Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oregon's Open Source Bill Stalled by Microsoft

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the two-can-play-at-that-game dept.

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."

10 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish interes by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting


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

  2. Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly. by Ledskof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This is my sig. The post is over.
  3. Re:Required by law? by rsklnkv · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    _____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
  4. Re:Good? let's make it better.. by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  5. School districts are bad too by Treegezer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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?

    --
    http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=9421 771
    1. Re:School districts are bad too by b17bmbr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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)

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  6. Facts about HB 2892 by po8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:Huge lobby by Gonzoman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. I use Linux in a MS-dominated workplace by antediluvian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  9. My Letter by SendBot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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