Slashdot Mirror
New York City Examines Law Mandating Open Source
An anonymous submitter writes "The New York Council held a hearing on the 'SOFTWARE WARS.' The Select Committee on Technology in Government, chaired by Council Member Gale A. Brewer (D-Manhattan), held a public hearing Tuesday on software procurement practices by state and local governments. Representatives from the City's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, Microsoft, as well as numerous local software companies testified. Newsforge is carrying the testimony at the hearing of Tony Stanco, Director of The Center of Open Source & Government." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
The title of this post seems to imply that the decision to use open source should be mandatory. This is as harmful to the world of open source as it is helpful. Remember guys, it's all about decision - and the ability to use the best tool for the job. I've got a Windows workstation, a Linux server, and a Mac laptop on my desk. I feel that each OS is best suited to that particular role, and I use them accordingly.
The article states in regards to lobbying against OSS: " This is a very subtle silencing of Open Source. It is supremely disingenuous, and violates the fundamental principle of a free market: fully informed decision-making. Why shouldn't procurement officers be asked to consider Open Source software?
Fully informed decision making is far from mandatory policies.
Use whatever is going to be the most suitable. It's as easy as that.
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Why wouldn't it be a War? It's fairly evident that corporate america's view of competition is war. Particularly when they try and use tactics like forcing government places (i.e. schools) to use things like Windows over cheaper and more secure alternatives.
- tristan
NYC is staring a $10 BILLION deficit this year alone and this is all they can talk about?
What a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money. Maybe they should do something more productive, like taking classes on accounting and business management so they can solve the REAL problems facing the city.
This shouldn't even be an issue for a government.
Governments should not mandate the use of a specific tool, but should mandate that the documents and files created are stored in an open (fully documented and non-proprietary) form so that legacy data cannot be held hostage and can be accessed by citizens regardless of their software preferences.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Having a law mandating use of Open Source is a bad one. So you mean I as a customer of the services of the state have to suffer through using a piece of crappy software because they are not allowed to use the best product because it's not open source?
:)
Open source is a good thing, but making me use it just because is idiotic. If they want to make a law, it should say that Open Source has to be considered. Maybe make it mandatory that if there's a open source option available, it has to be included in the bid process? I don't know. How are you going to do that when your just using Debian? This is the only thing I could see that "may" be a problem. Now Red Hat or some other distro could be a part of a system, but there has to be some organization that bids out the project. A systems integrator if you will that will assist in setting up and configging the servers could put a bid on it. Then afterwards, the IT staff working for the State could gradually take it over. Personally, I don't think you have to mandate or even say it must be a consideration in the bid process because I bet that some systems in state and federal level already use it. Open source kind of just finds it's way in. One example is we already use OpenSSH on our AIX systems for system administration. Same thing goes with Mozilla. Open Source puts the software in the hands of anyone who wants it and it will be used alot because it takes no time or money to get and can be run on almost any box you already have. I bet you that state and federal IT workers probably look first to Open Source because they can usually get it approved and setup in less time than a closed source product. Approval day and setup day could virtually be the same! No waiting for media to get to ya!
Gorkman
No no, read the testimony. This isn't about forcing people to use open source, it's about forcing people to consider it. Everybody knows there are some things open source can't do, some things that proprietary software does better, somet things free software does better BUT there's too much lockin to make it worthwhile etc etc etc.
This is just about trying to counter balance the lobbyists (why do such people even exist?).
The title to the /. article looks like it's wrong.
Having actually RTFA, it sounds like they're not advotacting mandating open source - they're trying to *prevent* mandating *commercial software*. It sounds like MS has been lobbying that allowing open souce software would unfairly impact them, and this is people trying to fight it down.
To me, software is a tool and currently the state of affairs is much like going to work and not being able to use a free tool because the boss only wants Craftsman or Snap-on. In the real world, this legislation would be similar to saying "before paying money to someone for something, first see if it is available for free".
When put that way it seems like the legislation would be needless, but the problem is that software companies have 2 marketing/sales folks for every one developer. Most open source projects have zero marketing guys, and the only projects who have any would be corporate folks in a mixed model like redhat or mysql.
In summary (while typing on my windows98 machine) I think this sort of direction is important from the government. The most important thing about this is that the data be stored in a non-proprietary, open format that is well documented. I don't want to have to pay for (via taxes) a copy of microsoft exchange so that I can communicate with my legislative body via email when there are 20+ FREE products that can do the same thing for much less money.
Now we should get about 20 Microsoft ROI monkeys who will try and explain how microsoft product X is cheaper than product Y. Give it up, we all know that ROI stands for Really Optimistic Ignorance! L8R
I suspect large bribes*cough*grants will be paid and the whole issue will be quietly dropped.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think that companies and administration need to take care on the perpetuity of the information they store and use. Backup is important but what append if you cannot read the data from you backup? And what is happening if the application says 'bad registration key'. Please call our commercial departement...' and the software company no more exist?
If you're using Open Source software you can finfd solution because you can fix the problem by yourself (or pay somebody). But if you are using propietary software you can't an may not fix the problem.
It's why I think that if you use proprietary software you need to impose that they use standardized data format so you can change from software provider and keeping you data.
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
So I don't think a commercial product that is based largely on open standards is a gov't no-no. In fact, the gov't could use any OSS or Commercial SW they see fit -- at least these 2 systems could communicate via the open standard.
yeah, opensource is the logical choice if all you're doing is attempting to get software for free.. except that the city will hire IBM (or simlar) to consult them as to which software to use, and implement it, and maintain it.....
free software? nothing's ever free. This will prevent them from just buying more of whatever they've currently got, which is always cheaper than buying new stuff.
I have to add my concern here. I am all for open source software, products, services, etc. I use linux at work. I have used linux of several years now. I have watched it mature into a robust server OS, and a bloated workstation OS. I enjoy working with it, and other than the GUI being slow with all but a few WMs, I enjoy it. This includes kernel rebuilds, driver hunts, rpm nightmares and the like.
That said, I am not sure how I feel about mandating OSS. Why? Because this economy is horrible right now. If you are in IT, and have a job, don't think of quitting anytime soon, if you want to stay in IT. Jobs are cut all over, and workloads are heaped on those that do have jobs. But IT isn't the only sector hit. I am speaking of NYC looking to lay off 1000s of people soon. If they 'mandate' OSS, then they can use that same purchasing principal to hiring people to work on those systems- at very low wages (hell, maybe even internships). Doesn't make sense, right? Well, it appears that in the business world, if they purchase a very expensive system, companies think they need high end good IT people to work on them. Our industry benefits from this by getting just wages. But if the system is dirt cheap or free, then they look at that and think 'well, we cut costs in IT here, let's keep our costs low and bring in a qualified person at a lower wage'. They hire at a lower wage. And, they are less likely to try to use IT to help the business make money. No incentive. IT becomes the money pit businesses claim it is.
Now, this isn't typical in all businesses, mostly in large businesses and governments. Small to medium businesses usually understand (even if they aren't too thrilled about it) the costs required to upkeep systems, and are more open minded to getting low cost solutions and hiring IT people at decent (not great) wages.
Democratic Implications: I don't know if I would phrase it as "democratic implications", but his point about having data formats be open is excellent. The second argument about transparency in voting software is a bit of a stretch. People already use proprietary software for all kinds of important government functions, and the republic still stands. Presumably if someone really pressured a company to have their e-voting source code examined by an independent person, they could allow it without going full "open source".
Privacy: This might be a good buzzword, but a bad argument. Why can't open source software transmit or leak privacy data? The vague monopoly reference I suppose will play well in a state that was one of the parties to the DOJ Microsoft lawsuit.
Cost: I think it is best not to focus on cost. First of all because the price of software is such a small part and there are more support options for some proprietary software. But mostly because institutions already consider cost when making buying decisions.
R&D/Technology Transfer: Doubtful. Telling a government to buy such-and-such because of a "general good to society/it's the right thing to do" argument is not going to fly in a time of budget crunch.
Education: Not a bad argument, but still not something governments can probably afford to worry about right now. Perhaps you could argue that the programmers working for the city/state itself could benefit from seeing the source.
Job Creation: NO NO NO. Don't say this. It will not work to argue that the open source industry, with its share prices around $1, is a better way to create jobs then the closed source one with Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
Security: This is a good argument, but badly stated. 1) the "more eyeballs" theory of open source code quality is not proven 2) The quote in question relates to *banning* open source software and apparently simply refers to the fact that open source applications such as sendmail are heavily used by the DoD. I think a much better way to approach security is to talk about security of the *data* stored by open source, because it is easier to access.
So in summary -- the real argument should be for open data formats, not open source. That's the argument that Microsoft is going to have a hard time with.
- adam
The author writes very clearly, but focuses on the issues important to the Open Source community, not on the issues important to the audience.
Democratic implications? It's a wonderful ideal, an I support it and I'm sure some of the audience does, but if that's one of the first arguments you offer, you look pretty weak. Maybe I'm misjudging the audience.
Educate the next generation of IT professionals? That's wonderful, but is the user base geeks-in-training or city workers? Even in schools, most students -- believe it not -- aren't studying comp. sci. Heck, I'm an IT professional, and the hassles of Linux aren't worth it for my desktop either.
Privacy? Few people have the obsession with it that is found (rightfully, I think) on Slashdot.
Their concern is price and performance. Focus on the markets where OSS can kill.
* Provide software to all city employees that perform one task, for free
* Sure, some managers need Excel, and someone writing a manual might want something proprietary, but you can provide software to all those employees writing letters and memos for free
* Back end basic infrustructure -- You only need proprietary software in specialized cases. E-mail is a commodity.
etc. I don't know much about the needs of city gov't, so I'm only guessing above. But I doubt their interests align so neatly with the open source community. The point of marketing and sales is to learn your customers needs and address them. OSS serves the developers, not the customers, but don't be surprised when the customers aren't interested.
Except that with free software they don't EVER have to worry about whether or not their licensing is compliant. That alone will free up resources not having to worry about it or keep up with it.
Free software frees you to focus on what matters--keeping the systems running smoothly.
I had someone send me a schedule in MS Word format.
I opened it and looked at it on KWord.
After some disagreement about what it said, I took it to MS Word, and sure enough, the document was completely different. I think I was seeing something that had been deleted and replaced, actually.
Likewise, equations, pictures, tables, all do not translate successfully, regularly. Shoot, MS Word can't even read old MS Word files, and sometimes can't read new MS Word files, you would think that they have the full source code available within their company, anyhow.
If I were directing a government, I would INSIST that no public document be kept in MS Word format. MS Word format is not stable, and documents are not even safe if you buy the licensed software.
[P.S. : I have had the same trouble with AbiWord and OpenOffice -- but I uninstalled those on my system, because they are slower than KWord.]
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
> yeah, opensource is the logical choice if all you're doing is attempting to get software for free.. except that the city will hire IBM (or simlar) to consult them as to which software to use, and implement it, and maintain it.....
More likely Microsoft will pay them to to use Windows.
> free software? nothing's ever free. This will prevent them from just buying more of whatever they've currently got, which is always cheaper than buying new stuff.
Depends on whether you're thinking short term or long term.
Also, notice that a place that size is going to have to spend a lot of money on consulting, implementation, and maintenance regardless of whose software they buy. Might as well get the one that you don't have to buy again every year, especially when it has other advantages in the areas of virus resistance, remote maintainability, minimal hardware requirements, etc.
Go for it, New York!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The important thing is not OSS, but open source data files. Mandate that all software companies must disclose 100% of their data file spec. That way, everyone can read and write to, for example, the Word format--and everyone is free to choose the best tool to do so.
Most procurement systems are biased against open-source software. They are designed specifically to cater to commercial entities. For instance, many bids that go out are mandated by policy to include certain types of software, often name-specific.
Also, by the very fact they go out to bid indicates money must be spent. Software is not represented by a commercial entity is at a disadvantage.
The problem with a monopoly is that it warps the market space-time around it, like a black hole. Decisions are made not by "value propositions," but by control of the distribution points. History (and internal memos released during the anti-trust trial) shows that Microsoft is a master manipulator: of public opinion, of the stock market (if you discount the money they print as stock options, MS is not very profitable at all), and especially of the distribution chain.
The recent spate of proposed local- and state-level legislation merely provides an alternative to commercial-only procurements. There is no "forcing down their throats."
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Whether they need consultants on an ongoing basis is an issue that is seperable from which software they need. It's not as though windows software solves all its own problems (in fact, at the rate windows viri and vulnerabilities have been cropping up, I'd say it's the reigning king of inventing problems past release date). And IBM has committed solidly to both open source and to service as its revenue streams of now and the future; not a bad choice, if you ask me.
free software? nothing's ever free.
But there most definitely exists the concept of "cheaper" vs "more expensive", and it's worth paying attention to.
This will prevent them from just buying more of whatever they've currently got, which is always cheaper than buying new stuff.
This statement makes so little sense that I truly find myself wondering if you work for Microsoft.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.