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

[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.

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

[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.

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!

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: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.

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.

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.

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.