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.
If CAGW was paid off like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or if they are just a bunch of idiots generally speaking.
Since CAGW is allegedly concerned about federal dollars they'd probably REALLY shit to see my federal agency now switching over to open source (via Zope). And it's not just us, here's a whole list of federal agencies switching to CMSs powered by Open Source. CAGW better get ready with their FUD machine.
"The state's taxpayers deserve nothing less." -CAGW President Tom Schatz
Dear Mr. Schatz,
I agree 100%, but not in the way you may think
The site www.cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2
mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.
Trolling is a art,
If you are not from Mass. let me tell you a little about it. 75% is registered democrat yet we always elect republican governors. Why ? Who know or state house is 90% Dem as well.
The major problem we have here is patronage and not just at the state house level. Its not uncommon to see 3 or 4 generation all working at the same state job(for example the T(commuter rail)).
My guess is someones brother must be an MCSE and too dumb to learn anything new. There is a huge "right to work" sentiment here esp. if its paid for by tax dollars. Some times we go so far left here I have to lean right. We have a huge tax problem similar to California. I think its a little worse sometimes. (Excise tax anyone?)
But I would really like to see Free Software and Linux flourish here in Mass.(Birthplace of GNU).
It's all Politics
This is not excluding. Well yes it is. The same kind of excluding that happens when I say "Lets use Linux for our web site because it's better." Mass. made a decision, based on costs, and implemented it. Just like thousands of people do every day.
I read the CCAGW press release regarding Massachusetts' decision to move future expentidures to Open Source-licensed software. For a long time I have been generally in agreement with CCAGW's recommendations, but this has changed my views. There are a few, well, severe problems with the claims presented.
First, it is widely known in the industry that Open Source software can often provide a much lower total cost of ownership than proprietary software. The release quotes CCAGW president Tom Schatz claming the opposite. I find this rather bizarre, since Mr. Schatz is not an information systems analyst, nor does he have any training in information technology decisionmaking. He cites no field experts, nor data, nor even an anecdote, in making his claim that training and deployment costs outweigh acquisition savings.
Users only have to be trained once on a new system. Experience has shown that after training, they come to prefer Linux-based solutions due to the greater stability and security of the platform. End-users no longer need worry about viruses, and the operating system no longer crashes. This improves productivity and overall satisfaction with the technology.
Schatz reveals a fundamental ignorance of Open Source technology with a second claim: that Massachusetts is creating a "monopoly" through this mandate. Had CCAGW done even *five minutes* of research into Linux and Open Souce application software, it would have become unbelievably obvious that the Linux operating system is distributed by no less than six major organizations worldwide, and over a hundred smaller ones. Open Source application software is provided by -- literally -- thousands upon thousands of different, competing vendors.
Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, SuSE, and Gentoo are all under different ownership. Debian is a non-profit organization. I haven't even spoken of the myriad vendors of individual applications. Anyone who has read, say, the front page of http://www.linux.org would find the monopoly claim, well, laughable.
Finally, Open Source software offers critical functionality for government applications. The superior security record of Linux-based systems means a near-zero risk of data theft or security compromises when systems are properly deployed. In contrast to closed-source solutions, Open Source software can be subjected to a security audit with ease. When vulnerabilities are discovered, the Open Source development model generally makes a patch available in under 12 hours (in contrast to the usual 36-72 hours, or more, from proprietary vendors).
While Windows users scrambled during the initial attacks by the Blaster, Sobig, Welchia, and Swen worms (all just last month!), Linux users continued working, disturbed only by the excessive network traffic pumped out by their infected Windows colleagues.
If I were a resident of Massachusetts, I would hope that my personal information were protected by the security of a Linux platform, rather than the virus-ridden, exploit-perforated wasteland of Windows 2000.
Open Source offers a savings. But CCAGW already knows that: "The site cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD." (from netcraft.com)
Why not share CCAGW's own rationale in selecting Open Source solutions in another press release? It would help to persuade me, and others, that CCAGW hasn't been paid off by a proprietary software vendor.
CR