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)."

Comments

Initiative for Software Choice & CompTIA

[angst7]

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.

The world is changing

[mao che minh]

Politicians answer to the almighty dollar. Very few open source advocacy groups and/or companies can compete with Microsoft or UNIX vendors when it comes to lobbying. Therefore, the majority of politicians that even mention technology will often opt for closed source corporations, as they are paid handsomely to do so by closed-source interests.

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)?

Re:The world is changing

[SkArcher]

Why aren't we (the United States)?

You answered your own question. It is because your country has a corrupt and entrenched mass of politicians who have no incentive for doing what is good for the electorate because they don't need to do so to remain in power.

Re:The world is changing

[Anonymous Coward]

A bourgeois democracy is essentially just a tyranny of the rich.

Re:The world is changing

[retto]

I don't think European interest in Linux stems from a grand philosophical awakening, but from good-old-fashioned-nationalism. Why wouldn't a German politican want the money to go to SUSE instead of MS?

Re:The world is changing

[Guppy06]

Do you really think that European or Asian countries would still be moving to Linux if Microsoft was based in their country instead?

Re:The world is changing

[mao che minh]

We live in a global economy of corporations now. It is irrelevant in what country a corporation resides in. Microsoft exists everywhere, and offers their coin to any government that will listen. Hell, they (MS) offered both Britian and Germany a ton of bucks to stick with MS across the board.

It isn't a question nationalism, but rather a test of common sense.

Re:The world is changing

[Hatta]

It's not money that's important. Even if open source costed more than closed source (which it might in the short run, considering training costs) we must consider the other benefits free software provides. Remember, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Re:The world is changing

[anonymous loser]

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.

I suppose I need to ask why you think having more government jobs is somehow better than having more private industry jobs. BTW there are already people that do the tailoring you describe. Just because something isn't open source doesn't mean you can't tailor it to suit your needs. Look at the huge number of custom applications developed using excel, for example.

I'm certainly not against OSS; far from it. But, there are also cases where closed-source software can save just as much (or more) money, especially when talking about applications or systems which require a large amount of expertise to produce, and where there is plenty of competition in the market. This atmosphere leads to constant R&D and refinement of the product to the point where millions of dollars have been spent in order to keep the product competitive. Oftentimes the sticker price of such a product is more than justified by its overwhelmingly better usability, functionality, and performance. In a large organization, the number of man-hours saved using such an application over a less-efficient open-source alternative dwarfs the costs of acquisition. The only alternative is to constantly add the same funcionality, performance, and usability enhancements to the open-source version that the closed-source version offers. But, since your guys probably aren't experts in this domain, and there's not a lot of people writing open-source baking software, it is more expensive for you to develop this functionality than it is for ABC corporation. Plus, paying them means you have much fewer maintainence issues to worry about, like answering tech support questions, R&D for new features, etc.

Re:The world is changing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Microsoft isn't based here (in the US). It isn't based anywhere. It has campuses all over the world, and thefore doesn't have any real ties to a country. It is it's own entity. It doesn't pay taxes (because it's international). Microsoft just happens to have it's biggest user base here because it started here, in one of the largest US cities...Seattle (well, redmond actually but it's in the seattle area).

Re:The world is changing

[jc42]

...politicians that even mention technology will often opt for closed source corporations, as they are paid handsomely to do so ...

There's a common term for this: bribery

Open source saves the government money.

True but irrelevant. It doesn't save any money for the politicians who are making the decisions. Rather, it loses them their bribery income.

If you look back before the 2000 elections, you'll find a number of articles commenting on how Microsoft had suddenly increased its campaign contributions (to both parties) by several orders of magnitude. They were one of the biggest contributors. This is a very important part of the "Open Source in government" discussion.

(What, me cynical? ;-)

Re:The world is changing

[__aadhrk6380]

I think the bigger issue is the "underlying layer of bureaucracy" part mentioned in the article.

I do a ton of work at state government level as a consultant. I could plop an open source solution into one of my customers (35 remote site WAN, multiple servers, etc) and save them a ton of money. It won't happen any time soon, though.

Consider:

An elected politician relies on the "institutional knowledge" of career bureaucrats. Fred gets elected, and checks with his department heads Bob and Sharon. They have each been there twenty years, and "know" how things work. Suggestions for major change dismissed. People like these know how to do the least amount possible to appear accomodating and lessen change in their organizations at the same time.

Even if you, as an elected official, want reform, maybe you put trusted people into key posts to oversee this. They STILL have to deal with Bob and Sharon, who have the key input into decisions. Face it, Bob and Sharon were there before you showed up, and they will be there LONG after you are gone. You lose again.

The inertia is incredible.

Oddly, with the additional spending and budget requirements incurred after 9/11, I am seeing more flexibility in considering alternatives. But it is still an uphill battle.

The worst part is the fact that the biggest savings would come from the desktop. However, at that point, you aren't just dealing with Bob and Sharon, but the 700 people that work for them. 700 people that have been there an average of 7 years each. That KNOW how to do what they NEED to do, but nothing else on a computer.

Try retraining THEM as a cost saving measure.

It has nothing, IMO, to do with the politics of the party in office, but it has everything to do with the politics of the people who do government for a living. Win THEM, and you have the key.

Re:The world is changing

[The Only Druid]

"Yeah, cause the government really was going to track him down and send him to a camp in siberia."

The reprisal I was speaking of is the same one you fear: people responding to you personally and holding you personally accountable for your words. People like you [both online and in the real world] who are afraid to be known as the source of their own speech are the abusers of free speech. They cripple the worth of it, making a mockery of those who have honest things to fear for their speech.

If you're a woman in Egypt or Iran, and you're speaking out against sexism, then you need anonymity, or you may be scalded with acid, assaulted otherwise or murdered. If you're some petulant brat who wants to make some false-pithy comment about the degradation of American society, then the only purpose in your Anonymity is that which Slashdot already makes clear: that you are a coward.

Stand up for your words and be an adult, or shut the fuck up and sit down at the kiddy table.

Re:The world is changing

[cyril3]

Socialism is tyranny of the poor.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority

Capitalism is tyranny of money.

It sort of loses meaning after a while, this tyranny thing. To write off western civilization since the French Revolution as a tyranny of the rich is a bit short sighted.

Re:The world is changing

[bursch-X]

I have to agree. At least that's the impression a German living in Tokyo is getting. Your freedom of speech is flawed in many ways.

If in Germany anyone would call any kind of action or behaviour "Un-German" he/she'd be put in the Nazi corner (probably smacked right in the face) and no one would take them seriously (except maybe for the gang with the nicely shaved heads, and no, I don't mean Buddhist monks ;^)

Whereas you can easily make utterances in the US, such as calling certain things "Un-American" without making a complete arse out of you (well you still ARE making a complete arse out of you, but the people around you often won't object).

Re:The world is changing

[FreeUser]

If you're a woman in Egypt or Iran, and you're speaking out against sexism, then you need anonymity, or you may be scalded with acid, assaulted otherwise or murdered.

I agree with your point, but have a minor nit to pick with one of your examples.

Actually, women in Iran have it comparatively good, for an islamic state anyway. Iranian femenists have managed to make compelling religious arguments based on the Koran that demands, if not full equality, at least a very fair and kind treatment, where fair in many cases not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Koran amounts to equality before the law. By western standardsn it is still quite lacking, but women are surprisingly far better off in fundamentalist Iran than they are in most of the rest of the islamic world.

OTOH our good friends in Saudi Arabia are the worst offendors. You should read the book "Princess" sometime for a real insite into the dirty secrets of Saudi culture and its treatment of women. Women drowned in the family swimming pool (in front of a family gathering) for sexual misconduct, women stoned to death for having been the victim of a gang rape in her own home after the "gang" united behind a story accusing her of being provactive and her own brother was too cowardly to come forward and tell her parents what really happened. Women locked up in a padded cell, with no light, no converstation, and food slid through a slat in the door, for the rest of their natural lives. The latter is so common they actually have a word for such an appalling facility: "The Women's Room." Women murdered by their families for driving a car in protest of restrictive laws at a time when women from Kuwait were doing so in droves (1991 Gulf War), and this list goes on, ad nauseum.

The damn book should be required reading. The behavior of these cultures is appalling, and our political correctness in trying to whitewash this stuff isn't helpful to anyone. And we in America have supported this disgusting system for over half a century (the American people unwittingly, the American leadership, including the Bush family, quite knowingly), while making enemies of many of the reformers.

Stand up for your words and be an adult, or shut the fuck up and sit down at the kiddy table.

I disagree with this to some degree. Anonymous speech has its place and is important, even here on slashdot. More than once I've read a telling post about an employer posted anonymously to protect the identity of the whistle blower. We would have been poorer for it had the post not been made, or been made non-anonymously resulting in the person losing their job or insider status. However, you are right to decry the abuse of anonymouty, where cowardly children say inane things without having to stand by their words, and I share your irritation with such imbecels.

Let them jabber away, but, as you say, seat them firmly at the kiddy table.

Re:The world is changing

[TFloore]

we must consider the other benefits free software provides. Remember, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Look at what the federal government has been doing since Bush got elected in 2000. You seem to be operating under the incorrect assumption that the Bush administration cares about freedom of speech.

Actually, I don't think the Bush admin really cares either way about freedom of speech, but from his actions, I'd say Ashcroft finds this whole 1st/4st/5th amendment stuff really annoying, and would be happier without them.

Yes, I'm aware this discussion has been primarily centered on state and local government, not federal government, but you have to look at what priorities are for the people in charge. And once you start assuming corrupt politicians are running the game, you have to toss out the notion that they support freedom of speech and other nice things like that.

Re:The world is changing

[The Only Druid]

Two points:

You mention that Arab/Persian (redunant) traditions and gender roles might differ enough from the West that they think we have problems. This is called "cultural reletavism", and refers to the believe that cultures cannot be comparatively judged as "right" or "wrong" against one another. It was the common philosophical perspective of anthropologists/sociologists throughout the 70s and 80s, but fell out of popularity in the 90s (with the advent of social postmodern theory in anthropology.

It fell out of popularity because you can also state (using the same argument) that we shouldn't judge Hitler since Nazi race roles were such that they thought we were insane to not kill our Jews, Gypsies and Dissidents. Alternately, you couldn't judge the Hutus for slaughtering the Tutsis in Rwanda for the same reason.

Frankly, I'm sorry if I sound bigotted in some way, but I have nothing but disdain for any culture that includes as a core precept the idea that women are inferior or naturally subservient to men (or vice versa), just as I would disdain a culture that had similar beliefs about race or age.

Re:The world is changing

[Grizzlysmit]

In short we can't bribe them like the companies can, but we can: "not vote for them" and in the end they find that hurts more if enough people do it.

As a guess...

[Black Parrot]

> 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".

Example of Government at its worst....

[Brian_Ellenberger]

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.

Re:Wrong Gates, numbskull! :)

[Surak]

Yep. None other than Bill Gates' daddy is one of the founders of PG&E (the law firm, not the utility ;).

Is anyone surprised by this?

More important thatn OSS in .gov ...

[i.r.id10t]

... 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?

probably just restating whats already been said...

[hobobeaver]

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.

Changing software is a Big Deal

[AvantLegion]

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)?

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".

Re:Changing software is a Big Deal

[73939133]

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.

Can't be worse than the amount of effort, blood, sweat, and tears involved in upgrading from one Microsoft OS or Office version to the next.

The old adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is "broke": Windows is hugely expensive, hard to administer, and unreliable. And on top of all that, its adoption by government agencies often forces regular citizens to buy it, too, whether they want to or not.

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".

Organizations that migrate don't just have their IT staff wake up and say "oh, I think we'll install Linux today, how about that?". They do extensive testing, talk to other users, check reports and bug lists, etc. In different words, with the copious support and widespread adoption of Linux, after spending a few months getting to know Linux and planning for a migration, an IT manager should have enough information to determine what the risks and benefits are. If not, he is in the wrong job.

Re:Changing software is a Big Deal

[Tony-A]

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.

There was a lot of effort, blood, sweat, and tears going from Second Generation mainframes (think 64k should be enough for anybody) to Third Generation mainframes (think MVS without the M and without the V).

One thing to realize is that the problems to be solved get trimmed and shifted based on our abilities. With a different technology that optimum point moves. A minimum cost attempt at doing exactly what you were doing before generally leads to dissatisfaction and cost overruns. Reevaluating and taking advantage of the new technology causes a few losses, but they weren't worth that much anyway. Overall it's a substantial gain.

Methinks the problem isn't whether to jump ship, it's when and how. Is Linux ready for the desktop doesn't refer to yesterday's desktops, it refers to tomorrows desktops.

somehow manage to make their computers crunch numbers and store data on Windows machines.
Wow. Whoopie. Surely we can do better than that!

Re:Changing software is a Big Deal

[AvantLegion]

Typical cookie-cutter answer. To compare a Linux rollout with updating MS Office exhibits a bad lack of perspective.

Sure, Windows is expensive. It may indeed be hard to administer and unreliable. But get this: they're managing to use it! A certain degree of fault tolerance exists within any system, and clearly Windows does not fail often enough to make a change necessary. Perhaps one might be desirable due to potential benefits, but it is not necessary because the work *is* getting done.

after spending a few months getting to know Linux and planning for a migration, an IT manager should have enough information to determine what the risks and benefits are. If not, he is in the wrong job.

Of course. There's no way the government is *choosing* Windows - it's only the lack of investigation of Linux that's to blame.

Re:Changing software is a Big Deal

[73939133]

But get this: they're managing to use it! A certain degree of fault tolerance exists within any system, and clearly Windows does not fail often enough to make a change necessary. Perhaps one might be desirable due to potential benefits, but it is not necessary because the work *is* getting done.

Sure, it is "necessary": money spent unneccessarily on one thing is not available for spending on other things.

It may not be "necessary" to overthrow a dictatorship, and it may be easier in the short term not to, but in the long term, it's a good idea, and it's a good idea to do so as soon as possible.

in our interests (as taxpayers)?

[NotQuiteReal]

This is not flame bait!

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.)

Re:in our interests (as taxpayers)?

[dbrown]

Just for the record, I also work professionally with computers. I make shrink-wrapped software for a living.

This is not about politics. This is about ensuring that tax payer money is used as efficiently as possible by requiring that all options have been evaluated. Legislation like this does not force a particular choice. It merely forces that all options have been considered before making a decision.

Commercial software has marketing, sales teams, and slews of paid people backing it up. Open source software has none of this (outside of your local OSS zealot). Open source is often very viable for many situations, but it goes unnoticed because it has no marketing or sales teams. In my mind, legislation like this levels the playing field. It at least gives open source a chance of being noticed.

I don't agree that software costs are "in the noise". This is definitely not the case for public schools. A school district can easily have 1000+ computers. If one piece of software costs $50 per seat, thats nearly two teacher salaries just for that single piece of software. Imagine the cost savings between a full installation of MS Office vs OpenOffice for a school system.

I fully support legislation like this. I don't want my tax money going to a commercial software company just because their sales boy is charismatic. As a tax payer I want the most for my money.

Legislators shouldn't be deciding this... period.

[SirTwitchALot]

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.

Open source should be mandated.

[Hatta]

They asserted "no law exists to prevent the state from acquiring open-source software now" and no law is needed to enable them to do so.

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.

Re:Welcome to the wonders of "democracy"

[gfody]

word.

I think the answer is to provide a dummy option on all ballots designed such that people that don't know better would be more likely to pick it.

take the slashdot polls for example:
"Whats your favorite breakfeast?"
a) cold pizza
b) cold cereal
c) cowboy neil's underpants

lots of people dont understand what cold pizza or cold cereal even are and would rather vote cowboy neil's underpants as their favorite breakfeast because they think its funny.

when using the results to determine which infact is the most popular breakfeast cowboy neil's underpants is discarded and the stupid-vote eliminated.

Re:I know!

[cranos]

No Microsoft has been built on the strength of its Marketing. Its products are derivative, poorly coded and at best can be said to be vaguely user friendly.

Please do not confuse good marketing with product quality.

as taxpayers!?

[SHEENmaster]

Gates and Microsoft have more influence than I do because they pay/round_up more taxes than I do.

Re:as taxpayers!?

[stoborrobots]

Occassionally american stupidity shows through...

The US is BOTH a republic (because Dubya is an American), and a democracy (because the head of state is elected by the people, loosely speaking)

Don't be confused by the fact that your political parties are the Republicans and the Democrats...

Re:as taxpayers!?

[zero_offset]

Occassionally american stupidity shows through...

The US is BOTH a republic (because Dubya is an American), and a democracy (because the head of state is elected by the people, loosely speaking)

American stupidity, indeed.

The US is a representative republic. This means the government operates through the decisions made by elected individuals who are expected to represent the interests of the citizenry. It does not make any statement about how those representatives are elected.

The US is not a democracy. In a democracy, the "will of the people" outweighs the rights of any individual, and that is not how our government operates (not yet, anyway). Since you said "loosely speaking", I assume you're aware that our President is chosen by the Electoral College, and is absolutely not elected by the people, so you are apparently aware that we are not a democracy. The obvious example is John Quincy Adams being chosen as President in spite of Andrew Jackson having won the popular vote (notwithstanding conspiracy theories and messy facts about whether "the popular vote" even existed prior to Jackson rasing hell about it).

Level playing field? Why?

[73939133]

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.

Re:Open Source software is useless

[commodoresloat]

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.

If everyone would simply get on the same page and interpret FREEDOM the way I tell you to, then advocacy of freedom will be so much more effective.

Re:our interest?

[glenebob]

"...it's a security risk beyond measure if people could see the source..."

When will people realize that truly secure software is not compromised in the least when people see the code? In other words, if seeing the source gives a hacker a leg up, that code is either buggy or poorly designed. Period. It's that simple.

Is Linux perfect? No. Is any reasonably complex software perfect? No. But open source does at least as much to help the people trying to secure the code as it does for the people trying to break it.

On a separate note, the government is the last place I want to see closed-source software used. I feel that as a citizen of a democracy, I have the inherent right to see what's being done and how.

You swollowed that hook line and sinker.

[twitter]

I believe the opponents to the open-source bills were mostly afraid to favor open-source; they weren't against it.

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.

Re:Open Source software is useless

[Feztaa]

What you don't seem to realize is that before the OSI came around, nobody took Free Software seriously. RMS may be a great coder, but he's an awful advocate for his own stuff.

ESR took that same Free Software, slapped the name "Open Source" on it, and started marketing it. If it weren't for that, so called "Free/Open Source Software" wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent as it currently is.

It's simple, really. RMS appeals to your idealism, and not many businessmen/politicians are idealistic, so they don't buy into it. ESR advertises the advantages and the reduced costs, which is what people are really interested in.

In short, shut up and show them the code.

Re:Why is Gates being in bed with BSA a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably just paying someone who knows what they're doing to host it.

ah, you are confused.

[twitter]

The Chinese have the source code to Windows. Their having the source code to our most popular OS is a national security risk. In response to this we should move everything to open-source... Hey....are you working for the Chinese?!

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.

Why is someone called 'Software Choice' against OS

[GrimReality]

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):

... 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.

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'???

1. Wasn't it Microsoft that has been trying to lock everyone into a specific platform (win32-x86)?
2. Isn't it Microsoft that insists on breaking every standards and RFCs to gain 'platform lock-in' and other benefits --or simply because they didn't care.

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

Governments are customers too!

[Anonymous Coward]

ACT has a particular proble with it's stance against such open-source laws (emphasis added):

ACT says it prefers market-driven solutions over regulated ones, so it targets any attempt at government involvement. ACT holds an opposition to any law that would favor any software, regardless of the reasons.

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!

bullshit, in so many ways.

[twitter]

The decision of which software to use should not be made by legislators, it should be made by people experienced with the technology.

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.

Re:Welcome to the wonders of "democracy"

[sevensharpnine]

I think that he did mention that not only military, but also peace/ameri-corps could vote also. Personally I would extend it so that anyone with a Bachelors degree from an accredited institution could vote.

So we've established two points: the parent poster wants the country run by "veterans" of the military or peace/ameri-corps , and you now want to add anyone with an accredited degree. To go out on a limb here, I'd venture that the parent has served in either the peace or ameri-corps, and you have a degree. Luckily, you two just happen to be in the proposed ruling class.

Anyone who proposes the ruling class should be made out of people just like them isn't fit to rule. In fact, your narrow vision of how a country should be run makes me suspect your own abilities to decide any political matter. When you grow up, you just might realize the system is built as it is largely to protect the general populace from narrow-minded egoists like yourselves.

Free thinkers?

[Transcendent]

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...

Re:Free thinkers?

[Transcendent]

So you're arguing for "security through obscurity?" Get real.

Where did you get that from? Please understand arguments before you comment on them.

Take the nice and sturdy security of a Unix platform, modify it heavily to your own custom needs, and KEEP THE SOURCE CLOSED and don't allow anyone not from the government (and of course the creators of the code) to access it. Just have a team of testers from the company that wrote the code working on finding vulnerabilities.

What do you get? Something a lot more secure than letting everyone look for buffer overflows throughout your code...

People find plenty of exploits and vunerabilities for Windows and commercial Unix, without the source code, now don't they?

...and they don't find any in OSS?! Wow...

The benefit of OSS and Free Software, is that the exploits and vunerabilities tend to get fixed MUCH faster, than they would for commercial operating systems.

We're not talking about commercial operating systems here... did you not notice? This is for the Government. I'm sure as hell that any bug found in software written by a company contracted by the government would be fixed before they could even understand how the hell to pull the exploit off.

Who Opposes? I Do.

[istartedi]

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.

Re:our interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's nothing fundamental about Linux that makes it "inherently" secure.

What about the massive number of interconnections and interdependencies in Windows. Your obdc data connection depends on an outlook dll, which interacts with a IIS dll, which depends on explorer, which interacts with a printer driver for folder thumbnail views, which interacts with... It all adds up to your application running on a system that you cannot test or even recreate.

The Windows model is inherently less secure. Nice integration, performance, and backward compatability come with a price in correctness (stability and security).

Agreed that both systems are subject to the same programming errors (buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilites, misplaced rpc trust, command escapes from applications, etc.), and Unix has a very bad history with system apps that have been debugged into existance, but a Unix system is simpler and more error resistant than a Windows system to perform an equivalent task.

that's a simplistic reply

[martin-boundary]

Nobody is suggesting that the government build its tools from scratch. His point is that any software used by the government must follow minimum standards of accessibility. This is true for buildings, by the way. A government agency can't simply hire space in any old building, it has to be accessible to people with disabilities, so for example you need a wheelchair ramp in case there are stairs.

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.

Government jobs are local

[GerardM]

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

Re:w00t [1-UP]

[Drakonite]

No wonder there is confusion about this. Aparently, given M$'s slap on the rist, a monolopy is bigger than a govenrment.

Yes, especially when the monopoly has more money and more employees than a large number of governments around the world do.

Re:Who opposes open source in the government?

[Cackmobile]

You fool. Its the Stonecutters!!!!

Microsoft Intentionally "breaks" their products!

[DG]

"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