CCAGW Misreads Mass. Policy, Open Standards Generally

mhrivnak writes "The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste made this press release blasting the Massachusetts policy decision to move to Open Source. They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,' how this policy is 'socialist' and why 'The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better.' The CCAGW has been previously informed about the benefits of open source software in government. Tell them what you think!" The CCAGW is at least not completely one-dimensional; the group is also opposed to mandatory embedded snoopware. Maybe they don't realize that conventional closed-source software has big costs worth avoiding.

Comments

"Monopoly" description slightly misleading

[mopslik]

The actual quote is:

"It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software."

So, while misguided, the CCAGW isn't exactly calling Linux a monopoly, but rather the government of Massachussets.

Re:Misread?

[orkysoft]

I think the state wants to only consider software that uses open data formats, whether the software is open source or closed source. The data formats must be open.

This means that no-one is excluded from competing for the software contracts, as long as their software uses open data formats.

It's not unfair, and it is indeed the least that the people deserve. Proprietary data formats will become very expensive in the future. The Slashdot-post example of this is the proverbial Word 95 document that is hard to import into a newer version of MS Word without loss of something. (Note: I haven't checked that myself, I just see it posted here over and over again.)

Re:Wanna hear a joke?

[aggieben]

"Linux is a monopoly"

Thanks CCAGW, I needed a good laugh.


It's clear that you didn't RTFA.

I would like to point out that the only time the word "monopoly" appears in the press release was in the following sentence:

It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software.

For the others of you who did not RTFA, I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself, but rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process. If they were excluding all competitors to the benefit of a for-profit corporation (Microsoft would be a good example), the criticism would be the same, and the process would be unethical at best, illegal at worst. Why is it suddenly alright to do the same thing with open-source vendors and projects?

Here's the sum-up of the press release for those of you who still refuse to RTFA:
Open-source software = good, admirable
state mandated zero-competition = bad, socialist

CAWG may have little to do with citizens

[louabill]

Y'all ought to check out how CAWG seems to applaud the death of any and all MS Antitrust work. In fact, it appears to be a group founded by the Reagan administration.

• He gets some ink in MS's freedom to innovate [sic] newsletter, complaining primarily that suing MS will hurt portfolios.
• Here, he is happy that West Virginia abandoned its anti-trust case.
• Or perhaps some testimony from Schatz claiming that the govt. should not be engaged in business (esp. businesses which compete with banks), because it is "unfair".
• Or here that "Budget Gridlock Doesn't Hurt Republicans". (Something which really has nothing to do with efficient government.)

• Sounds like a shill to me.

Re:Wanna hear a joke?

[laird]

"rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process"

I have to point out that requiring the government to purchase only open source software does not exclude _any_ vendors from the process. It may cause some vendors to decide that they don't want to satisfy the government's requirements. But if MS were to produce products that were open source, they could bid for a project along with IBM, HP and all of the other companies that can bid on delivering open source systems.

Re:Kinda makes you wonder...

[Brad Mace]

A quick search of their site paints them as extremely sympathetic to Microsoft. They advocated stopping litigation against Microsoft in the anti-trust hearings; the only concern they mention is that the legal battles costs the government money.

It turns out that the government actually spent several million dollars on this major case taking on one of the wealtiest corporations in the US! Who would've imagined such a thing!

CAGW also seems to believe that the entire notion of a microsoft monopoly is some sort of hoax

See also:

CAGW CHEERS MICROSOFT VERDICT

CAGW is PRO-Microsoft

[willpost]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/mai n531230.shtml
Dec. 3, 2002: West Virginia will join Massachusetts as the only states to continue the courtroom antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp., pressing a U.S. appeals court to reconsider tougher sanctions against the world's largest software company.

A pro-Microsoft group, the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste, quickly attacked West Virginia's decision as improper given that state's economic conditions. The group said the state faces a $200 million deficit and teachers have been warned they may not receive raises next year.

"The taxpayers of West Virginia have every right to question the attorney general's priorities," said the group's president, Tom Schatz. "What is Darrell McGraw thinking by using scarce tax dollars to pursue costly litigation? This appeal is unrealistic, imprudent and irrational."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/mai n531230.shtml
June 28, 2001: an appellate court's decision to overturn the order to split Microsoft in two

Citizens Against Government Waste, though, took a position much closer to Microsoft. "This decision marks a return to rational antitrust jurisprudence and is a victory for taxpayers, investors, and the entire information economy," CAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-269198.html

Conservative organizations will always choose industry self regulation over government regulation, even if it's a monopoly.