Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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.
"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!
have you been defaced today?
"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.
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.
" 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.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
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.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
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.
"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?
This is my sig. The post is over.
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.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
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.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
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!
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.
That's the best policy...
So if, as Microsoft says, their software is the best, why should they need to lobby against other software?
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.