bill and testified for it, as did IT departments at a number of school districts.

Use of open source software in the public sector in Oregon isn't something that's a far-off dream. It happening-- now. This law would more or less codify the reality of present-day IT procurement in the public sector here. Due to the incredible waste of tax money spent on Microsoft's new draconian software licensing terms, Billy and Monkey Boy have really pissed off the powers that be in IT in Oregon government. It's the same with the school districts where Microsoft called for audits to be done right before the end of the term, unless, of course, you would buy a Microsoft Select license for every box in your district, including *nix boxen and Macs....

It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see huge numbers of government agencies running OpenOffice in the next couple of years, not just because it saves money, but because everyone who uses it really likes it. An office package without the cruft that's easy to use.

Billy and his droogs might as well high-tail it back up to Redmond; they're wasting their money an d time in Oregon. We're already in the process of eliminating as much Microsoft from our networks as will be possible to do. And as an IT employee of the state of Oregon, good riddance to bad rubbish is all I have to say....

I see their point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, there are laws requiring an administration to destinate funds in certain amounts to certain things -- like 15% for health, 20% for schools, 5% on cleaning etc.

Since there is an amount which _must_ be spent on IT (if it's not, in my country, this means the public administrator gets prosecuted), they may be worried about how to prove things are right.

The Clippy Clause

[unsinged int]

Maybe if they add a line that says they must ask Clippy's opinion on all new software purchases then Microsoft will stop blocking the bill.

Re:The Clippy Clause

[b!arg]

Ha!
Third time's a charm...but I wish I had mod points...

The Clippy Clause

[unsinged int]

Maybe if they add a line that says they must ask Clippy's opinion on all new software purchases then Microsoft will stop blocking the bill.

no OSS company to sue

[b17bmbr]

the problem with OSS as far as gov't/schools are concerned is that when you have a company that makes the software, hardware, buildings, etc., you have somebody a) at the other end of the phone line and b) someone to sue. if you don't think that is important, you're mistaken. governmnets and schools do not want accountability. since i am a public school teacher, i can attest to this. these people want to be able to blame someone, for something. they don't want the responsibility. with OSS, even say red hat or suse, what, you gonna sue them or call them when something goes wrong. yes, i know you get support contracts. but it ain't the same.

using OSS requires taking risk. these people won't do it. it is so much easier to "just use microsoft". you can't be faulted for making a "bad decision". but you choose to go with OSS, and it has even 1/10 the problems that microsoft's "solutions", you get your ass fried. please remember, some of the problems with public procurement:

1) if you get $100, and spend $105, you demonstrated a need
2) if you get $100, and spend $85, next year you get $75, since yoiuy don't ned it, and guess what, the schmuck who overspent, get's your chunk
3) it isn't you're money, you don't care
4) typically your purchasing decisions will reflect on your higher ups, whose recommendations you need to advance
5) cheaper is better, most of the time. if you get 20 of item A for $100 and 25 of item B for $100, B is better choice. but, if you get 30 OSS items for $0, see rule #1

my father spent thirty years selling, and schools and gov'ts were among his clients. they were most notorious for doing this: they'd see his competitors crap, buy it, and when it broke, he'd sell them a better system. so the purchasing agent got to:1) buy more for less, 2) blame company for product problem, 3) got credit for solving problem, 4) get's bigger budget next year

you think i'm full of shit? how i wish i was. if you have never spent much time in schools (i have) or government, you are missing quite a learning experience. so, it is no surprise that OSS is not widely adopted in public service. but, call and write your elected officials. remember, THEY care about public dollars.

Re:no OSS company to sue

[catfood]

the problem with OSS as far as gov't/schools are concerned is that when you have a company that makes the software, hardware, buildings, etc., you have somebody a) at the other end of the phone line and b) someone to sue.

That old chestnut! I wish this was Plastic so I could mod you "-1 disingenuous." Every time there's an OSS vs. commercial software debate, someone brings up the "someone to sue" line as if it had never been thought of before.

Now go read a commercial software license. Any commercial software license. You don't have someone to sue. MS Office could wipe out your backups and take your children hostage, but Microsoft isn't liable, because you agreed to their EULA. You don't have someone to sue. You might possibly get your purchase price back in an extreme case.

if you don't think that is important, you're mistaken.

<sarcasm>Oh, never mind. Now you've set me straight.</sarcasm>

Say, why is it that the most clueless, argumentative posts include a self-referential line that ostensibly clears up that sort of confusion? How thoughtful.

This is an old, old criticism of institutional use of OSS and it has never been valid.

Re:no OSS company to sue

[b17bmbr]

of course you can't sue microsoft. i wasn't insinuating that you can. however, i worked for a sporting goods store for few years. we wouldn't sell a single product whose company didn't have major insurance. why? you figure it out. hell, we were only the store, not the manufacturer. point is is that people like someone to blame, someone to point fingers at. and yes, they like to fling lawyers at also. companies like microsoft are beholden to shareholders. lots of them. you think all the security foibles haven't hurt their stock price? since there's no way to measure the amount, it could be huge, could be tiny, or none. i think it has alot. why? because they don't control the most lucrative markets in computing due to their problems, and they probably never will, and this limits their growth, i.e. their stock. you won't see windows running the stock market, flight control centers, datacenters, etc., because trying to do so would be a "liability" on the part of the company that did so. it's not that microsoft would be sued, it's that they can be blamed. the suing part is just symbolic.

Re:no OSS company to sue

[catfood]

Darn. Pity there's no "-1 incoherent" mod here either. The point is, no, you don't have anyone to sue when your commercial software fails. Not unless it's a high-end vertical application, probably highly customized, and that just isn't where OSS is competing per se.

Re:no OSS company to sue

[Tenorman]

I agree with you 100%! Unfortunately, many people never bother to check out their EULAs, or even know they exist. So while commercial software is no more accountable than OSS in actual fact, this matters very little when the perception is otherwise. So you're both kind of right in a way really. =)

Re:no OSS company to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very concerned - you say you are a public school teacher, and yet you posted a message with numerous spelling, punctuation and grammatical faults. Forget computers - concentrate on the basic skills our children should have.

Please learn that sentences start with a capital, apostrophes have rules and verbs are a good thing.

Slashdot stalled by Microsoft and Google????

[jkrise]

For the past 42 minutes, the number of posts to this article stood at "66 out of 90". I got logged out automatically, and couldn't post or do anything during this period.

I did something crazy - went to news.google.com and tried to search for "Microsoft Slashdot Oregon" and got this:

Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
Slashdot - 1 hour ago ... hear quite a bit about the horrible shape Oregon ... fact that this pending bill gets
attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft ... The open source ...

with the link:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/06/18152 39.shtm l?tid=103

which is not 1 hour ago, but actually March 6th!

Very curious.

The Clippy Clause

[unsinged int]

Maybe if they add a line that says that they must ask Clippy's opinion on all new software purchases then Microsoft will stop blocking the bill.

"It looks like you're trying to buy $2 million of software..."

Slashdot stalled by Microsoft and Google???

[jkrise]

For the past 42 minutes, the number of posts to this article stood at "66 out of 90". I got logged out automatically, and couldn't post or do anything during this period.

I did something crazy - went to news.google.com and tried to search for "Microsoft Slashdot Oregon" and got this:

Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
Slashdot - 1 hour ago ... hear quite a bit about the horrible shape Oregon ... fact that this pending bill gets
attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft ... The open source ...

with the link:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/06/18152 39.shtm l?tid=103

which is not 1 hour ago, but actually March 6th!

Very curious.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[Colonel Panic]

it's the property tax cap that's unworkable

How's that? You mean we should have let property taxes rise at an uncapped rate? I think the cap is 3% per year, which is about what inflation has been running for the last, oh, 10 years or so. Why should property taxes go up faster than the inflation rate?

Given that a lot of us techies in Oregon are not working right now (myself included), it's kind'a good that I can count on what my property tax bill will be come November - the way it was before it was hard to tell how much more I was going to have to pay each year. It's also a lot easier on retired, fixed income folks.

I am coming to the conclusion that we do need some kind of sales tax (excluding food & meds of course), but I would only support it if my property taxes were reduced (I think this is why sales tax initiatives have always failed in Oregon before - it always looked like another additional tax on top of the others). If we had a sales tax (say 5%) and the property taxes were lowered (say by 25-30%) it would make it a lot easier if you're unemployed. I can avoid a sales tax by not buying items that are taxed(and when you're not working you generally can't afford those items anyway), but I can't avoid the property tax; if I'm not working, they still want it even if I don't have the cash.

Given the high unemployment rates here, I'm sure there are a lot of us in Oregon wondering how we're going to come up with our property taxes this year (averages around $2000 for moderately priced homes) as it is.

But, when it comes right down to it, it's not because our taxes are too low or too capped that has killed the state and local budgets here in Oregon. The main reason is that a lot of folks who had good paying jobs have lost them, and as the jobs were lost, so were the tax revenues. Of course it doesn't help that state budgets were predicated on the belief that the economy would just continue for the next five years to be just like it was in 1999.

Re:

[jkrise]

For the past 42 minutes, the number of posts to this article stands stalled at "66 out of 90". I got logged out automatically, and couldn't post or do anything during this period.

I did something crazy - went to news.google.com and tried to search for "Microsoft Slashdot Oregon" and got this:

Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
Slashdot - 1 hour ago ... hear quite a bit about the horrible shape Oregon ... fact that this pending bill gets
attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft ... The open source ...

with the link:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/06/18152 39.shtm l?tid=103

which is not 1 hour ago, but actually March 6th!

Very curious.

The Property tax cap isn't the reason

[Colonel Panic]

it's the property tax cap that's unworkable

How's that? You mean we should have let property taxes rise at an uncapped rate? I think the cap is 3% per year, which is about what inflation has been running for the last, oh, 10 years or so. Why should property taxes go up faster than the inflation rate?

Given that a lot of us techies in Oregon are not working right now (myself included), it's kind'a good that I can count on what my property tax bill will be come November - the way it was before it was hard to tell how much more I was going to have to pay each year. It's also a lot easier on retired, fixed income folks.

I am coming to the conclusion that we do need some kind of sales tax (excluding food & meds of course), but I would only support it if my property taxes were reduced (I think this is why sales tax initiatives have always failed in Oregon before - it always looked like another additional tax on top of the others). If we had a sales tax (say 5%) and the property taxes were lowered (say by 25-30%) it would make it a lot easier if you're unemployed. I can avoid a sales tax by not buying items that are taxed(and when you're not working you generally can't afford those items anyway), but I can't avoid the property tax; if I'm not working, they still want it even if I don't have the cash.

Given the high unemployment rates here, I'm sure there are a lot of us in Oregon wondering how we're going to come up with our property taxes this year (averages around $2000 for moderately priced homes) as it is.

But, when it comes right down to it, it's not because our taxes are too low or too capped that has killed the state and local budgets here in Oregon. The main reason is that a lot of folks who had good paying jobs have lost them, and as the jobs were lost, so were the tax revenues. Of course it doesn't help that state budgets were predicated on the belief that the economy would just continue for the next five years to be just like it was in 1999.

Forcing open source upon someone...

[cliffy2000]

Is like fucking for chastity. Or fighting for peace. Just missing the point, you know?

Forcing open source...

[cliffy2000]

Is like fucking for chastity. (or fighting for peace, if that's your bag.)

Forging community spirit

[skillet-thief]

But, IMHO, I think that the law is -1 redundant.

Maybe from a purely practical standpoint, a law like this doesn't change much. Someone who really, really wants to buy Windows can say: I'm closing my eyes, I'm considering OSS...I count to ten, OK... now we can go buy Windows!

But that's all right!

The point of a law like this is making a statement and proving that there is a will on the part of the State government to have an agressive OSS approache.

A law like this also lets The People (tm) have a role in deciding what kind of software their gov't uses. Without tying the hands of state agencies, it sends a message.

The bottom line is the message getting sent. That is why MS is worried. It is more symbolic than anything, because it is another step towards widespread acceptance of OSS. And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon.

Go Ducks! Good job on this one.

Re:Forging community spirit

[jdray]

"And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon. "

[kidding]
Sorry, but you've got it wrong: Microsoft doesn't use X. They'd be worried about losing n licenses for Windows in our fair state.
[/kidding]

Re:Forging community spirit

[Analog Squirrel]

> Go Ducks! Good job on this one. Beavers, too! :-)

Facts about HB 2892

[po8]

As someone who has done actual research on Oregon HB 2892 (reading the bill and talking to its sponsor), I'd like to try to clear up some misconceptions with a short FAQ:

Q: What did HB 2892 do?
A: Two things: Require state agencies to (1) consider open source in procurement, and (2) procure only software that supports open formats for data storage and interchange.

Q: Why the past tense in the previous question?
A: Because it appears that the language of the bill has been compromised to increase its chance of passage. I haven't yet looked for the revised wording.

Q: Why is (1) necessary---can't state agencies consider open source anyhow?
A: According to the bill's sponsor, the nature of state procurement rules makes open source procurement difficult. Because there is no sponsoring organization that will bid contracts for typical open source alternatives, agencies may be bound by law or regulation to ignore them. (1) changes that.

Q: Doesn't the language of (1) force open software on state agencies?
A: No, it forces them to consider it. In a plain reading of the rules, a state agency should be prepared to explain why it selected a particular package over open source alternatives. HB 2892 has no detailed description of the criteria or methods of consideration.

Q: Do state agencies use a lot of open source anyhow?
A: Yes. Agencies that already use open source software generally support the bill: see above.

Q: Is (1) the most important part of the bill?
A: No, both provisions (1) and (2) are important. Perhaps the chief concern of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Barnhart, is legacy systems and lock-in. (1) addresses this issue by encouraging continuously-maintainable systems. (2) addresses the issue by allowing seamless replacement of systems.

Hope this helps.

Re:Facts about HB 2892

[gimpboy]

this helps alot. while (1) is nice (2) is essential in my mind.

the lockin created by proprietary file formats is where monopolies lie. it is critical that government organizations move to file formats which will allow them to choose software based on preformance and cost instead of legacy issues.

if (1) gives organizations the option to use opensource software in cases where this option did not previously exsist, then i can see the need for it.

Re:Facts about HB 2892

[dietz]

A: According to the bill's sponsor, the nature of state procurement rules makes open source procurement difficult. Because there is no sponsoring organization that will bid contracts for typical open source alternatives, agencies may be bound by law or regulation to ignore them. (1) changes that.

This is the key. And yet, when I listened to the arguments given in the General Committee, not one person mentioned this! NO ONE! They all talked about how great open source software is and how it works so much better than proprietary software, etc. Which doesn't address why we need this bill AT ALL!

Then I heard the paid lobbyists and watched them trounce all over the proponents. In an argument between geeks and paid lobbyists, I can tell you who is going to win every time.

Oh well. My rep supports it, but she represents what has to be one of the most liberal bodies of people in the country (inner SE Portland), so I guess that's not a surprise.

Re:Facts about HB 2892

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read the bill as well. It requires that a state agency justify why they didn't pick an open source solution.

Having worked in state government, that effectively mandates open source, as employees will generally take the path of least resistance.

This bill should die. If all you want to do is allow open source to be considered, then the bill should address that instead.

It's political

[skillet-thief]

I don't want to see any law enacted that dictates any tools with which to perform a job. The best tool for the job should be decided upon by the individual(s) performing the work or defining the work.

This could be true in business, but we are talking about gov't here. Like it or not, the OSS vs. proprietary debate has become political. I expect to see more proposals like this Oregon law.

Re:It's political

[buffer-overflowed]

It is a political decision. What I'd like to see is a purchase ban on proprietary AND GPL'd software. GPL, while great in it's own way, is not a good liscense for government software because it is too restrictive, and the fruits of development are not shared in an unrestricted manner (see also: to the proprietary software companies).

So, I'd like to see it all liscensed under a liscense that permits those who modify it to change the terms of the liscense. Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.

Everyone wins, public funds distributed properly.

Re:It's political

[skillet-thief]

GPL, while great in it's own way, is not a good liscense for government software because it is too restrictive, and the fruits of development are not shared in an unrestricted manner

The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway.

Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.

This just means that KH Bob ends up doing free work for MS and gets nothing in return, while MS makes money off of his code. MS wins and KH Bob loses. End of story.

Re:It's political

[Thing 1]

So, I'd like to see it all liscensed under a liscense that permits those who modify it to change the terms of the liscense. Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.

The problem with this approach is the taxpayers end up paying for the software twice: once for the government to develop it, and again when they purchase Microsoft software.

Sure, we're arguing ideology here but Microsoft has in fact taken open sourced software from BSD-style licenses and changed it so it's incompatible (Kerberos leaps to mind, I'm sure there are other examples).

Re:It's political

[buffer-overflowed]

You completely missed the point. The GPL is NOT the liscense for gov't work, because it can not be used in ANY way you choose, you can't sell changes to it, you can only charge for distribution.

No, KH Bob's changes become GPL, and MS can use the original. KH Bob loses nothing, and MS can't profit from his work w/o his consent.

Re:It's political

[buffer-overflowed]

Yea, I know, but the idea of the gov't supporting GPLed software isn't going to fly well. At least a BSD style, or more free liscense makes EVERYONE happy. MS can't screw over compatibility since all US gov't is required to use the OSS software (or at least the standards), and they can still make money.

It's the compromise between GPL and Proprietary that we need, with the ability to modify it into either.

And I don't see the problem, if you can get the original for free, MS had best made some damned fine improvements to it. That would be what you would be paying for.

Microsoft has a point...

[sdibb]

I agree with Microsoft COMPLETELY on this stand:

"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.

In other words, go with open source.

re: lack of culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregon has a pretty big culture defecit. I grew up in Southern Ore, moved to PDX a decade ago. I always thought it was pretty whitebread and plain... until I visited NY a year ago. Only then did I realize how much we miss by not having a more diverse group of other cultures (i.e. non anglo-saxon).
those of us who've visited the real world wish for more diversity, more color, more variety in this otherwise vanilla place.
there are far too many rednecks here.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft stalling bill that would require consideration of OSS"

In other late-breaking news, the sky is blue and computer chips contain silicon. Film at 11.

Re:This is a Good Thing (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Its either satire, or someone who just has their head rammed riiiight up their own ass.

I'm leaning towards satire.. no one could be this misinformed.

"Immature" tactics against Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday a front page slashdot article criticized the email campaign the Firebird people launched against Mozilla in protest of their decision to steal their name because their lawyers said they could probably get away with it. It was called immature and this really inflamed the slashdot community to stand strong against the Firebird project. Now, a front page slashdot article is calling for an email campaign against microsoft, which is apparently OK. Can somebody explain this? Thanks

Microsoft

[attobyte]

This has to get in the main news media. Anyone have ties to CNN?? :) It will be the only way microsoft will have to live up to their lobbying. Lets tell the world what they are doing. Lets demostrate that they are only intrested in preserving their market place and not intrested in what is best for the country or world.

I tell everyone I meed in the IT field even my VP that is very Pro-Microsoft. You have to educate people.

atto

It is time

[jaysonjc]

It is time that someone gives a mighty butt kick to Bill Gates.

is the the govermnent's function to pick

[Anonymous Coward]

winners and losers based on:
1. political opinions
or
2. cost
or
3. usefullness

??

Open source vs MS arguments must be won on the cost vs usefullness basis and not on a politicial opinion of lawmakers/voters.

If you find this objectionable, consider extending this to just about any purchasing decision the government makes.

State Income Tax agency

[Anonymous Coward]

I sleep soundly at night knowing the the state income tax agency records are insecurely kept on a unverified security-wise os.

P.s. my number is 000-00-0000

Missing the point

[Crashmarik]

Anyone ever hear these.

We'd Like to use PC's but we need IBM otherwise we will look foolish

Nobody ever got fired for using IBM

Now updated to: Nobody got fired for using Microsoft

This bill gives OSS legitimacy. It means when someone suggests an OSS solution it has to be considered and can't be dismissed as that shareware crap.

Remember most IT directors are political creatures. They are people that are much more adept at managing organization political games than they are at producing software, network infrastructure, or technology of any kind. They appreciate a situation where they one acceptable choice and the rest are no brainer rejects, It saves on the thinking that way.

The law forces IT people that otherwise wouldn't give a second look to OSS to do so. Thats what Microsoft doesn't want. They are fighting the battle of mindshare.

Oregon Residents - Email Your Oregon Legislators!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just emailed my state legislators in favor of Oregon house bill 2892 and I urge every Oregon resident who supports open source software to do the same! We can make a difference!

Re:Fuck Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's the only state with trees left on it?

Re:It's political-NSALinux.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway."

Then we would have never had NSALinux. Good thing rules aren't blindly followed.

Re:Good?

[rakeswell]

Seeing how many feel the H1B program to be abused, let's ask, what are the chances that an agency wanting to buy a specific closed-source product, simply defines their requirements in such a way that the only acceptable purchase decision is the closed-source product?

Guess what? Microsoft is right!

[vistas]

Why is a law needed to promote open source?
How about a law to promote software written by companies that don't want payment in cash but by barter?

Or how about a law to promote software written in Lisp? Or Forth?

Swallow a spider to catch the fly

[xant]

change is necessary

Agreed. But this is the wrong change. If there's a regulation that mandates proprietary solutions for whatever reason, that regulation should be removed. Adding another law or regulation to fix it gives you two bad regulations, instead of zero, which is what you want.

Re:Oregon Rulez

[mOdQuArK!]

Except all the unemployed people can't afford the good stuff anymore :-(

Re:Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish inte

[anonymous loser]

Thanks to the tax hike not passing, the state of Oregon closed several homes for the disabled and elderly, leaving thousands of clinically insane Oregon residents with no treatment. But maybe you don't care about those folks, since they are clearly "parasite classes".

In addition, eight prisons were forced to close, releasing over 4,000 convicted inmates onto those lovely Oregon streets. At the same time, over 300 state policemen were fired from the force. The parole board program was revamped so that neither former victims nor police are notified when criminals with particularly bad records are released.

So, I hope you enjoy your new roads. You certainly paid for them.

The bill request consideration of OSS ....

[OldHawk777]

Folks,

These issues tell US much about our politicians. How they vote or which bills they help kill, tells if they are self-aware and defenders of the Peoples' Constitution or Corporate property.

OldHawk777

Reality is a self induced hallucination.

Income tax, but...

[r2ravens]

What Oregon needs is a state income tax. But it should only be on incomes over $1 million a year, no exemptions, no deductions, no hiding the income in trusts, etc. How's that for progressive? Maybe it could set a precedent for the feds.

oregon needs to worry about funding their schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregon should be worrying about funding their schools, not wasting their time with this. From the looks of it on Portland TV news, their school system is in the shambles.

As for what needs to be done, they need a new license plate, for that lone tree is just terrible. Glad I have good 'ol Mt. Rainer on my car.

Re:It's political-NSALinux.

[Black Copter Control]

Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway."
Then we would have never had NSALinux. Good thing rules aren't blindly followed.

It's still not the software business -- i.e. they're not making money off of it. Of course, if it wasn't for the GPL, the NSA might not have felt bound to release the source to their changes -- even if it would only have been absolutely mandated if they were distributing it outside of their organization.

The point of the GPL is not to give companies like Microsoft free access to my work... It's to make sure that companies like Microsoft can't take my work for free, make incompatible changes (e.g. kerberos) and prevent me from accessing the results.

Microsoft is still free to use my software (and they *do* distribute some GPL programs)... They just can't hide the resulting source code from me.

Re:Good? let's make it better..

[RTMFD]

Huh??? If open source is really the compelling choice, than it _should_ be selected. If not, then the governement should go with closed source. I think laying down a law restricing the choice to one side or the other will be counterproductive, and ultimately hurtful to the open source cause. Imagine the backlash when people in government have things like OpenOffice forced on them when they are used to WordPerfect or MS Office? On the flip-side, wouldn't they be more receptive to change if they tried something like apache, samba, openoffice, etc. on their servers/workstations and came to the conclusion _on their own_ that open source really was the way to go?

If open source really is compelling, people will flock to it, no matter how many barriers are put up. Just look at what has happened in the server rooms. How many companies are running Linux now that used to run Solaris/HP-UX, etc.? Linux became the "best tool" for the job and quickly took over. Hopefully, the same will happen one day for the desktop.

Bill is important...

[Kjella]

If all they have to do today is send out a RFQ (Request For Quotation) and pick one, well guess what... no OSS program will usually get or respond to that. That somebody even have to look at it to dismiss it can be a step up in many cases...

Kjella

call, write, volunteer, donate

[Black Copter Control]

It's one thing to call and write. It's something else entirely to volunteer and/or donate money. Of course, you would first have to have a conversation with their volunteer coordinator about just what kind of legislation that the political critter supports/opposes. If what they support isn't what you like, then find someone else to support -- and let them know that that's what you'll be doing.

If you find that your congress-critter is borderline/bad, but the best of what's available, you may want to donate your time, but let them know that you're looking for someone with a better 'attitude'.

If the Republican and Democratic party members are equally bad, you may want to consider supporting a 'third' party. Remember that supporting an alternative party is not the wast of time/energy that the main parties would like you to believe it is. The Republicans were such an 'alternative' party until Abraham Lincoln got in....

Think what might have happened if everybody had listened to the Democrats and Whigs (remember the Whigs? They were the serious opponents to the Democratic party back then!) that the Republicans were a trivial and meaningless party not worth supporting.

Use the best software for the job

[twem2]

That's the best policy...
So if, as Microsoft says, their software is the best, why should they need to lobby against other software?

Good for Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring Open Source software to always be considered would be like requiring Microsoft software to be considered. I wouldn't support this bill unless you're willing to have a similar bill WRT Microsoft software.

any reccomendations

[krezreb]

...for those of us Oregonians who want to write to our congress(wo)man AND who

a) have never written to congress or
b) can't write very articulately (like ME),

any guidelines for the online submission form?

Pointless is as Pointless does

[I-R-Baboon]

Good question was put forth, why is a law needed to consider all possibilities? Let the best software win for the requirments needed, and bad choices should be rewarded the same as they are other jobs...ye ol unemployment.

M$ fighting this seems also like they need another monopoly spanking. If the lawmakers want to waste their time and taxpayers money, its their choice just as it is to show where their loyalties lie...the bank account or voting booth.

Re:Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish inte

[sydb]

Well, considering that the disabled, the elderly and convicts don't contribute positively to society, why should they be supported?

When people become unable to support themselves (through legal means) perhaps it's best that they are allowed to die, or are 'disposed of' hygienically.

A lot of money would be saved. At least the States don't have an NHS like the UK or other socialist countries. Surely when someone is medically unfit, removal from the genepool is a positive contribution towards human evolution. Artificially sustaining the physically incompetent costs swathes of cash and produces a race of degenerates.

This sarca-troll brought to you by...

Hmmm...

[rice_burners_suck]

Gee, golly... I wonder why Microsoft might get involved in something like this? Oh well... it's probably just a freak of nature.

I use Linux in a MS-dominated workplace

[antediluvian]

I work for a state government agency in Washington that is dominated by MS-driven servers and desktops.

Our web server and internal network run on a highly modified variant of RedHat Linux. We ride on the back of a Win2k network managed by a much larger agency with whom we are co-located.

We tried to work with IT Services folks for six months to get permission to plug Linux boxes into their network. They were (surprise) extremely resistant. Finally, we just installed them on the network. Within hours, they were standing at my cubicle demanding answers.

Turns out they have a policy that requires only Win2k machines on their network. I persuaded them to give our machines a few days on the network to see if they would cause any problems, and they agreed. Long story short: the Linux boxes have been more stable and less problematic than their own Win2k machines.

Why the resistance? One: the IT folks only know MS products. Two: they were convinced the MS products in which they had been trained were more stable and secure than any Linux box. Three: they were convinced Linux was more difficult to manage than their systems. Four: based on items two and three, they believed the total cost of operating Linux boxes would exceed their MS boxes.

Our Linux servers have been operating inside their network for a year with nary a hiccup. They are (grudgingly) starting to ask more questions about how to configure and maintain such platforms.

The lesson I've learned: when IT folks only know one solution, that's what they will use. Any other solutions will be rejected out of hand. It is not a question of which technology is better or more cost effective. Like most people, they want to reside within their comfort zone rather than take risks.

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

But most of the people making the buying decisions in the private sector are idiots who don't know what they're buying. They buy MS because they're following the pack, not because they think it's good.

This bill is talking about public sector purchasing, not private. And thats a pretty insulting blanket statement to make. Do you know any of these "idiots" and how their purchasing divisions procure software and what kind of internal controls and bid selection processes they go through? Or do the moderators who gave this uninsightfull post a 5 know anything at all about it? No? I didn't think so...

My Letter

[SendBot]

Dear Beloved Politicians,

As you may be aware, Rep. Phil Barnhart has introduced HB 2892 to require state agencies to consider open source software when considering software, system, or network computer purchases.

As a hard working entrepeneur whose business relies on a foundation of open source technologies, I would like to attest to Phil's statement that "Oregon could save millions of dollars while increasing the flexibility, usefulness, and reliability of its computer systems."

I have used open source software since 1996 to improve my high school, programs for the Housing Authority of Portland, and my home for only the cost of my time as a volunteer. Furthermore, I was able to utilize excess hardware on which commercial solutions could not function as well or at all. I have no hesitation in saying that my entrepreneurial ventures that have contributed to Oregon's economy would not have been possible without open source.

Open source products are created by millions of dedicated developers who benefit from the same culture to which they contribute. Unlike commercial software, open source is designed to embrace the inifinite reproducability that computers allow in order to help the more tangible aspect of computing (hardware) to be used as effectively as possible (read: more bang for the buck). Companies such as IBM and Apple have accepted this and have offered a prominent place for open source in their business planning.

Open source also eases the burden of budget planning and human resources in managing licensing for commercial software. It's great to operate with the peace of mind knowing you will never be audited for what's running on your computers.

More information on open source is available at opensource.org.

Thanks for your help in steering the future in the right direction!

Sincerely,
Travis Pulley

Re:Good? let's make it better..

[hkmwbz]

Choosing software based on irrelevant information rather than going by the quality of the software? That's about the same as not considering alternatives to what you are currently using. It's the same mindless nonsense we should be getting away from in the first place. It's the kind of mentality which leads to better open-source alternatives not being chosen in the first place.

Software should be chosen based on your needs and the quality of the software. If closed-source software is the best choice for your needs, use it.

"What's good? Life's good--but not fair at all."

[JZip]

Look, this bill is about public sector buying, so not only are your opinions about private sector buyers irrelevant, they show that you don't think before you post.

What's important about bills like these? They put Open Source/Free Software on a level playing field with Closed Source/Proprietary Software. That means Open Source/Free Software is going to lose sometimes. If you can't accept that, then you are the mirror image of the straw man buyer you put up: The idiot in IT who wants worthless free software because it's cool, not useful or usable.

Can you explain to me why MS Excel is inferior to the OpenOffice spreadsheet? And why corporate buyers who purchase it are "idiots who don't know what they're buying"? Tell me what the OpenOffice solution is for desktop databases--what do they have to substitute for MS Access? Tell me about ODBC drivers. Tell me what you're substituting in for MS Project Manager, and how it interoperates.

By the way, I use OpenOffice at home nearly exclusively, both on OS X and on Windows--I like it. But I'm not blind to its flaws and failings, either.

I fight these battles nearly every day. I'm contracting in an extremely unfriendly environment (where Open Source==Freeware==Shareware). We've still managed to keep some paths open for OS/FS. We didn't do it by telling people they were idiots for buying software which--oddly enough--works for their purposes, fulfills their requirements, and is cost-effective to use.

IT knuckleheads

[TW Burger]

I had to purchase a Windows machine. I informed them that there was no way that some IT knucklehead (no offence to Slashdot IT folks) was going to dicate to me the tools with which to perform my job and that I in fact was going to purchase a Macintosh from my grant.

How dare you think for yourself?! We, the Captain Kirk worshipping, eternally adolescent, snivelling virgins of geekdom, have all and any rights to impose technology that falls within our narrow spectrum of actual knowledge.

If your choice is useful to you, but not what we have earned a MCSE/A+ for, everyone will be made painfully aware how little we actually know.

Seriously, the heart of the matter is that IT people do impose their will on the rest of us due to considerable efforts on the part of Microsoft and other companies to indoctrinate IT personnel when at school. I was given, free of charge, Office 2000 Professional when I went back for my masters degree.

It's hard to say no when you are a short-of-cash student.

A law specifically designed to force OS software into consideration would help remove the burden of monopoly from the taxpayer's wallet.

Of course, a distribution of a Linux the average office worker can handle with an associated complement of office tools that work as well as any is what is really needed.

Open Source will only gain ground when it is as good, meaning as easy to use, as any other software.

Its not YOUR grant

[nurb432]

Its not your personal money to purchase as you please. It was taxpayers funds that were awarded to your agency ( or department ).

Furthermore, by not going with the standard in that department ( what ever standard it is ) you will drastically increase the support costs for your pompous ass.

Consistency saves money in the support arena for IT. Having to support 'non-standard' devices or software does increase the cost.

However, I do agree in principle that the entire department should be open-minded when appropriate and look into all options, but in your case it doesn't seem to be that case.

Re:Its not YOUR grant

[BWJones]

ts not your personal money to purchase as you please. It was taxpayers funds that were awarded to your agency ( or department ).

Actually, in this case, it was *my* grant awarded to me by a private foundation, not taxpayer funded. However, even if it was NIH funding, (something we primarily get), those funds would be available to us to use at our discretion during the course of our investigation on the grant. We decide how to spend the money to best accomplish the goals of the grant and we do not have to "get approval" to purchase things like computers.

Furthermore, by not going with the standard in that department ( what ever standard it is ) you will drastically increase the support costs for your pompous ass.

We have a rule in our lab. NOBODY touches our computers except us. Not our Wintel computers, nor our SGI's nor our Macintosh systems. Every single time in the past when IT did come in, they screwed up and cost us big time in lost productivity. In fact, because the Macintosh, particularly OS X, works so well, I have never had to call tech support for anything more than having the campus servers redirect pointers to our websites.

Consistency saves money in the support arena for IT. Having to support 'non-standard' devices or software does increase the cost.

It could be argued that "standardization" can increase cost. When we were looking at costs involved with maintenance on complete SGI environments, we were looking at support costs of about $300k/year. When we looked at hiring someone to support a single user Wintel environment, we were at about $100k/year. Deciding to purchase the best tool for the job (OS X which is replacing SGI's IRIX and even a few Wintel machines) and doing the support ourselves runs about $50k/year and does not impact our productivity.

However, I do agree in principle that the entire department should be open-minded when appropriate and look into all options, but in your case it doesn't seem to be that case.

What the hell do you know about my case? Are you my department head? Do you sign the checks or administer the funding here? The fact is that we are performing research into retinal function and pathologies related to vision loss and the implications on bionic implants and biological transplants. If you were interested, I would be happy to walk you through the lab and show you how the use of the right tool for the right job actually saves the taxpayer money and makes us more productive, hopefully impacting vision research and enabling the feasible rescue of vision loss for those with disorders ranging from retinitis pigmentosa to macular degeneration.

As i suspected

[nurb432]

Pompous ass, as I was suspecting..

Thinking you know better then the IT department, and that you have the right to use taxpayer dollars how ever you feel. ( which aside from rules and regulations its personally offensive, being a tax payer )

I work for a governmental agency as well, and here NONE of that would be tolerated here ( especially this concept of 'discretionary purchases' ), due to the reasons in my first post.

If you did manage to do that, first of all you wouldn't be on our network. Secondly, once you got audited at the end of the year it wouldn't be pretty, when it came time to be accountable for your actions..

Re:As i suspected

[BWJones]

Pompous ass, as I was suspecting..

Now why do you have to act like a jerk and say that?!!?

Thinking you know better then the IT department, and that you have the right to use taxpayer dollars how ever you feel. ( which aside from rules and regulations its personally offensive, being a tax payer )

This is the kind of arrogant tripe that slows progress down. What's next, are you going to say "*I PAY YOUR SALARY!!*". Please, I also am a tax payer. When it comes to our research which is computationally extensive, I think we do know more than IT when it comes to our needs. I myself have been using computers since 1980, our PI since 1982 giving us a combined 44 years of computer experience in programing and administration. That combined with two PhD's in neuroscience gives us the knowledge to use computers to answer our research questions completely without the "assistance" of others.

I work for a governmental agency as well, and here NONE of that would be tolerated here ( especially this concept of 'discretionary purchases' ), due to the reasons in my first post.

I would be interested to find out which agency. Interestingly in my experience with federal and military agencies, those whose work is important enough can specify what tools they want to use. I could certainly do that and requisition whatever means I required to get the job done. I got the job accomplished and that was why I was brought on. Go up the chain a bit more than where you are at and I am sure you will find discretionary purchases. Furthermore, if government granting agencies (NIH, DARPA, DOE, DOD etc...etc...etc...) worked without the possibility for discretionary expenditures, I can assure you things would move much slower.

If you did manage to do that, first of all you wouldn't be on our network. Secondly, once you got audited at the end of the year it wouldn't be pretty, when it came time to be accountable for your actions..

I guarantee you that if I was pulled off of the network back then for petty reasons that got in the way of my job, there would be hell to pay and a simple phone call would unleash it. In fact now, since a good portion of our grant goes to university support costs (to cover infrastructure and salaries of IT folks), pulling me off of the network for arbitrary reasons like not wanting my Macintosh on the network would result in someone getting dressed down and my immediate reinstatment on the network. I never had to do this as I like to surround myself with people who are competent and can accomplish their jobs without being assholes. Everyone I work with is 1) smart 2) works hard 3) respects others for who they are and their abilities 4) knows how to get the job done 5) follows the law. I would like to give others the respect and recognition they deserve, but if someone came to me with crap like you just spouted off, they would no longer be working for me.

Re:Good? let's make it better..

[Fjandr]

While I agree that OSS should be considered by agencies, even to the extent of mandating agencies to consider it, saying that it is a special category of software [that] needs legislation is a bit naive. Just because something can't sustain itself does not mean that it needs legislative protection. Not even something that is non-commercial. It does not fall into any delegation of governmental power to help protect "Free Project A" simply because it is useful.

In fact, it is contrary to those delegated powers and stated aims, because anything not explicitly allowed of a Constitutional Republican nation's government is explicitly disallowed. Maybe you should read some of those historical governing documents that most Americans take for granted.