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

[Brian_Ellenberger]

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.

I thought that was the definition of government. :)

Seriously, the people of the US have a heck of alot of more important things to worry about than whether the Government chooses Linux vs. Microsoft. Do you think the CEO of General Electric gives a crap whether the OS of choice on Random Project X is Linux or Microsoft. Heck No!

Anyway, the money that would be saved by going from Microsoft to Linux is miniscule compared to the money spent on pork barrel projects by both sides of the isle. Unforunately, pork barrel projects are essentially politicans bribing their own people so they are hard to remove.

Brian Ellenberger

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

[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

[Malcontent]

And "only the druid" is your real name?

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.

This isn't necessarily bad

[jkauzlar]

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.

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".

Can't be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Gates and company are morally guilty of treason

[ShatteredDream]

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!

Re:Who opposes OS in .gov?

[Drakonite]

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.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean microsoft hasn't bought a substantial part of the government.

open source vs. secured source

[gfody]

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 $$$$$

Gates BSA connection

[thinkliberty]

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!

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?

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

[jc42]

We can praise the nations that throw caution to the wind and roll out Linux rapidly.

Funny thing: For the past year, I've been working for a little consulting company whose main contract is a big European conglomerate that's doing just that. Their management was getting more and more paranoid about the implications that their corporate data was under the control of a big American corporation. We're extracting all their data (with precious little help from that big American corporation, who know that they've lost the contract) and putting it into a flock of networked linux systems. And to do the the job, they hired an American company! But it makes sense, because our chief's main sales pitch has been to point out that we're building a system that they will control from the top to the bottom.

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".

One of the stories was of a big meeting at the big conglomerate's site. One of their managers brought up the subject of linux support. Our guy asked for a show of hands: How many ran linux at home. About 1/3 of the hands went up. He observed that they didn't need to hire any more linux expertise.

Linux is hardly an unknown. Anyone who says they'll have trouble finding linux expertise is simply shovelling a pile of BS. For that matter, finding BSD expertise is nearly as easy, especially now that OSX is getting rave reviews.

It makes sense to transition gradually. But it need not take many years. Especially when the inevitable happens and MS forces you to upgrade. Transitioning to linux then will be cheaper, and it won't take much more retraining. So you might as well do it, and get out from under the thumb of the American beast.

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.

It gets worse

[El Cubano]

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.

Re:It gets worse

[WindBourne]

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.
It gets tiring hearing this stuff.
Clinton's admin did not overtly or covertly approve of missile technlogy transfer (most of which was completed between 1990-1994; basically starting during Bushes era). These companies were tried and found guilty . To be honest, I suspect that this stuff is back happening again.
As to the low-end cray's, they did not even make top500.org. The question that should always be asked is, does a transer give an advantage to an enemy (or future advisory) that they will not be able to get elsewhere. If they can not get it elsewhere, then we should not sell it. If they can, then we should sell it and try to modify it so that we can use it in trying times. It is hard to embed keys or backdoors in a single (or couple of) chips or an OS (witness the NSA key in MS Windows). But in a large system that is outdated and easily beaten by Beowulf systems. To be honest, china was almost certainly not using these for computations, but most likely needed something from them (logic boards to copy,etc). By missdoing it slightly, we can then detect what they are up to.
I have no love for Clinton (but a much larger disdain for the current admin's theft of our rights), it is better to knock him for what was done wrong rather than come off sounding like Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh.

I don't care wether it is open or closed source

[xutopia]

It needs to be based on free, open and documented standards.

Re:Because of Change.

[ObviousGuy]

I will take a stupid and lazy government any day over a stupid and industrious one. Hell, I'd take a stupid and lazy government over a smart and industrious one.

Why?

[ObviousGuy]

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?

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

[mistered]

That's Preston Gates not Bill Gates.

On an unrelated note, Preston Gates' IIS seems to be slashdotted now. I was surprised to see that the BSA is using Apache on FreeBSD. It seems to be working fine, if a little slow.

Re: You hit on a key point, I think!

[King_TJ]

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.

Re:our interest?

[JJahn]

Linux is not secure. Yes it is inherently MORE secure than Windows, but the attitude of "I use Linux I don't have to worry about security" is an exceptionally dangerous one.

And for the record, there have been plenty of security holes in Linux and the many packages for it. The difference is they are usually fixed faster. Think sendmail or bind here. How many stupid bugs are in those?

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.

Re:Maybe its some other BSA...

[commodoresloat]

Professional what?

Extortionists.

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.

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.

Uh oh

[Jade E. 2]

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.

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

Re:our interest?

[Trolling4Dollars]

You're a fucking idiot.

It's been proven time and time again that open source software is more secure as long as it's properly managed and vigilantly kept up to date. On the other hand, the security by obscurity crowd continues to play the same, tired old message that proprietary systems are secure because people don't know about the exploits. Do you honestly think that the black hats are going to come out and say, "Umm... I found this really big gaping hole in Windows that allows me access to credit card DBs on a few major e-commerce sites. Just thought I'd tell you."? No! They're going to keep it to themselves until the damage has gone far beyond anything that open source would be vulnerable to. Not to mention the foot dragging that Microsoft tends to favor when it comes to releasing patches for security holes. Especially if it's going to mean that they are going to lose money. And THAT'S where the root of the problem is. As long as companies are in this for profit, the main focus is going to be making more money with as little expense as possible. This means ignoring security holes that haven't been made public. This means gnoring security holes in old versions of OSes and applications simply because they want to FORCE people to buy their new products. This means no longer providing updates (even if the security hole is glaring and widespread) if it will keep people from migrating to the new OS or application. I'd much rather see my government using OSS because it's safer, gets patched quickly and is FAR easier to manage than proprietary crap. Go astroturf elsewhere you Micro$oft goon. MS is losing this battle. It can't be won in any honest way.

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.

Politicians are largely irrelevant

[Shoten]

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.

Open source in the government is a good idea...

[cp5i6]

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.

Texas legislation was already dead

[ptbarnett]

This year, Oregon and Texas legislators introduced house and senate bills respectively supporting open-source software. Both legislative bills made their way to committee hearings, but the results differed significantly. Oregon's HB 2892 died. In Texas, SB 1579 found favor in the Committee and remains pending due to a walkout by approximately 50 members of the House.

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.

Who opposes open source in the government?

[TummyX]

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.

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...