Slashdot Mirror
Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government?
Skapare writes "Linux Journal is doing a story with a roundup of who the players are that are opposing open source in governments. The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA. But I think we all need to become familiar with this round-up of special interest groups not operating in our interests (as taxpayers)."
Are you new around here?
what do you mean our interest? we elected these people for reasons. they can do whatever they want. If they want open source, vote for them. If they don't, don't vote for them. I on the other hand don't care about who supports open source because that's nothing we can fully stop and/or make 100% the case.
The ISC supports four principles: software should be procured on its merits, the promotion of government funded research, the promotion of interoperability through platform-neutral standards and the maintenance of strong intellectual property protections.
Whew they really had me going 'huh?' until that last part.
---
Jedimom.com, that "not-so-fresh" feeling.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
Somebody'll have to look this one up to confirm, but last i checked microsoft was a private corporation. It's not a part of the government.
It's why open source is a grass roots movement. We aim to capture hearts and minds on a fundamental and righteous level. We target the wallet second.
Open source saves the government money. Open source would create more governemnt jobs, by not only keeping existing support personnel, but also by creating openings for developers that would tailor systems to the ever-evolving government technology base and needs. It makes complete sense to switch to open source. Why we don't switch is easy to see: Microsoft gives military politicians plenty of incentive not too.
Britian, France, Japan, Peru, China and Germany are all moving to Linux and open source. Hell, some are even writing up legislation that gives incentives to businesses that do so as well. Why aren't we (the United States)?
It doesn't seem like anyone (who isn't affiliated with a proprietary software company) is necessarily against open source as they are against the idea of the change itself. Changes in government are mostly reactionary. You need a large number of voters interested in the issue, otherwise its hardly worth the time. I believe the opponents to the open-source bills were mostly afraid to favor open-source; they weren't against it.
> Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government?
To a first approximation I'd guess it as "those who've been paid to do so by companies who view FOSS as competition".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
NOT ME!!!
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I gues that is quite self explainery.
Even Windows is "Open Source". If you really want the benefits that we are all talking about here we need to think about how we can encourage the use of Free Software (rather than bastardized Open Source Software).
Take a look at the FSF website for more information regarding the benefits of Free Software.
The problem with all this "Open Source" software advocacy (and the main reason there is no effective advocacy of it in government) is that there are too many interpretations of what it is. You have everything from ESR's idiotic concept of non-Free OSS all the way to Microsoft's pay2play OSS. If everyone would simply get on the same page with the correct FSF interpretation of FREE SOFTWARE, advocacy of FS would be much more effective.
I have been pwned because my
Oh, then it must be Al-Qaeda.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
The BSA is an upstanding, ethical and well-respected group of businessmen. I cannot believe they would sully their good reputation by allowing their esteemed organization to simply be used as a pawn group by moneyed interestes for the application of political pressure.
http://www.prestongates.com/meetpge/wGates.asp
"Someone needs to tell the executives at Intel that an employee representing the company showed up at the Texas committee hearing for the opposition."
This may be too strong a statement... Just because someone from Intel showed up, doesn't mean that Intel is opposed to that. Maybe Intel told that employee to visit that meeting and bring them the scoop to improve their rebuttal..? Then again, maybe they're considering joining in...
In either case, it makes no sense to make such guesses just yet.
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
The allegations this "slashdot" site makes simply boggle the mind. What's next, articles claiming that respected software vendors like SCO or Microsoft are trying to get by on some basis other than that of the quality and strength of their products. I don't understand how people are allowed to print this sort of thing.
- a concerned consumer.
"Consider BSA to be of the highest professional caliber..."
Sorry, you lost me there.
They testify that releasing the code to their competitors would constitute a clear and present danger to national security then give the source 3 months later to a communist country. Excuse the hell out of me, either MS doesn't care or they are too daft to read the obvious writings on the wall. Anyone who has read anything on how the Chinese view us militarily knows that the PLA's documents call for "alternative means" to take out the US's critical infrastructure and military forces. I'm sorry, but given their history with our legal system, I think they are some of the most disgusting treasonous scum in corporate America.
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
Your right to try to turn a profit ends where our national security is concerned. I don't give a flying fuck why Microsoft released Windows' source code to them, but that alone is grounds to punish them by shit-canning their products in the federal government. Every desktop should be switched to MacOS X and/or Linux and MS Office replaced with OpenOffice. We have to draw a line in the sand and scream at them YOUR BEHAVIOR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE YOU UNPATRIOTIC FUCKERS!
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This is seriously an A#1 example of government at its worst. Decisions about which software to use are being made by politicans instead of by Software Architects ACTUALLY ON THE PROJECT. You know, the people who actually know best! Maybe the best tool should win instead of the tool that has the most political power---whether it be open source or Microsoft.
That may be true, but that doesn't mean microsoft hasn't bought a substantial part of the government.
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA
http://www.prestongates.com/meetpge/wGates.asp
"
Our Founders
William H. Gates
William H. Gates practiced law for nearly half a century and has always been very proud of the legal profession. He values professionalism and encourages other lawyers to take pride in every aspect of their careers. He has said, "We are indeed a heterogeneous profession, but there is both a richness and a balance that this condition produces. It is obvious that, notwithstanding this great diversity, we stand upon one common foundation - society's requirement for the rendering of legal services in a professional manner."
Mr. Gates was born in 1925 in Bremerton, Washington. He attended public schools in Bremerton, and graduated from Bremerton High. After high school, he enlisted in the United States Army. Graduating from Fort Benning Infantry School, he went on to serve in Japan and the Philippines during World War II before being honorably discharged in November 1946.
Mr. Gates enrolled in the University of Washington and earned his bachelor of science degree in 1949. He then continued on to the University of Washington School of Law, where he graduated in June of 1950. He was admitted to the Washington State Bar one month later.
After graduation, he practiced law in Bremerton, Wash. After two years, he joined the Seattle law firm of Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Uhlmann. In 1964, he moved to the firm of Shidler & King, where he launched a general corporate practice. He was made partner and the firm name was changed to Shidler McBroom & Gates. In 1985, Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas was formed when Shidler McBroom & Gates merged with Lucas Glase Sherman & Hendrickson.
In 1990, Shidler McBroom Gates & Lucas merged with the firm of Preston Thorgrimson Ellis & Holman, becoming Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis. The firm name was changed to Preston Gates & Ellis in 1994. Mr. Gates continued to practice at the firm until his retirement in 1998."
WRONG BILL GATES!!!!
its funny nobody seems to realize that the current state of most software is open source. all the assembly instructions you need to fix/modify a windows program are right there in the .exe file. thats why people are able to crack shareware, make keygens etc.
the people arguing that opensource is a security risk seem to be under the impression that compiled source is secure. its not. this is ALL about the $$$$$
bite my glorious golden ass.
Some ideas.
- Get a telnet or shell account somewhere. Some public libraries will allow you to have a telnet Lynx-only account. Read slashdot from there.
- Find, or set up on your home computer, a web proxy. Read slashdot through that.
- Email pater@slashdot.org or one of the many other technical contacts for this site. Detail your problem and the IP from which the problem is occuring.
- Stop reading slashdot at *work*. ^_^
How can Bill Gates be connected to the BSA? (Boy Scouts of America) Is Bill... trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent? I think not!
... is open standard "document" formats. I don't care if Uncle Sam or anyone else chooses to use Microsoft (or any other) software. However, anything and everything that The People have access to must be stored in an open format that The People can read with the software of my choice. PDF, XML, plain text, latex, postscript/ghostscript, PNG images out of a scanner, dead trees, who cares.
And what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I can READ slashdot, but it will not allow me to POST messages.
I think that this was said above that its not that people oppose open source, I mean, its kinda a hard thing to oppose, I dont think that there are people (other than those who have something financially or politically to lose) who are gonna come out saying that there should be no open source, thats just dumb. However, I do think that there will always be politicians opposing it because they do get campaign funding from companies such as Microsoft and are in a position to lose it if open source becomes too widely used.
wtfsig?!11
I think people greatly underestimate the amount of effort, blood, sweat, and tears it would take to "switch" (so to speak) a government agency (let alone a whole government) to Linux.
The old adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While some would no doubt argue that Windows-based systems are "broke", the fact is that government agencies somehow manage to make their computers crunch numbers and store data on Windows machines.
In general, taking down a running, working system in order to replace it with something else is always a risky move. It is never something to be taken lightly.
Hopefully, Linux can work its way into US government agencies, because it has a lot to offer. But acceptance will be necessarily slow, and we should not expect otherwise.
We can praise the nations that throw caution to the wind and roll out Linux rapidly. But we should not be so negative to those that take a more cautious stance. Linux is NOT a perfect beast, and it should surprise no rational person that it is, at this time, treated as "the devil you don't know".
The Government is afraid of the Open Source movement because it implies WORK. Work to make things work, to make them function and be compatable. they are very much a lazy bunch. They would rather sit down and have Microsloth do the programming for them, then trust a bunch of smart people *gasp*!. When someone can do it for you, and when it doesent work you can complain to one entity, instead of a community, it makes your life much easier. Plus Microsloth is rich, and everybody knows who has poer, the Almighty Buck!
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
That's it. One GPL. Is it that hard for you to understand?
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
What's worse is how the FTC (under Clinton) approved the sale of several supercomputers (Crays I believe) that were on the export control list to China. This happened around the same time as the missile technology thing. The really scary thing was that the FTC asked China to let them inspect the facilities where these supercomputers were to be user for "academic research" and China said no. A major corporation with ties to China made a huge contribution to Clinton's reelection campaing, and voila, sale gets approved.
Of course nobody even noticed because the same week (or month) as all this happened the Lewinski scandal broke and Americans seemed to care more about who blew the pres in the oval office. Nobody cared that we gave away to the Chinese missile technology and the computer horsepower to be able to target us with it.
However there are any number of interpretations of "Open Source Software" of which only a few are compatible with the concept of Free Software and more importantly the GPL.
Even a license that offers much more in the way of freedom like the BSD license compatible with the GPL and hence software licensed under the BSD license could not be considered Free Software.
Who cares, one way or the other? Use open source, save a few bucks. Do it if it makes sense. Don't use open source, so what.
Profit making companies (proprietary software firms, if they are lucky) pay taxes. "Open source" doesn't, by and large. So, on top of GSA discounts and tax revenue, the cost is lowered, for commercial software.
How much does non-free software cost anyhow? Even if it is a lot of money, it is in the noise, compared to salaries.
I really don't care, either way. "Free" software, paid-for software, peanuts in the big picture.
Politics pisses me off, but (by and large) There is no consirpacy. "Shit happens". Or, if you prefer; "The road to hell is paved in good intentions." Or, my words, every little step towards jumping in the shit seemed like a good idea, at the time.
Sorry, the gin (good stuff) is talking. The sun will burn the planet up, someday. All computers suck, that's my professional opinion (and I make ~$100K/yr dealing with them, give or take a dot-com bust.)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
It needs to be based on free, open and documented standards.
It's not that most of them are corrupt, it's that most of them are too stupid to know better. Our politicians reflect the fact that the average person by sheer virtue of being a citizen is entitled to vote.
It's a stupid, illogical and immoral political goal to let every jackass and ditz vote. Democracy, not religion, in any form where the mob, not those who have served their country, gets to vote is the opiate of the masses. It lets John Q Citizen feel like he's in control. But he's not.
By empowering everyone to vote, you disempower the best and brightest to make positive political change. The best and brightest who have served are who should be voting, not your average dumb fuck who has never served his or her country in the military or (peace || ameri)corps.
If 75% of the public couldn't vote, we'd have the system we want. It'd be clean, effective, respectful of civil rights and technologically progressive. But no, you bumbling foolish defenders of the popular right to vote, you'll never have a good government while the frightened masses call the shots.
The PATRIOT Act wouldn't have passed if the soccer moms and country-club dads of America who put their selfish interests above national service early on were told, "hey we don't give a fuck what you think" by the government. Why? Because why would the politicians care what those who can't vote think. They'd be a lot more concerned because the people WHO DO CARE would be voting. You know those types, the ones who generally care about their country and don't vote Republicrat because that's what their family has always voted for or something similarly stupid.
You don't need to vote if the government runs well and respects your rights. I'd rather live under a dictator who does both than a democratic system of government that considers my rights subject to the whims of the mob. Get the government out of our lives, disenfranchise everyone who isn't a veteran of the military, peacecorps or americorps and let those who do care fix the mistakes.
I learned to hate the idea of submitting myself to the mob in our education system. I got a taste of what the Columbine killers went through, just a taste mind you. It was there that I learned why dictators consider mass participation the easiest way to power: the masses don't think, only a minority do and when properly manipulated the masses will crush those who do think.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
No wonder there is confusion about this. Aparently, given M$'s slap on the rist, a monolopy is bigger than a govenrment.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Why wouldn't it be better to have custom software that helps the government employee do his job? What business of yours is it that the thing conforms to arbitrary standards?
Are standards more important than having the right tool for the right job?
I have been pwned because my
The decision of which software to use should not be made by legislators, it should be made by people experienced with the technology. Mandating the use of open source only limits choice. Bills that mandate that open source be considered are less damaging, but pointless, since if an open solution exists that is viable, a smart engineer will consider it. I work with government clients all the time, and as much as I like open source software, some of it just doesn't meet the needs of my client, for open source software that does, I am more than happy to recommend its use. It's about finding the best tool for the job, not the one that best fits my political views.
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
Seems reasonable yes? Anything that does the job should be allowed to compete. Certainly. But in the case of government the question is "what exactly is 'the job'?". The government (ostensibly) exists to service the public interest. The public interest demands that our government be independant from corporate influence. Commitment of government to a closed source solution provided by a single vendor gives this vendor undue influence over governmental process. The public interest also demands that our data be accessible now and into the future. Clearly closed data formats cannot provide this. Finally, the public interest demands that government computers be secure. Without access to the source code it cannot be proven that there are not back doors providing access to sensitive government data.
So the question when evaluating a piece of software, say, a database, for governmental use is not just "Is this the best database" but "Is this the best database that ensures data accessability and security without tying us to a single corporation." Only open source software can provide these important considerations.
Note that this is not "discrimination" against closed source vendors. Any company can provide software to the government, as long as it satisfys these requirements.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In that case, all four of my suggestions still apply just as much. Email pater or a site admin.
Seriously. If everyone knows what level of code the government is running on their so-called secure servers, will they still be considered secure?
If someone discovers a new method of breaching said servers, will they be more apt to exploit it or fix it? Would you be willing to bet national security on that?
One of my friends was employed by the military (mechanical engineer), and often got involved in computer issues as a side-effect of his rank and position.
From the stories he told me, it sounds to me like the U.S. military often resists change on a department by department basis. I don't doubt that politicians at the top play a big role in keeping closed source commerical products in the military -- but in many cases, it seems like the only hurdles are technical ones. (EG. A specification demands that any software or OS solution used meet a number of criteria. If a Linux installation can meet them, then fine - it can *technically* be substituted as the server platform for that department.) Where it falls apart is when a colonel decides he really likes Microsoft products (maybe simply because that's all he ever used), and he dictates that *his* staff will never use anything but Windows.
On the particular military installation my friend worked at, they had a similar situation years ago, where one group kept using Novell - despite the rest of the base running Windows. Everyone tried to put pressure on the other group to ditch the old Novell server - but for years, they insisted on sticking with it. (Everyone else ended up having to mess around with loading Novell modules and IPX stacks they didn't want to use, or else not be able to access that one department's data.) Since the Novell system technically met the (old) requirements drafted up, there wasn't any way to mandate a change.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gates and Microsoft have more influence than I do because they pay/round_up more taxes than I do.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
According to this page, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft Corp., attained the rank of Life in the Boy Scouts.
According to this page, William H. Gates, Bill Gates' father and the "William Gates" relevant to the Preston-Gates law firm linked in the slashblurb (note that said lawfirm is now slashdotted), is an Eagle Scout and served as a board member on the Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts of America from 1985 to 1990.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Each opponent asserted the playing field was level and open-source legislation would introduce unfairness into the procurement process.
Why should free software and commercial software be treated equally? What does this have to do with "fairness"?
I give my government lots of money. I have a right to expect that they don't buy commerical stuff if there are reasonable free alternatives. If they do go out and buy something commercial, they should be required to document carefully the reasons for their choices.
Even if the free software were to require larger IT staffs (which it doesn't), I'd much rather see my tax dollars go into salaries for local government employees than disappear somewhere in Microsoft's bank account up in Washington state soemwhere.
Wasn't that the time you were totally making shit up because you don't like the Repubs?
It also includes the right not to us open source software. Any legislation forcing any type of software is bad. I want a level playing field in which all software is considered on its merits...free or not. Now go out and make it happen.
Thanks
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
I demand that they do more paperwork and generate lots more garbage justifying every ticky tack purchase or license. These reports must document carefully the reasons why each decision was made in favor of one choice over another. I want to see the documentation signed off on by the decision maker, his supervisor, and all supervisors up to and including the President.
God knows all they've got is free time and lots of my money.
Yes, that's what they say and that's why they are wrong. They ARE afraid of bills that favor open source solutions because they would then be out of sales. The problem they are trying to avoid is that open source is a legitimate criteria of selection. Trying to say that it's not is dishonest. The government, like anyone else, should take advantage of free software and all the benifits it brings.
Of course, these groups are lying about all those benifits too. They claim their software is superior and cheaper than free software. Those using free software know better. That's why these bills are floating up from the technocrats and why the opposition uses lobiests, adverts and lies. They are trying to use ignorant opinion to prop up their sales that much longer while they despiratly look for ways to kill off free software.
They are doomed to fail. Though the technocrats may not be as well organized, they are armed with the truth and can back it up with test cases and numbers. So long as Paladium is not made manditory, the number of cases proving the viability of free software will only continue to become more numerous and obvious. The disparity between free software and propriatory code continues to grow.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Tell that to the soldiers at My Lai who turned on their CO and fired on those killing the civilians there. And in case you didn't notice, I said that national service could also be peacecorps or americorps.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
oh yeah, eurotrash.
A Linux blacklist!
Now the ever mature Linux community can e-mail bomb and repeatedly download large files from these people's web sites, just like they did with SCO!
If shit like that happens to people on this list it just gives them more ammo against OSS in business.
I believe this is the first time we slashdotted the server of an IP law firm... Don't worry about that 'whooshing' sound, that's just the "cease and desist"s starting to arrive.
First, Microsoft said it believed this was a national secruity risk. Their sale is therefore willful treason, regardless of the facts.
Second, the fact that our enemies have access to information our own government does not have compete access to really is detrimental to US security. China can and will give that code to all the people they think they have to in order to find weaknesses to exploit. The NSA can only go so far in protecting against those attacks because Microscrew continues with their "fork" and new sofware is being deployed on government desks all day long with windoze updater. It's doubtuf that the NSA or anyone besides Microsoft can keep up with all the different versions of software that gets put on those computers, so any weakenss the Chinese find will have a high probability of sucess. Windoze is fragile enough without help from professionals representing one of the world's most repressive regiems having the source code to understand exactly how random expoits found work.
It should be obvious that free software levels the playing field and alows everyone to help fix the problems. The results are already in because we know that IIS gets broken all the time, but free software is not.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Active Server Pages error 'ASP 0113'
/Default.asp
Script timed out
The maximum amount of time for a script to execute was exceeded. You can change this limit by specifying a new value for the property Server.ScriptTimeout or by changing the value in the IIS administration tools.
As a shareholder, I certainly hope they are buying something with that $40B (with a "b") in cash. They aren't giving it to me!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
One of the groups opposing the use of OSS/FS in government is Initiative for Software Choice & CompTIA of which Microsoft is a member. The guiding principles of this organisation are (from the article):
Firstly: 'the promotion of interoperability through platform-neutral standards'??? I am confused. Microsoft has become the member of a group that advocates 'platform-neutral standards'???
Secondly: Isn't the idea to check out open-source too, a way of adding more 'Software Choice', so, why would they be opposed to government adding open-source to their candidates for purchase/use???
Am I reading this wrong, or did someone start the Infinte Improbability Drive (sorry Doug)...
Thank you.
GrimReality
During the Texas hearing, Senate sponsor John Carona summed up the money situation nicely during the hearing before the Administrative Committee.
Oh damn...Carona? I thought I voted for Corona as in cerveza!
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
ACT has a particular proble with it's stance against such open-source laws (emphasis added):
What ACT and others seem to forget is that the governement, any government, is a customer too. For a free-market too function customers must be free and unfettered to state what their requirements are. In the case of a virtual entity, like a corporation, or a government, these requirements must be stated in a manner that tells subordinates what is expected. Corporations use memos, governments use laws.
The argument often used against Open Source laws, that "an open-source bill provides preferential legislation... (and) that such legislation tilts the playing field"; flies in the face of the very method by which the government express its will as a customer in the free, market-driven, economy they so cherish. They forget that the key to any such economy is, simply stated, give the customer what they desire or exit the marketplace. They attempt, by their arguments blocking such legislation, to use the very love of the "free market" to create a closed market, or at least one favourable to them, which by design mitigates against customer choice. They turn the concept of free-market on its head by their own ignorance.
My hat is off Texas Senate sponsor John Carona. He at least seems to grasp that the government of Texas is a customer, and the predicated action of a customer is to be self-serving. The government wants to save money? The goverment wants to avail themselves of the resources of Open Source to keep money for software in Texas? The government then must express that desire through the only means available to a government - a law.
That the BSA, ACT, ISC, CompTIA, and AeA don't understand that their members are in service to their customers, and not the other way about, is hubris of the nth degree. We should be reminding them that we hold the purse strings, that we through our representatives decide how money should be spent, apportioned, and saved. We should remind and hold our State representatives to the responsibility they have as the largest customers of software and services.
Keep the money at home, guys. Keep money where it's needed most!
The technocrats are the ones pushing the bills, legislators are the ones with doubts.
Mandating the use of open source only limits choice.
No, it does not. Software companies are free to open their code at any time.
Bills that mandate that open source be considered are less damaging, but pointless, since if an open solution exists that is viable, a smart engineer will consider it.
That does not mean that he can use it. Vendors must be aproved in order for state employees to purchase things. The process of aproval is Byzantine at best and one that does not work well for free software that may not have a vendor at all. Bills that free state employees to use software they want to use would be a Godsend.
I work with government clients all the time, and as much as I like open source software, some of it just doesn't meet the needs of my client.
That's hollow. Name one thing that propriatory software does that free software does not besides interoperate with propriatory software. In those rare instances, a purchasing agency can claim "sole source vendor" and make the purchase and those are looked on with susupecion.
It's about finding the best tool for the job, not the one that best fits my political views.
This IS about finding the best tool for the job . Free software is almost always better than it's closed source counterparts. Free software, in part, helps to avoid vendor lock in, a very real goal of state purchasing laws. Legislators have already decided they don't like getting raped by vendors. Vendor lock in always results in a lack of legitimate competition and inferior goods in the end.
The only political view that you need to have is a belief in full disclosure in state afairs. From honest discource, function and trust flow. Indeed, it's the closed source view of the world that requires the most radical assumptions. It requires you to believe that you don't own your computers, that you should be so very greatful that your computer does a few things and you agree to limitations on your use of that computer, that you pay absorbedent fees instead of developing your own solution, even that you will never even attempt to understand how the program works. That kind of nonsense is not accepted in most government purchasing, where complete honesty and accountability through inspection is required. The closed source software companies, which have only existed in their current form since the early 1980s, has a lot of nerve to try to impose these conditions on the public and call it IP rights.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In a short speech to the Charlottesville (VA, USA) City Council last week, I proposed the consideration of open source via an internal bid approach, considering the results alongside traditional proposals. I haven't gotten any results or response yet (it's only been a week, after all), but based on the thoughtful nods and scribblings of the councilors while I was talking, I feel good about it. :)
:) Hey, and I keep my campaign promises, too...even though I wasn't elected. ;)
I'd be interested in hearing if anybody else has convinced their municipality to consider the use of open source on a project-by-project basis and, if so, how they went about it. I'm not so naive to think that a mere speech will do the trick, so I'll need some ammunition for the follow-up.
Hey, funny -- this really follows up nicely on the Ask Slashdot on the topic that I submitted a year and a half ago.
-Waldo Jaquith
Of course Gates supports the BSA. The BSA enforces Gates' ownership over the property he and his company have created.
I see no reason why anyone in government should care what software people use.
Amazing magic tricks
I have here a list of people who are secretly members of the BSA ...
From the article at LinuxWorld:
The main thing a government unit considering open-source software wants to know is how it can save money.
Not necessarily. Another 'main thing' is...does it do what we need it to do? In many instances, yes. General office funcions can be done with OO.o, back end and server functions with various flavors of Linux, webservers with Apache. There's a whole raft of free and OS tools available for various functions.
But also, in many instances, no, it won't. For instance, there are no good quality open source tools for GIS or CAD requirements. Free or open source is good, but does not always fit the requirements of what is needed in a particular environment.
In any case, I care far more about open format, accessible documents, rather than worry about which tool is used to create that document.
I do consulting in the Washington DC area, and have been in a lot of federal agencies. At the point where products are chosen and designs are built, nobody really cares what any politicians think. It comes down to the people who are in charge, at the agency level, of that project. At times, it isn't even up to them, as they hand that duty off to the contractor or even subcontractor. Good example: we once did a Citrix solution for Raytheon as part of a larger solution that went to the FAA...and only one person at FAA even knew what we were doing.
While the NSA was granting Common Criteria Certification to Checkpoint Firewall-1 (an Israeli product), relative small-fry in multiple agencies were afraid to use it due to the classic federal urban legend about Israeli backdoors or other malware embedded into it. The US Army has a collossal site license (or at least had, some years ago) for Netscape products, so that's what they used when possible. Ultimately, the people in charge of choosing the solution do so without significant awareness or care of what politicians say, think, or feel...and this is both good and bad.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
That's it. That's the list.
Most of you are missing the big picture. Most of you are too caught up in your open source "movement" and idealism of free software that you're so blinded by your love of open source and hatred for MS and Gates (which you always seem to blame Blue Screens on the OS and not the drivers for some reason) that you will follow it without just cause... The government would be stupid to go with an open source platform:
1) This is really the only reason I need to be stating. "Every body has access to it". Other government agencies and/or anti-government/terrorist organizations could easily search the code for exploits and vulnerabilities that would allow them to attack government computers. Depending on how the gov designs their networks and implements the opensource software, it could lead to some serious troubles.
2) Although one may argue that it would be wasting government money to buy software, they have the money anyway and it'll be better than just keepin it in a vault. Mainly, it would stimulate the economy (specifically the tech market) if a large government bought a rather large license from a company, or contracted a company to write them software.
Stop hugging the penguine and think for yourselves. You may hate what I say, but deep down you know it's right.
Mod me down people... mod me down...
Hey, you fucking troll... how about clamming up and letting us grownups talk? Reliability, hard to adminster, blah, blah, blah. That's a 10 year old troll whose time has come and gone. Come up with a new troll, THEN come back.
...does it really matter? ...will any of us really notice a difference in the Government? Will any of you be directly affected by this decision other than being happy (for some strange reason) that the Government is using Linux?
You can keep the two cents...
Hypocritical lobbying groups are not unknown in our government. They are great for sabotaging and undermining grassroots efforts. I can't think of any specific examples at the moment but "evironmental protection" interest groups funded by smokestack and toxic waste industry and "consumer protection" interest groups funded by megacorporations and marketing firms come to mind.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Looks like your plank doesn't really excite the voters. Perhaps the computer systems that the city uses isn't such a big deal to anyone but zealots like yourself?
It wasn't a plank, and I'm no zealot. Thanks for playing, smart guy.
-Waldo Jaquith
In the sense that it saves the tax payer incredible amounts of software license purchases for large scale systems.
Of course I'm only referring to the GPL licensed open source. It would be pointless if someone open sourced something and refuse to deliever the source unless you pay em a billion dollars.
But back to main point why governments should be using open source.
1. We all know that the government systems are probably just a step up more secure then university systems. Colleges have been strong supporters of *nix / open source but never truly as secure as businesses, so why bother? Well because colleges like government are big entities that are kinda very inefficient because the markets don't punish (I'm definitely dumbing down the issue... you bond/rating agency guys must forgive me) governments or colleges for inefficiencies. The cost of these inefficiencies acutally do produce savings because government employees are not paid a lot and it wouldn't be worth it to pay so much more to buy 10000 licenses when you can just buy 1 and distribute.
2. Another reason why the government should be open source is because it's tied very closely to academia. Most of the huge research labs/super computing facilities are sponsored by the government. I'd shudder to think how little work would be done with a closed source solution when the scientists are acutally intelligent enough to know how to hack the code.
3. The fact that all top secret military stuff like nukes and all that dangerous shit is definitely not open source and probably some ass backwards properitary system that you'd have to learn san script to break in.. just makes me all the more comfortable knowing the government doesn't use open source on shit like that.. which comes back to the Terry Pratchett quote... "If there was a big red button and you put a big sign next to it that said 'Don't push' some idiot is bound to push it" kind of mentality that retarded people in this world have when it comes to dealing with classified information.
So if you've read down this far congratz on listening to an old man rant.. but it wouldn't be complete with out a point.. which is PEOPLE... there are places for open source.. and there are places for closed source... the government doens't just look at MS or linux...
unlike some certain group of readers of a certain website... So instead of being hard core open source or hard core closed source..
Sit back... think about what each is good for... and choose appropriately.
How can an organization such as COMPTIA sponsor a Linux Certification Program and not violate a conflict of interest by opposing the use of OSS/Linux in the Federal Government? How can they offer a decent Linux Certification program yet oppose OSS/Linux in the Federal Government? They can't and they don't. I have seen the material for their Linux+ and it is totally useless information for Linux System Administrators, but it is what you would expect of a MSCE drone mentality.
We happen to have 800+ in my high school alone (3 Class-C segments, full, plus some not networked) I pointed out OpenOffice, and we tried it. Then StarOffice was released free. We used our drafting room as a testing board, as well as a few teachers who needed MS Office interoperability. And, we pay about $70 per copy of Office (we turned down "Software Assurance", they wanted $$$ for each computer in district, regardless of wether it could even run any MS software- including Pre-Power PC Macs.)
If it weren't for me mentioning that there was free software, we wouldn't have saved over $5,000 last year on software. (And we've got budget cuts to boot- that software wouldn't have been purchased, anyway, but I found a free alternative that allowed us to get what was needed- Office software)
Just my $0.02.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The status of SB 1579 can be found here.
It was left pending in committee on 5/8/2003, before 55 Democrats fled to Oklahoma on 5/11/2003 to break the quorum and prevent Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts and replace Democrat gerrymandering of Congressional districts back in 1991.
It's not clear that the exodus actually prevented further action on the bill, but the legislative session ended on 6/2/2003. The next regular session will not start until January, 2005.
I had suggested Open Source when they were first considering doing this project. From observation over the years, agencies who do large-scale projects usually fall to the mercy of the developers who many times kept the source then turn around an d re-sell the agencies' software (who paid all the development costs) again to other out of area agencies. (government funds paying for software again and again). So, it is a step better, at least when the developers squeeze out all the profits and leave - the agencies aren't left with unmodifiable code.
With tight budgets non-profit agencies are now looking into the potential licensing revenue of their internal works to other agencies... :-/
p
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I read your plank last year and it certainly was a major issue you were trying to push.
No, it wasn't a major issue. It wasn't even a minor issue. I never mentioned it once in a single debate, speech, or interview. Nowhere did it appear anywhere on my platform. You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about.
Someone who thinks that OSS solutions are better than CSS solutions is almost by definition a zealot. That you are trying to change it at the government level cements you as an OSS zealot.
My proposal is that OSS be considered along with other proposals. That's hardly zealotry. That's just good fiscal policy.
-Waldo Jaquith
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do.
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do.
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do.
Who keeps Microsoft on its course?
Who opposes open source?
We do! We do.
I now present you with your own link for your perusal. http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/14/19 20236&mode=thread
Don't look now, your agenda is showing.
I already linked to that in my original post -- that's what you were replying to in the first place. My Ask Slashdot submission asked if my interest in OSS and belief that it has a place in government was something that would be useful in a campaign. The answer was a resounding "no," and that was that. That's not an agenda, that's a question.
I can't make this clearer: I have only once addressed the topic of OSS in my city, using the exact words contained in the speech to which I linked. You can attempt to invent alternate truths, but it's getting a bit silly at this point.
-Waldo Jaquith
OK, I don't oppose it totally, but I got your attention, didn't I? I oppose an ideological bent in either direction.
When the government decides what software to purchase, I want them purchasing what's best for the job. In a rapidly evolving field where improvements are still being made and maximum performance is critical, I don't want them installing OSS that's half the speed, purchasing twice the hardware, and training twice the staff just because "OSS is good".
OTOH, I don't want them mandating a "Windows only in department X" policy either; especially if department X is comprised of technicly literate people who "know how to handle their computers, thank-you very much".
I certainly don't want them installing $500 worth of MS server software when LAMP would have done just fine.
In other words, we don't need no stinkin' "you must consider OSS software" policy any more than we need a "you must use Windows" policy. They both suck equally.
And last but not least, I don't want the government developing software under GPL, EULA, or anything other than Public Domain, which is where all government works are supposed to be placed (of course, if they hired a contractor, then the contractor still gets to negotiate terms).
Actually, this is just another expression of a theme that runs through a lot of the stuff I write here: Ideological purity is always bad... except when it's good.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
M-w.com - democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
republic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit
However, we elect representatives as our voice -- and it seems that our voice has been easily corrupted by money. We aren't a pure democracy, a "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives"; we are not a direct democracy.
Deal with it. We're a democracy AND a republic whose ignorance and greed is causing us to self-destruct.
Opening the source for inspection by the public is a minimum standard of accessibility. So long as a company is willing to do that, they can sell as much software to the government as they want.
The ACLU doesn't represent all taxpayers either, nor does the EFF. Why should special interests try to promote policies that benefit taxpayers?
Anyway, government in general is not there for the benefit of the taxpayers, but rather the benefit of the citizens. The two groups are not the same.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The ones who are paid to oppose it by large corporations who have something to lose with the adoption of FOSS.
Governments using windows everywhere increase overhead, bloat, reduce network and infrastructure security and all in all increase government inefficiency. Enemies of the United States will like this. Enemies of the United States will fund lobbyists in the U.S. to promote inefficiencies and security holes that can be taken advantage of later. Only mildly joking...
Interestingly, I have a friend in Amsterdam who says that the LAST thing you ever want is an efficient government - the first thing they will do is interfere with your way of life very efficiently.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
When there is a choise between proprietary programmers and Open Source programmers; it is in the macro economic intrest of a government to have the programmers within its realm. Given the profit margins on software, there is a lot that can be spent on programmers without affecting the economic balance and the taxpayers.. Thanks, Gerard
fear of retribution. What counts is the message itself, what you wrote, and
how you wrote it. What is the big deal about someone being anonymous!
Your post was not anonymous and means little. But the content of your thoughts were nonsense;
it is not CNN or your view of the world who decides whether fear retribution
is reasonable, it is the poster who decides if he wants to remain anonymous.
(I bet if you were an Iraqi, Iranian, or Egyptian and had a different view of the
world, you would have posted exactly the same like you just did. That i my impression.)
Would be terrorists also aren't the only people looking at your open source government software either, programmers on the gov payroll and good samaritans alike can also browse the code and fix problems they happen to find.
Another thing to consider is that if it were free software, the security of every computer using it(home comps, businesses, whatever) is raised, which would benefit the whole.
Well, your country's government might have money in big vaults, but the US sure doesn't. We measure our lack of money in trillions of dollars of debt.
Controversial but certainly true...
That means they will cut their veins before allowing GPL or any other licensing agreement to be violated.
Good for them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Thus the systems need fixing.
-Open standards for storage of information should be mandated.
-Open protocols should be mandated.
-A company providing services should be able to provide a clean sheet of health legally (why any goverment on its right mind would want to deal with a convicted monopolist abuser?. Why voters would tolerate that their goverments associate themselves and trust their dat to somebody with a dubious legal past).
-The goverment should have acces to all the source code to ensure that no back door exist that can compromise the integrity of the data.
Sorry, but the system is broken. I badly needs fixing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Office? Outlook? IIS? Exchange?
Thats right, you can not.
Thanks for playing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A tool has to be evaluated based not only on its technical merits but also considering its social impact.
A democratic goverment should promote transparency, this transparency should not be limited by the goverment agancies' choice of software. Both the data and how it is handled should be open to the public for scrutiny and accountability.
The only way to ensure this is for the goverment to set minimum standards, which has to include open standards and open source. Anything less is unacceptable.
Many goverments are beggining to realize this, and frankly, the differential in cost is becomming a very minor second consideration.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And software architects are not aware of all the social implications of using certain tools. That is the job of politicians.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak for me, since you don't know my stance on the matter.
.... to take an Open Source solution, modify it to meet their needs and locking away the source?
Nothing.
They would save money, they would keep their applications secure.
So unless you are trying to point out that you don't understand the nature of open source, what exactly is your point?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Because they are auditable and accountable by anybody without requiring special tools.
There are many more considerations that the purely technical.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The money you earned with your hard work and that was trsnfered to the goverment in the form of tax would be saved and thus spent in other stuff.
The goverment's data would be in open formats, thus protecting your tax money against forced obsolescence by private companies.
The transparency and accountability of the goverment's data and proceures would be hiaghly enhanced since both code and data would be easily accesible to anybody to see.
Those are not strange reasone, they are concrete needs that if met certainly would make me happy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The "everybody has access to it" argument makes a certain amount of sense, although it's extremely controvertial in the computer security world. But that also applies to Windows and all other COTS software: enemy governments can get hold of that as well. The Chinese govt. has a Windows source license.
Point (2): Firstly, they don't just "have the money anyway" - it is either from the people in taxes, borrowed from the banks and pension funds, or taken from savers through inflation if they print more bills.
Secondly, if you're going to stimulate the economy by throwing money around arbirarily, why not stimulate the inner cities by funding education instead? It doesn't have to go to the World's Richest Man. You could even have a dividend tax cut and spread government money more evenly among the super-rich.
(If you're trying to troll and weren't making an argument, you might like to remove inflammatory language from your posts like "You know I'm right")
Second, the fact that our enemies have access to information our own government does not have compete access to really is detrimental to US security. China can and will give that code to all the people they think they have to in order to find weaknesses to exploit.
Refresh my mind: exactely when did China become an enemy of the US?
What's yours?
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Are we talking GPL stuff here? BSD-type license? Or software that you pay for, but they give you source-code?
I am ok with the later two, but the more I read about the GPL the more I am against it.
that should be
http://www.prestongates.com/meetpge/wGates.asp,
(hint - search for belinda)
not just
http://www.prestongates.com
espo
The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA.
Last year, just before Microsoft rolled out Licensing 6.0, the BSA ran an ad campaign on radio stations in my city admonishing listeners who ran businesses to make sure that there was no software piracy in their enterprise. This was exactly the same time Microsoft was sending letters to businesses in the area to confirm with the Beast exactly how many licenses they owned. This was the last chance for enterprises to get into compliance, as follow-up audits on some businesses were about to be conducted.
I interpreted the ad campaign as basically saying "the sheriff in town (MS) will soon be kicking butt and taking names". Plus, I heard about the connection between MS and the BSA well before this time. Nothing about the BSA's activities surprises me, and everything they do should be viewed in light of the fact that MS is their most prominent member.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
At risk of negative moderation, I want to state that the Slashdot commentary on this article seems to imply that no one should oppose Open Source in the government. This is very similar to saying something like "Can you believe these guys who have a financially vested interest in a point of view that opposes mine are actually working to protect their interests?" Well, wouldn't they be saying, "Can you ubelieve these guys who have no financially vested interest in a point of view that opposes mine are actually working to damage my interests?"
There *should* be people who uphold both sides, this IS what what is in the public's best interets. So long as they aren't upholding their interests by buying government officials small personal islands or vacation homes in the hamptons, then the technology with the higher merits will win.
Fortunately we all know from empirical data on just security vulnerabilities (and time to fix!) alone which technology is the superior one, and so as the open source community in general, we (developers and advocates) shouldn't be threatened by this, but rather let our work stand for itself, and not even be afraid of just a little bit of shady payoff, because if our work cannot stand up to that kind of attack as a whole, then we should try harder. We are Borg, our collective mind is far superior to the single mindedness of Redmond. It will be assimilated.
Ok, sorry, ignore that last part.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I recall that Gates (via Microsoft) really was behind the creation of the BSA because he wasn't getting along with the SPA (Software Piracy Association) (?? memory is bad on this one), who used to go hunting for pirates but wasn't good enough for Billy Boy.
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Are you still hiring? :-)
I can't afford a sig!
Where the hell you think our job comes from?
Governments are good customers. They do Microsoft rich, but also do computer professionals make money. With open source, the money invested in our industry (software, for instance) will move towards other industries. Food, health, who knows? Isn't better keep it with us?
LET'S MAKE THE MONEY STAY IN OUR INDUSTRY!
LET'S VALUE OUR MARKET!
My dad is a cardiologist, so I'll have to ask IBM about mainframes. Oops! Want to tell me IBM is making a political statement?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
That would be fine and dandy if a Microsoft product was like a physical widget, but it's not.
Can you get support from Microsoft for MS-DOS? Windows 3.1? Win 95? If you want to buy 300 more licences for Windows NT, or for Word 97, can you get it? If you want Win98 but with that pesky security hole patched, can it be had for ANY price?
The Microsoft forced upgrade cycle means that the stuff "self-breaks" every few years ANYWAY. So which is worse - converting entire agencies to Windows Whatever from Win95, or converting the same agency from Win 95 to Linux?
You're going to have to do *A* conversion eventually; you might as well get onto the one that doesn't require you to pay licences and which can be upgraded or bugfixed piecemeal.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The decision of which software to use should not be made by legislators
The decision of which software to use is not being made by legislators.
The legislators are simply setting the rules under which software is acquired.
At present, the rules I just mentioned are stacked against a whole class of software which in some cases may offer better value.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
I thought us freedom-loving people want LESS govenrment, not MORE government. If OSS further inflates the size of government, as you suggest that it would, should that be regarded as a Good Thing (tm)?
I'm of the belief that individual freedom is inversely proportional to the size of government. We should be advocating things that decrease government and increase our freedom.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
I had no idea that Roger Daltrey had an opinion on the Open Source movement.
Even if it is in Word format, there are free readers readily available...if it's an issue of having to download that program, in order to read pdf files I have to download acrobat reader...
If you want open source to get the kind of money pork barreling gets, lobby your Congressman. Crikey, it is astounding how easy it can be to get your Congressperson to do something, as long as you get off your kiester and do it. Tell your Congressman that you, and list as many of your friends as possible in a petition, want open source used in government systems. Claim all the great reasons to use it, and make a production about it. If you want to impact a system you have access to, all it takes is effort.
There are many reasons the government hasn't switched. One of them being IT staffed trained as MCSE's and refusing to deal with anything else.
KIC
The fashionable thing to do is put their
faces on a deck of cards. Any photoshop
wizards up to it?
What the article *didn't* do was follow the money. I strolled over to and did a little research.
B 01 &cycle=2002
BSA doesn't seem to be a Big Dispenser of money...on the *other* hand:
2002 election cycle totals:
M$: GOP: $1,942,751 Dems: $0
By sector:
Computer Equipment & Services: $3,034,602
36% to Dems
64% to Repubs
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=
PACs total Dems GOP
Intel Corp $251,779 $59,500 $192,279
Microsoft Corp $743,201 $311,600 $431,601
(and, btw,
PayPal Inc $28,000 $2,000 $26,000)
Soft money:
Microsoft Corp $2,618,094 $800,343 $1,817,251
But I'm sure the [Ll]ibertarians here will tell us that the above noted free market solves everything.
mark
Your statement is silly on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. In the first place, most of the postings on /. do not contain much in the way of "information." In the case of posts which do contain information, who would be foolish enough to accept the veracity of such information because it was tagged with a consistent screen name? If I assert that the moon is made of green cheese, are you any more likely to accept this "fact" if I post as knobmaker? Anyone who would judge the worthiness of factual information based on the anonymity of the poster is an idiot. For that matter, anyone who accepts any stranger's word for anything important is an idiot.
But even sillier is your implication that the value of a given piece of writing rests on the identity of the writer rather than on the writing itself. There is, for example, some doubt as to who wrote Shapkespeare's body of work. Are the author's accomplishments in some way rendered less admirable because these works might not be authored by the man who bore the name? What about Beowulf? Or the Bible? Do you dismiss the value of these works because the authors are unknown? And sadly (given the quality of most /. posts) to post on /. is to commit an act of writing. If a given post engages my interest to some degree, I don't care who wrote it. (By the way, I disagree with you, but I admire the clarity of your prose.)
Finally, consider this: would my refutation of your opinion be any less effective if I posted it anonymously? No, of course not, because it contains only arguments and assertions so generally accepted or disbelieved that they are not in dispute.
Of course, fairness compels me to admit I usually read at +1, to avoid reading a lot of nonsense from trolls, but when I'm moderating, I read at -1, to counteract the bias of the system (and many moderators) against anonymous posting.
Yes, but who is drawing up the requirements in the first place? It seems to me it's usually one of the department heads I was referring to.
So like I was saying, the problem may not have much at all to do with some sort of mandate "from the top" that all military personnel use a Microsoft product (or any other vendor's product). In some (many?) cases, it just may be departmental politics at work.
And yes, people can (and do) manipulate requirements to effectively try to force the use of a favorite product - but that's not always successful. How many relevant features can you really come up with that are all only met by your "pet product" and not by any other vendor's alternatives?
I think the problem of old, outdated requirements being used long after they need review and revision is a bigger problem.
>Britian, France, Japan, Peru, China and Germany are all moving to Linux and open source.
What we know is that these countries are in an identical stage as the US is regarding using open source software in government agencies. Peru considered legislation last year to do this, but I've seen NO indication that the bill was passed.
>Hell, some are even writing up legislation that gives incentives to businesses that do so as well. Why aren't we (the United States)?
I would oppose offering incentives to businesses to use open source applications. I would oppose efforts by the government to mandate open source (as opposed to open documents) software. The government should use the best tool for the job, and not limit agencies to a specific tool based on lobbying efforts by companies or parties with a specific interest in the government's choice.
No, that's just the way you would portray anyone who considers software freedom a valid criteria for software selection. This is why you have accused me of making a political statement instead of considering technical matters. Software freedom is a technical matter much more than it is a political statement.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm still a student not a veteran, but plan on military service after college
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Really, Democrat Fritz Hollings strikes you as someone would support open source?
Finkployd
What stupid Slashfuck rated this comment down? It expresses a valid opinion, especially since many people are currently out of work.
Get your heads out of your asses people.
I agree with what you say, if you can take the extremism out of it
The use of ethically licensed open source code by government is a good thing. However, the use of so-called "open source" code which is licensed under unethical licenses (such as the GPL), and/or licenses whose purpose is to destroy businesses and/or deprive people of reasonable rewards for their work (an explicit goal of the GPL), is not appropriate for government. In short, government should insist on licensing such as that of Python, X, and the BSDs, and should shun viral, anti-business licenses such as the GPL.
The Boy Scouts are religious in a very non-specific way. Believing in God is about all that is required. Long ago I was in a troop sponsored by the local Catholic church, members were Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. The churches involvement was in fund rasing, pancake bnreakfast type stuff, and providing a room to meet and store equipment. I recall another kid at summer camp one year who today I would presume to be a Sikh. I'm not sure, the subject of religion never came up. We were all too busy being rowdy early-teenage boys turned loose with lots of fun equipment and very minimal adult supervision. I use "adult supervision" in a very very loose fashion. The rare adult that you would run across was a usually a college student earning a few bucks over summer break.