Slashdot Mirror
Texas Hearings On Open Source Bill
fusion812 writes "Senate Bill 1579 is proposed Texas state legislation that would require state agencies to consider 'open source software' when purchasing computer software. The bill has been introduced in the Senate, referred to committee, and is awaiting a schedule date for a hearing." Here's some more information from EFF Austin; fusion812 supplies a summary of the bill's provisions as well as a Real Audio sample of the provided testimony, both below. Also, see this report on NewsForge for some juicy quotes.
A sample recording of testimony can be heard here: http://www.Senate.state.tx.us/ram/archive/2003/may /050803StAffpm.ram
More information: Texas Senate Bill 1579
Senate Bill 1579 proposes that, for all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
1. consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
2. except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
3. provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
5. avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
A sample recording of testimony can be heard here: http://www.Senate.state.tx.us/ram/archive/2003/may /050803StAffpm.ram
More information: Texas Senate Bill 1579
Senate Bill 1579 proposes that, for all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
1. consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
2. except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
3. provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
5. avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
Senators live for these kind of hearings. They can make up at least 4 hours of quality sleep.
5. avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
So state workers in Texas will now be using KaZaa Lite.
Damnit, Bill, we asked you to stop posting here! :P
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
I have always been of the opinion that the correct tool should be chose for the task at hand, be that tooling open or proprietary I really dont care.
I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary. Forcing adoption of Open Source thru legisaltion is every bit as bad, if not worse as the methods MS used to gain dominance.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I work as a computer operator for a datacenter which is mandated by Texas law, that all state agencies have to consider using our datacenter to outsource their IT, and provide proof they can do it cheaper.
We have many mainframe agencies which spend millions in hardware and software licensing to IBM. We have one on a Sun E10k, and lots of smaller sun boxes, as well as P680 and P690 IBM 64bit mainframe-class AIX servers. A few Win2k clusters.
Nobody uses linux or other open source operating systems.
I could see the possibility of some of the clients migrating to a Linux solution running on the existing IBM s/390 and z/ mainframes, but this kind of thing would take years, and the beaurocracy is incredibly thick. Changing the -littlest- thing in the operation of these computer systems has to go through so many levels, it is truly ridiculous.
Discussion on this bill begins at 1:12:40 into the RM video.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Its nice to see OSS being pushed but it should be kept in mind that OSS isn't necessarily the best for every task. For example old Mainframes might be old, but they are reliable bugs are know and are good at what they do.
M$ has a place on the desktop as if like most governments the machines are old but work anddo what the staff need. Everything has it place and that place is not necessarily the trash
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
..Would be to advertize it as free software. What lawmaker wouldn't bite at that. "I saw to is we stopped wasting hard earned tax payer money when a free alternitive is available, God bless America!"
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
As much as people hate it, Affirmative Action was a necessary policy in America. Now we must undertake a similiar policy in order to overcome the barriers erected by large software corporations. I'm sure some (if not most) of us have read the corp's reaction to policies such as this. I think that's to be expected. The majority (in this case, the one with the money is the majority) doesn't like it when the minorities get a fair shot at what they always saw as "their world." Bills such as the one in TX are going to be needed in order to restore a level playing field in the software world. Expect to hear much outcry from MS, IBM, Sun, and other large corps from this one. Don't expect this to pass ... IMO, the lobbyists will see to it that it never will.
-A.M.
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
Sec. 2157.003. DETERMINING BEST VALUE FOR PURCHASES OF AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS. "Best value" for purposes of this chapter means the lowest overall cost of an automated information system. In determining the lowest overall cost for a purchase or lease of an automated information system under this chapter, the commission or a state agency shall consider factors including:
(1) the purchase price;
Ok I think OSS has this one.
(2) the compatibility to facilitate the exchange of existing data;
This could definately be a problem. Depending on how the agencies' data is stored, especially since the assumption is that they are currently using Closed Sourse Software, it may be difficult to get the data out!.
(3) the capacity for expanding and upgrading to more advanced levels of technology;
I would definately argue OSS can win this one hands down.
(4) quantitative reliability factors;
I hope that by this they don t mean a report published by a software company about its reliability--because I don't remember the last time I read one of those for my OSS programs.
(5) the level of training required to bring persons using the system to a stated level of proficiency;
Doh... No matter what anybody says, this is my main gripe about most OSS software that I have used. Except for some exceptions, documentation is difficult to find, and User Interfaces were not well thought out. I think most OSS developers feel that once their software functions as they think it should, they stop! Again, maybe I have just had some bad experiences, but it seems like 90% of the OSS software I use falls under this description.
(6) the technical support requirements for the maintenance of data across a network platform and the management of the network's hardware and software;
Obviously OSS has this one beat.
But the bottom line is that they agencies are only being told to do a TCO analysis before choosing software and that they have to consider OSS as well. Here is the real problem though. The person doing the TCO can do the analysis any way they want. So if somebody wasn't using OSS before, then when they go to anaylze the price/cost benifits they will simply use data that supports what they want to use.
Hardly. It would allow companies spend in areas other than software, or even to (gasp) hire programmers-- thus putting more programmers to work.
This merely means that the software dollar isn't spent on licensing and (read mostly Microsoft) marketing, but rather on specific goals that meet company or individual needs.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
The third requirement, that agencies justify user of proprietary software over open source, needs to be challenged. why not force the agencies to provide justification for their decision, rather than justification for one branch of options? if you force the agencies to provide justification for acquiring proprietary software, the pencil pushers in the agency would be more likely to choose open source, but for the wrong reason. I don't know about other people here in Texas, but I don't want my state agencies to choose an open source solution that might be worse than a proprietary one if the reason is they would have to do more work justifying the proprietary software. If you're going to add more work, apply it evenly so the best decision gets made.
Open Source should not be "required". I can just imagine how some mid-level government manager would feel being forced to consider OpenOffice (for example) when he just wants to buy Office and be done with it -- word would start to circulate about his crappy experience, Open Source in general would suffer, and anti-OSS camp has more ammo.
I get really scared when I start hearing people who believe in freedom so much they are going to force you to be free (at a metaphorical gunpoint). Just because *I* like that I can get workalike functionality of thousands of $$s of software, doesn't mean I should force people to use it. Free will rules. Of course, government should *want* to use free software anyway, to save our money. But don't force them.
it's not REQUIRING anything, except that OpenSource software be *considered*.
This is an opinion, not a troll. If you disagree, supply proof that he's wrong. If you believe he's just stirring up trouble, then mark it "flamebait"
There is a core group of coders that believe this...
Davak
A major goal of most governments is to spend as little as possible, while still providing all their minimal requirements. These new rules _should_ be something that matches quite well with open souce software, as they better allow the use of outside help in making a better product, and even better allows other agencies to help pool software resources to create something better for all the public.
Unfortunately, the way appropriations work, right along with the philosophy of spending as little as possible - those agencies that do not spend the resources allotted to them stand a large chance of having their budgets cut, based on the perception that they don't *need* all the resources they were given last time. Those that spend slightly more than was allotted to them stand a larger chance of having their budgets raised rahter than be reformed.
The cliche is, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease", and it is percieved as true by the heads of many government agencies, trying to communicate their need, while staying within the guidelines that permit their actions.
So, even though it IS more beurocracy, and it does stand to take some choice away in some circumsances, this IS a set of rules that makes sense for what the goals of government are. Those agencies that want to spend the resources still will be able to... but they might just be able to find a better way to spend those resources this way, for the sake of everyone.
Ryan Fenton
while I'm sure that this IS a troll, i'll bite because I'm waiting on a Solaris upgrade that'll take a while...
if OSS will completely stall the world economy, then why hasn't it already ? Sendmail ? Apache ? BIND ? these things essentially run the internet, having more use than any other of its closed source counterparts, by an astronomically high rate.
please explain how OSS will stall the economy. if you have no response, then my idea of it being a troll may have been true.
This is a good try for open source, but I worry this will just be its feel good legislation. The guts of the legislation is in 2054.114 (b), which states: For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
(1) consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
(2) except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5),
acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
(3) provide justification whenever a proprietary
software product is acquired instead of open source software;
(4) avoid the acquisition of products that do not
comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
and
(5) avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit
unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's
computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state
government.
Just focus on (1) and (3) - this is legalese for writing two paragraphs to say why you are selecting the proprietary system you want to purchase.
The real issue for open source over proprietary is in the specifications for the bid, not in the selection process. Unless the open source product is responsive to what is in a bid, it doesn't need to be selected, no matter what this law says. In other words, if the bid solicitation is for a system that needs to meet the technical requirements of already existing products, it will be very difficult to meet those requirements for anything else.
Thus, if you have an IBM system, it will be diffcult to switch to Sun, or from Microsoft to something else. Most state IT departments are tied in to specific product lines, and it's like pulling teth to get them to change.
Bottom line, this will take years to have any significant impact. But as with any legislation, you need to start somewhere.
Actually I think Bruce Sterling has it right - open source is "free, like a puppy". It needs plenty of care and feeding, so it's better that the IT budget gets spent on people to do that instead of supporting huge licensng fees.
I'd like to see a state submit a bill that bans proprietary file formats (i.e. Word, Excel) and communication protocals (i.e. File and Printer Sharing, COM) that lock you in and make you dependent on one vendor. Even if there was little chance that the bill would pass, I'd like to see Microsoft exposed for the greedy, anti-consumer monopolist that they are when they turn out in force to try to kill the bill. Microsoft would demonstrate how they want you to become completely dependent on them so you have no freedom to choose your CPU architecture, operating system or vendor. They only care about their revenue stream and don't give a shit about what's in your best interest, only theirs
They would be in a catch-22, where either they choose to fight it and damage their reputation, or let it pass and be forced to open up and document their file formats and protocols.
Microsoft's in a similar catch-22 with enforcing their licenses with audits. Either they allow piracy and lose money, or aggressively attack piracy to boost their revenue and piss off companies that then move to Linux, reducing their income, market share and mindshare.
I love it...
Affirmative Action is saying that the group benefiting from the program would not be able to acheive their goals without help from the government. In the case of race and schools, it's saying that those races aren't smart enough to get into the college of their choice. In the case of business, it's saying those races are incapable of succeeding on their own. In the case of software, it's saying that the software will never be able to be up to par enough to compete against proprietary software on its own.
If you were a ten year old playing basketball against a 20 year old, would you be more proud of yourself for winning the game if that other person was in a wheelchair, or if they were in good physical condition? It may be a more "fair" game, but the reward and satisfaction is minimal.
Is that how you want to win?
I sure hope OSS is given a chance to compete without being belittled by legislation that proposes to "level the playing field" by handicapping the competition. This legislation will only alienate the companies (IBM, Sun, Oracle) that have supported OSS with their commercial leverage, and make these OSS projects feel dependent on the government for their survival and success.
If I chose open source software I download a free copy of Linux, Open Office, and Evolution, and I have the rest developed for me. The local economy benefits because I get some software developed and because I pay someone to support my computer network and the software I installed.
If I chose proprietary software I buy a copy of Windows, Microsoft Office, and Outlook, and again I have the rest developed for me. The local economy benefits because I get some software developed and because I pay someone to support my computer network and the software I installed. Looks familiar?
The major difference between the two solutions is that in the first solution I am not sponsoring a foreign corporation (I'm not in the USA), leaving me more money that I can spend locally - on the software I commissioned, for example.
And if I were located in the USA the same argument would in all likelyhood still hold. Ask yourself how you profit from the $40e9 or so that Microsoft has lying around, or the ridiculous profits they announce every year. Would it not be better to plunge that money into a small local company that employs maybe 30 people and is willing to provide you with 24x7 support for your Linux systems?
The economy does not benefit from a single titanic company collecting a tax over all computers and software. It does benefit from those local companies. As a simple test, try this: enumerate all people you know who work in IT. How many work for Microsoft? How many work in a small 'local' company?
'Open Source' does not mean that all software development will stop. So many people need software, and they all need something slightly different, made to perfectly match what they are doing. Most software development is done on this basis, and Open Source will not change that need. Only software companies that sell pre-packaged solutions to large crowds need to fear it.
I agree with you..also another point is that OpenSource software isn't always free (as in beer)..sometimes, OSS costs money to buy.
So should all people agree with each other, so as not to cause any potential trouble?
I disagree with the opinion expressed by MisterFancypants (and agree more with Rooktovin's reply above) but I cannot prove definately (note I cannot, yet, doesn't mean I can't in the furute with more thought, or someone else can), because whichever thought-process I use for this problem, the result can change depending on assumptions used at the beginning, I just get a preference based on prefered assumptions and behaviour.
This is 'Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters' not 'Sheep-dot: Linux is good, because that is geek-cool'.
Here's why. With all the DMCA, Super DMCA and software patent legislation floating around it would be nice to have some open source laws on the books. Maybe some conflicts in legislation might help some law makers to see how these laws impact open source. "What do you mean we can't use our XYZ software anymore?" "What do you mean we can only get an update for XYZ software from a foreign FTP site?"
This is just silly! This is just as bad as forcing Texas to use Wintel products. The whole concept of Open Source rests on the idea of voluntary conscent. Can anyone give me a moral justification why this proposal is better than one where Wintel is substituted for Open Source?
Trust me, a friend of mine's company decided to go with an Oracle DB and was talking about how it would let him do all this stuff out of the box, etc. I was working on a project of the same scale and used PostgreSQL. Needless to say, we both had consultants hired to implement the same type of system -- both charged about the same (my OSS guy was cheaper -- thanks Rich!) but we weren't out 700,000 for the Oracle stuff.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
That's pretty naive. Whenever a corporation or government invests in an application, they are locked in. They face a nontrivial cost to migrate to a different application. It's true even for word processors and other desktop software, but it's especially true for accounting systems, payroll systems, and other enterprise software. The threat of lockin is very real and is a major factor in IT management decisions. Almost every large IT department is maintaing some aging crappy applications that they'd like to be rid of, but the switching costs are prohibitively high.
*bzzzt* Wrong, most software developers do not work on software that is sold, they work on stuff that buisnesses need to, well, do buisness.
How many developers do you know?
How many developers do you know that develop software that is sold?
QED
This isn't affirmative action for FOSS. This is requiring them to consider FOSS and provide justification if they don't use it. It does not require them to give any additional preference to FOSS over proprietary software.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
That's not about OSS, that's the way the industry has always gone. Developers (and software companies) have been being put out of jobs since long before OSS came into the spotlight. There used to be a competitive market in word processors for MS platforms. Now, all those companies that made those products are nothing but a dim rememberance. Remember Stacker? Remember Borland? Remember DRI?
Or, on a more personal note, I once worked for a company that made PC-based point-of-sale systems; we charged a couple of thousand dollars, but that included updates and support. We were very competitive in the market at that time. Then along came a company that sold a competitive product for a couple of hundred bucks (with no support or updates, of course), and our company took a major hit, and had to lay off most of the workforce (including me). But that's just standard free-market capitalism -- offer what appears to be a better product and/or what appears to be a better price, and steal your competitors' customers, maybe even put them out of business.
As for OSS, companies like Trolltech or Sleepycat are using it as a competitive advantage. And last I heard, competition was supposed to be good for the world economy! Of course, it can be painful for individuals who find themselves being out-competed (see last paragraph), but it's still overall a good thing.
The thing you're complaining about has nothing to do with OSS per se; OSS is simply a sign that software is moving from being an expensive specialty market with high margins to being a large commodity market with razor-thin margins. Overall, I think that's a good thing, even though there's obviously going to be a lot of disruption involved.
Finally, consider my first job as a software developer: I got a contract to write a quicksort for a new machine. Nowadays, quicksort is included in the standard C library. Let us take a moment to weep for all those poor software developers who no longer have an opportunity to make money writing quicksort. And then let us move back to the realm of sanity. I don't want to write quicksorts for the rest of my life. I'm tired of re-inventing wheels, just because the older wheels are all proprietary. If you can't find some productive arena to apply your expertise, then maybe you are in the wrong business. Software developers aren't owed a living any more than buggy-whip manufacturers are. When the market moves on, it's time to move with it.
This is not affirmative action. This is simply a bill which requires government officials to consider using FOSS and justify their reasons for not using it. It does not handicap proprietary software relative to FOSS. It simply requires these guys to consider FOSS.
It is in no way analagous to affirmative action. It is analagous to requiring that colleges look at all of the applications sent to them, and not throw applications in the trash if "African American" is checked off next to race.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I am Sheriff of the EFF-Austin Open Source Posse and coordinator for our efforts on SB 1579. I want to offer some quick corrections to what is being discussed.
The main problem is that a lot of people are discussing the content of and materials about the bill as originally introduced. In the legislative process, that is often an initial bid just to get the discussion going. It is not uncommon for bills to be amended--or even completely substituted--as they go through the process. That is what has happened here.
Sen. Carona, the author of SB 1579, offered up a complete substitute. It has been accepted by the committee, replacing the original text. Therefore, the bill as originally written is off the table.
The article links to my report on the committee hearing. In that report you'll find the complete text of the one-paragraph substitute, along with the reasons why EFF-Austin supports it.
The substitute is significantly less sweeping in scope than the original. It is still valuable, and it is a great opening to see more open source in Texas government. In Thursday's hearing Sen. Carona stood strongly behind this bill, and stated that he planned to be back next legislative session with even stronger measures.
Our wiki page has been updated with the latest information on SB 1579. Our sb1579 mailing list (subscribe directions on the wiki page) is the best way to stay informed on this particular issue.
Thanks to everybody who has supported the effort to promote open source software in Texas state government.
Ya know... I always find it rather ironic that when there is news about open source software and whatnot, most of the time the audio provided, if available, is closed source. Real Audio, Windows Media et al.
It would be cool if there were more open source audio streams for this kind of news...
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
Your post completely minimalizes the contributions of men such as Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony and many others who have struggled for Civil Rights in America.
Free Software written by a bunch of rich white boys is not in the least bit similar to the struggles that have taken place in the United States with regards to obtaining equal opportunity.
Your post is insulting and insensitive.
I have mixed feeling about these kind of bills, because truthfully it's impossible to impose computer solutions from above. If people weren't going to consider open-source solutions anyway, then they don't need to be cajoled to do so.
The only exception I see is for the educational system (the universities, school districts). Because Dell and Compaq/HP are all located within Texas (as well as Apple in Austin), it's a foregone conclusion that Texas will use proprietary solutions, whether it be on the desktop or on the backend databases or servers.
People I talk to in Texas education (excluding higher education) don't even consider open source as an option. Many students are taught in class how to use MS Word, Photoshop, Powerpoint, and that is seen as a desirable thing. Never mind that comparable software solutions exist, and that the money could be better spent on other things (teachers, etc). Teachers don't see that because they don't have to pay for these things. Instructional technologists don't see this because often the prices are discounted for learning institutions (which I suppose is good, but at what cost: why are we creating future customers for Adobe and Microsoft?)
There is something to the argument that learning an application teaches students the basic concepts of spreadsheets, etc which can be applied towards comparable applications. But when comparable solutions exist (and they do), schools need to do more than provide the training so that students grow up and become good Microsoft customers.
As long as open source solutions are not mandated, I see nothing wrong with making technology planners have to investigate open source solutions before submitting their budgets.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Ooops! The parent story did not link to the hearing report. It actually links to extrameous info.
Ignore that. Read the hearing report instead.
"It needs plenty of care and feeding, so it's better that the IT budget gets spent on people to do that instead of supporting huge licensng fees."
NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
I used to work for state government, and what you are describing is EXACTLY the mentality which has balooned the budget problems.
You are encouraged, nay rewarded, to not do things efficiently but rather to guarantee your job position.
You're just encouraging bad behavior.
"The major difference between the two solutions is that in the first solution I am not sponsoring a foreign corporation"
I assume you must live in Taiwan then, since in both examples you are supporting the Taiwanese electronics industry by purchasing a computer.
Or perhaps it's a combination of Taiwan, Korea, China and Malaysia. Regardless you are benefiting from globalism... i.e. that computer cost you far less because it was imported from Taiwan. The same is true for software as well as other products such as automotives, etc.
Your argument overall is very naive.
A link to the substitute would be helpful - I didn't see one on the legislative website (http://www.capitol.state.tx).
For those of you who think that this bill has anything better than a snowball's chance in hell, I proudly present: the Texas Republican Party Platform.
These are not reasonable people. Don't get me wrong; I'm too conservative to be a good Democrat, and I dislike Nader just as much as the Texas GOP. I don't even hate Bush (though I have no respect for most of the rest of the administration, other than Powell). There are actually a couple of points in the platform that are reasonable enough. However, those fruitcakes embody just about every liberal nightmare, and they scare the living shit out of me. They're like John Ashcroft on methamphetamines. (Yo, Texans: no offence; we have theocratic lunatics in WA state as well.)
Assholes like this are why I didn't change my voter affiliation years ago. The chances of them even understanding any of the technical issues involved, let alone lending a sympathetic ear, are simply pathetic.
in addition, in those rare cases where states or departments do not need to make publicly available it's purchasing/implementation justifications, any extra effort made to provide this justification is not the fault of this bill, it's the fault of the operating department or state agency.
Money taken from me in the form of taxes (and the state of Texas has gotten quite a bit from me in the form of sales taxes in the years I lived there) has a different set of responsibilities attached than money being spent by a private enterprise. General Welfare, all that.
...
The thing about using open source code, and in particular when necessary paying for improvements to it, is that it's hard to see when this does *not* benefit the general welfare, assuming that the State in its usual infinite wisdom does not care to save / not spend other people's money in the first place.
Given that government agencies (hey, same is true at large corporations) like to spend money (and face disincentives to not spend at least up to their alloted budgets), let's say they're going to spend the same total money for particular tasks on either a) proprietary software + customization / integration and supportor b) Freely available software + customization / integration and support. That may be fanciful (despite optimism and propaganda on both sides), but I think it's actually a conservative guess.
At the end of the day / project / whatever, there's some code (still in existence) and whatever additions have been made to it. If there are additions that are somehow tied to the state government itself (ties to certain databases or weird data formats, etc) and they're modular enough, there could even be some cross-project advantages.
Also, one key advantage I've not noticed anyone mention in this thread is the fact that open source code (whether the FSF calls it Free or not) can be audited and justified a lot more easily than closed source apps. For one thing, I'd like to see tax-funded software be aggressively bid on; if code is open by policy, then improving it etc can be chased after by programmers / small software firms. It doesn't have to mean switching entire software systems
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Right, the substitute has not been posted to the legislative web site yet. That's why I'm referring people to my report on the hearing. The one-paragraph substitute is included there.
There is a major flaw in your reasoning, and I will try to demonstrate it:
If I chose open source software I download a free copy (...) If I chose proprietary software I buy a copy
My point is that the person who actually furbishes the office rarely purchases the software himself, and it's hardly possible that he/she will actually download anything. In a typical case, he/she orders it to a third company, as he/she does it with telephones, plumbing, eletrical wiring etc. So you ALWAYS hire a subcontractor to do all this. A part of the subcontractor fee will probably go to foreign companies. That's inevitable. But if the "foreign included" solution will be cheaper than the "foreign not-included" solution, why not choose the first one? After all, the whole idea of free market is based on that. So the only question is whether state instutitions choose the truly cheaper (=with lower TCO) solution. Law should force them to do this, but in my opinion law should be blind on the proprietary/non-proprietary software question just as it should be blind on the racial/gender/religion etc. issues.
That's why I said that the goal of the government itself was to reduce costs. As in at the highest levels - that's what the politicians try for. The unfortunately competing goals of it's agencies are to increase their own budget, as you say. But the goal of the elected government is still to give an effective return on taxes and instilled power. Even if by structure they cannot do this.
Ryan Fenton
avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government
.NET in it's name?
Hmm would that be anything with XP or
after the legislation passes ok?
(Heh Heh)
Blogging because I can...
Yes but an anal comment about where the hardware comes from when the subject is software is a little offtopic.
proprietary/non-proprietary is hardly comparable to race/gender/religion issues! the first two are a matter of birth and not choice, the last is simply irrelevent in any function government is supposed to be involved in.
If the state uses open source software, they have guaranteed there will be continued support and they won't have to upgrade until they are ready, even if this means hiring programmers themselves.
If they use proprietary software then information such as whether or not I've paid my taxes, showed up in court, etc are at the whim of a commercial entitity that can suddenly decide to say "no" one day or can go out of buisness taking their code with them. Proprietary companies have an interest in making you use more of their products and staying with their products, so they usually do not provide a ready means of tossing their products away in the future. These are facts not matters of preference. These are my tax dollars, and quite frankly scarlet, I'd rather not spend them when the superior or equivelent solutions tend to be free.
Just about a year CHiPs were stopping the shredders in California over a $95 million deal with Oracle in which evidently far, far more licenses than were strictly necessary were purchased by the state.
:)) were the size of companies like Oracle and Microsoft. But for the immediate future, using open source means never having to say "You're Busted!"
You don't generally get $85 million kickback-smelling deals with free software. Is it possible? Yes, or at least it could be if companies like Red Hat (or the old incarnation of VA Software
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Sorry, I guess both prices listed should have been $95 million -- but if you give $10 to the GNOME or KDE folks, it won't disappear quite so useless :)
tiothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
>
> OSS is an OK idealist idea, but in practice what it will do is completely stall the world economy.
The world economy is not stalled by OSS, i don't buy that. OSS is just a tool. Proprietary Software in the good days was also used as a tool/aid in the business process. Its only after large software vendors during the .com boom made proprietary software its own goal.
Next microsoft got their dominance on the complete IT software market. The latest remarkable action of them was introducing License 6.0, To me that is the main reason the IT industry is on a dead-end now. Like its parked inside a dead alley.
Another point for the stubourn stalling economy right now, is lack of trust and confidence in the current president of the USA. Not only inside the USA but also in the rest of the world people just don't know whats going to happen. So why would they show confidence and trust in the current president, the economy of the USA and hence the global economy?
Now how can a free or almost free thing like OSS make any influence on the economy? M$ seems to have major problems? Well if they do, then i think License 6.0 is a far more important reason as OSS.
Affirmative Action REQUIRED a percentage of peopel to be of a certain race. This is where Affirmative Action is a problem. The bill proposed here does not require that any percentage of software be open-source. It requires that they be considered. In effect, this bill does nothing except force people to open their eyes a bit. If open-source really is better, then this is all that is necessary.
About 90% of the developers I've worked with in my career developed software that is sold. Just because a program can't be purchased at retail doesn't mean it isn't sold.
if OSS will completely stall the world economy
It will.
It will completely stall Microsoft's world economy.
There is no OSS equivalent to Photoshop if you are designing for print. While Gimp works great for the web, it can't do print.
Obviously, OpenOffice should be used for all of the MS Office applications. It doesn't have a spell checker, but then the students should be learning to spell and proof on their own, right?
Yes, but can you Lojack the Democrats?