Slashdot Mirror
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.
Who misread what?
You do realize that people can disagree with your pro-linux attitudes, and many do, and for good reason.
From the release.
"Governor Mitt Romney must put a stop to this boondoggle," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing. It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost."
I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Umm, no, government waste is when you make policies that impede the ability to use the best and cheapest tool for a certain task, and wind up having to pay someone to reinvent the wheel for you.
Government using linux, good. Government forcing the use of linux and ignoring sound procurement procedures, bad.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
How many companies can provide the Windows set of "solutions": 1.
How many companies can provide OSS solutions: many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Talk about misunderstanding (in purpose?) the meaning of the word monopoly.
Honestly, what are those people smoking? WHo are they supporters? Who advises them in IT matters? And in anticompetitive legal matters?
Can somebody send them one or two of the many fully documented cases (Amazon, Munich) in which Linux based offerings were cheaper than closed source based ones?
Please, can somebody educate them in case the barbarities they are saying come out of ignorance and not of knowing misrepresentation?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The description in slashdot may be misleading, but the way it was used by CCAGW is even more wrong. I mean wrong in the plain semantic sence.
Monopoly on software means that only a single person/organization may produce software and has nothing to do with who buys what.
The state of massachusets is not creating a monopoly on software because they are not decreeing that only a single person/organization may produce software.
I think in this case the CCAGW is much more misleading, than the slashdot story.
I don't know about anybody else, but whenever I come across some "organization" with a pretentiously-honorable-sounding yet ambiguous name, my bullshit detector starts ringing. Organizations like Council Against Government Waste, Freedom Foundation, American Heritage Institute, Alliance for Good Government, etc., are usually fueled and funded by some polarized corporate interest.
Why do americans *seem* to fear a socialist government?
They probably don't know what it means anyway. clueless.
They seem to think socialism == communism.
Which is wrong.
They can insist on minimal quality standards. The product must load, for example. It ought not lose all the user's data in the course of operation. It would be nice if it didn't cause cancer. That sort of thing.
They can insist on interoperability, open protocols and document formats, etc. The Mass policy is just shorthand for that.
If MS wants to submit a linux distro, they'd qualify. But any purchaser can reasonably set standards that effectively exclude Windows and Office, just by insisting on products with the above features.
There are sound reasons for insisting on open products. Vendor lock-in is expensive. They *always* extract monopoly rent. IBM did when they could, MS has been doing so for at least 15 years.
There's the monoculture argument - mass worms. Linux on the desktop, with one of the friendlier distros, is not noticibly harder to use. It is somewhat *different* to use, but not by as much as the difference between win95 and winxp. The same amount of investment in training will yeild the same proficiency, and lower costs because the stuff is not as nightmarish.
I work at an understaffed IT dept. in an underfunded institution. I have spent the last couple of weeks fighting the nachi worm. Don't even try to tell me windows TCO is lower.
The truly hilarious thing is that they are running Apache for a web server. |Makes me think they have no idea what open source really is.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Seriously, if people have lucid, convincing cases to make about why a mandatory switch to open-source applications will save taxpayer money, go win them over!
Saving money is not the only measure of a good solution. Mass., like many states has found its self in a position where it is so locked into propriatary software and formats that even while suing MS for antitrust violations they continue (at least in the short run) purchasing products and services from that same company. If that isn't a sign that being locked into a single vendor is dangerous then I don't know what is. What if next time there MS license is up for renewal MS puts in a clause that stipulates that Mass. will drop it's Antitrust suit or MS will pull their licenses for everything? Remember these antitrust cases are civil matters so they COULD do it without breaking any criminal laws. Could Mass really do anything but give in if this were to happen today?
If GPL'ed software gets a monopoly, then it's a monopoly of a sort wholly new to the world: a monopoly where no single group has total control over it, and nobody can take exclusive possession of it.
Um, that's not called monopoly. It's called liberation.
For the record. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music