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,
Socialism is just a red herring. ...or maybe that's Communism.
:-)
Oh crap, now I'm confusing Clue quotes... heh
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
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.
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!!!!
I didn't know you could have a state-imposed monopoly on free stuff. I wonder who funds this group...
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.
Do we have to have the Soviet Russia jokes in the articles as well now?
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
I find it funny, or at least scary, that right in the US, some people are equating something "free" with "communism". Someone should explain this one to the founding fathers of the US. Also, can someone please explain to me what boondoggle is?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
"Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive"
Yeah - good thing they didn't have to FIRST pay for the software, and THEN have to pay to upgrade and maintain it. Sheesh. Microsoft would never make you do that...
My sig left me for a younger user id.
I'm just curious; I'm not very political in the head. But it makes me wonder, honestly, about politics when I read things such as this. Who, exactly, informs people in power of technical details? Is there a department that specializes in informing people in power of the What's-What of computers? Do they just listen to anyone who wants to yammer at them and assume they're telling the truth? The big question I'm getting at is: Who tells the Governor about the difference between Windows/Linux/Mac/Solaris/etc, in terms of price/impact/uses/etc?
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.
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
If you read the article, they aren't saying "Linux is a monopoly." They're saying that the state of Massachusetts would be in effect responsible for creating a monopoly, insofar as it would be restricted to a single "vendor."
This view is a little simplistic, of course -- obviously, lots and lots of people make free/open source software. But I do think it has some merit.
Suppose the gov't mandated open source software, then discovered that none of the open source database software available to them could meet the standards of their applications? Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
Also, what if MS SQL Server is just the best tool for the job at hand? It's pretty darn fast. You may prefer another product yourself, but that doesn't mean there's anything really "wrong" with MS SQL. It's a totally viable contender. So why tell government organizations that they CAN NOT use it?
In fact, I'm extremely leery of the idea that the government should be allowed to single out a particular business/vendor and say "we will not consider this alternative," while considering all the others. If it's permitted to do that, what criteria should the company meet before it can be excluded? (Obligatory paranoid example: Suppose it was because the CEO was gay?)
The support issue is pretty relevant, too. This brings back the hoary old question, "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" And we're talking dollar values now. If it turns out that your average Joe Shmoe with a government job can't figure out AbiWord as easily as Microsoft Word, then what will be the cost of training those employees to use the new software?
What will be the cost to convert existing documents to file formats that the new software can support?
What will be the cost of supporting the new software, versus supporting the old? Shouldn't the people of Massachusetts be shown some figures before a decision is made?
Who's to say some support contractor won't come along and charge the government an arm and a leg for "advanced Unix experience," compared to what they'd pay to support Windows? I mean, it is the government, right? When did a contractor ever fleece the government?
I'm not trying to say that any of this proves that switching to open source is a bad idea for Massachusetts. But I do think that, if what this organization is saying is that the taxpayers should be asking questions and demanding answers, then I'd kinda tend to agree.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
Slashbotters dont realize there's more in the IT world than just linux and windows. This law shuts out macs, commercial unixes, various mainframe OS's, embedded softwares, etc, etc...
This law may as well say all public employees must wear birkenstocks and all cops drive electric golf carts to help save the whales. Use the most appropriate tools for the job.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'll leave you to ponder this for a while....
On the topic at hand: Linux is a monopoly"???
A bit of research (Although, they're running linux, so it may be a conspiracy) :
monopoly:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
3. b. A commodity or service so controlled.
3. c. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
3. d. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
1. Maybe if SCO get's their way...
2. Maybe if Microsoft have their way...
3. Err, see above...
While I don't use Linux at present (although I have experimented with it on both x86 and PPC hardware) I favour OS X. Of Windows, OS X, and Linux, the three OS's are different in so many ways due to creation and control factors of all aspects of the product. A very small amount of research will highlight these differences, and who does exert control of development and code. When I read something like this and imagine the time and effort (and maybe cash, who knows) put into and this comes out, it really makes me wonder does sanity prevail: does the majority rule, or are all the idiots just on the same side?
The Mothership
"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
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
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.
Really? Did they say Microsoft was not allowed to bid on providing open-source software?
It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost.
Their other point is correct as well:
Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software.
While it's good to ALLOW or to PROMOTE open-source, I do not belive in the adoption of open-source by force. It's when we force people to do things that we run in to trouble. I believe in free-enterprise, the system that our nation is founded on. Massachusetts has in fact reverted to a state-sponsored monopoly on software. However, since it's LINUX, everyone on Slashdot seems to think it's ok. Why not just enact a law like Oregon, where they force the CONSIDERATION of linux. Thus, if Windoze happens to work better for a specific application, use it. If Linux or Novell or Irix work better, use them. That's true innovation and free-enterprise.
On the other hand, the article asserts that:
Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
Without giving any reference to studies or data. This is evidence that the article is in part an OPINION piece and thus the entire article should be taken(read) with a grain of salt, so to speak.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
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.
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.
Sounds like a shill to me.
Seriously, the only reference I can find on Google is another rant against it.
I'm inclined to believe that the press release is misrepresenting the facts. In fact, the other press release that I found here [www.softwarechoice.org] says that it will be "an effor requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linus software/platforms if possible." This seems a little different that requiring that all systems be open source, which seemed to be implied by the CCAGW press release.
I found this[www.miami.com], which gives a very little bit more information, talking about "open standards".
andy
Life is life . . . everything else is just a stupid T-shirt slogan.
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.
I think the support issue is not relevent. Each mandated upgrade to windows+N costs about as much in training as moving to a recent, friendly distro. The long term costs of vendor lock-in are enormous. When you hear them touting a subscription, and claiming that customers were clamoring to pay more, and more often, you have to realize it's time to go cold turkey. Maybe MS SQL is better than any other MS product, (and I find IIS, Windows, and Exchange to be abominations) but what are the licensing restrictions and costs? Don't forget to count staff time for fighting worms. They exist in the *nix world, too, but nowhere near the numbers. MS worms are wildly out of proportion to market share.
So, sure, the taxpayers should ask the questions. But the answer is, "This is a reasonable policy that will pay dividends for as long as state government uses computers."
By the very nature of software any auditing would have to fall under benchmarking or testing of the software for flaws or performance failures. Since many NDA's prevent releasing poor performance results while also preventing the release of source code, the auditors will not agree to the NDA.
What is to prevent a proprietary software company from including "features" which allow ease of access to classified government information to any hacker but not to the people who are being governed? Government should be transparent to its citizens not to its companies.
The only safe choice is OSS, preferably from a university that is funded to develop OSS for government use.
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
"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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I might just use RHN or Red Carpet, or one of many others to patch and upgrade a few hundred Linux boxes in 10 minutes.
But that's just me.
Feh.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
I seriously doubt they have any sort of real "citizen" support. They are probably getting spill-over from all the corporate money that can't go where it used to because of McCain-Feingold.
Here is the email I sent to them: (you should send one, too. Let these folks know you are on to them)
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/mai n531230.shtml
i 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/ma
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.
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
As a former Contracts Administrator for a computer manufacturer that specialized in the government and educational sectors, I can state from experience that Open Bidding in the (US) government is a joke.
..."
Often, the specs will be written in such a way that only one company can fill them. The specs are written by the reps for the company and then given to the IT guys at the Bureau of Whatever. ("Hey Joe. This will fit your needs perfectly. Just insist on these specs in your RFP.")
Multiple Award Schedule contracts like GSA contracts are just as big a joke. If you sell commodity products, like washers, nails, or computers, then there are 500 other companies that have a GSA contract to sell the exact same thing. Who do the buyers buy from? In the computer hardware scene- The usual suspects: Dell, IBM, HP (Or, its bought from the company that has the rep that actually wrote the RFP. Depends on particular product)
Low cost doesn't matter. They go with what they see in the Gvt Buyer trade rags. Government buyers LIVE by the axiom "Never ever got fired for buying
Another point:
These people that are in charge of buying 5000 desktop computers for the Dept of Whatever are also the same people that are in charge of buying 500000 rolls of TP every 6 months.
I guarantee they are more concerned about their own ass, than they are about the computer that the peon on the frontline is using.
----
Okay. Personal plug time.
Now that I've said my piece, and probably killed any chance for a career in my preferred field... let me back up and say that Contracts Admin was a GREAT job. I liked doing it. And, I would like to do it again. I can fix your problems, whether you are business-to-government or government-to-business.
Hire me.
(Go to my journal and say something. I'll see it)
While their efforts are a bit misguided, they do have a point. Leaving out any exception allowing commercial software to be used is downright silly, and it could not only hurt developers of custom solutions, but the users in government of said solutions, who would have to take dramatic steps to ensure they could do their jobs!
I do take issue at the silliness of their TCO arguement though -- any software will require retraining, even, in some instances, updates between versions (For instance, the last place I worked has spent good sums of money on training for techs trying to upgrade their aging Windows NT 4.0 servers to a Windows 2000 ActiveDirectory platform, and the entire staff was retrained to some degree when we upgraded from NT4 to Windows 2000), and the fact that software does, even in their worst-case theoretical model, constitute 5-10% of the total cost, make it a loss leader even before you factor in the lowered costs due to reduced virus proliferation.
It's been a long time.
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
Maybe you ought to RTFA again. It appears that you missed this line: "Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software." This statement, incidentally, is a flat out lie, and is NOT backed by any reputable studies. I, offhand, question their motives for printing this.
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?
I think there's a big difference there. Mandating Open Source software or standards would not be explicitly excluding any competitors. It would only be excluding the closed-source philosophy, which, especially in the context of public affairs, is certainly a worthy cause. Being a taxpayer, I don't want my taxes being used to make some person or company richer without seeing any public benefits myself. That is what using proprietary software does. On the other hand, if a government funds or contracts Open Source development and procurement, this not only meets its own needs, but also increases the public wealth of information. Using Open Source software not only saves money but produces a better public good for the taxdollars spent.
Here's an analogy: Say a government wants to contract some scientific or medical research to help better the life of it's citizens. Would it be wrong to insist that results of that research would be freely available to the scientific community and thereby the taxpayers who paid to have that research done? That's not socialism, it's simple ethics. The technologically advanced world we live in today was made possible by the high efficiency of "Open Science" if you will--the sharing of discovery so that all may benefit. Would anyone today complain of anti-competitive practice if a government excluded from research grants those who refused to use the scientific method or properly document their findings?
As a sidenote, our nation was founded with the principle that a flourishing "public domain" of art, invention, and information was something to be desired. That's why copyrights and patents were only allowed for a very short time and were only considered as a compromise to help meet a greater goal.
Oddly enough, Microsoft DOES provide its source code(the shared source thing), just under unfavorable enough terms they might not qualify for bidding in Massachusetts.
Is that a bad thing? Does a government dictating the conditions of a particular set of bids by suppliers new in any way? No, in this case, open source falls under the same criteria as many other bids: inspectability of supplied goods. How is that bad in any way?
Here's the email I just wrote and sent:
To whom it may concern:
I recently read this article (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news _NewsRelease_09302003b) describing the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and its position with regard to Free Software. I am concerned because it doesn't appear that this position has been adopted with much research into the subject.
For example,
The costs of maintaining an IT infrastructure include:
1. Procurement
2. Deployment
3. Continuing Support
4. Data protection (security)
5. Keeping software up-to-date and patched
6. Data recovery costs (especially in the case of virus infestations)
There are myriad costs associated with having and using an IT infrastructure. The most common non-Free operating system (Microsoft Windows) stands above most others in costs associated as follows:
1. Procurement (although you can get it heavily discounted, for a state government the costs are still very high)
2. Deployment (Deploying Windows XP requires a phone call to Microsoft for each and every machine installed. While the call may be toll-free, it costs a great deal of administration time to do it for every machine)
3. Upgrade costs (no upgrade is ever free with Microsoft)
4. Data protection (Windows of all flavors has the current worst track record for data protection. New exploits are literally being found every week)
5. Data recovery costs (due to frequent exploits, it becomes necessary to frequently rebuild machines and recover data)
6. Upgrade cycle (having to keep upgrading your software to become compatible with file formats that intentionally don't work with older versions of the software)
7. Personnel Costs (the ratio of administrators to users for Windows-based networks is about 20/1. Conversely, with GNU/Linux-based networks the ratio is much higher, more like 150/1. I know administrators that have even higher ratios than that, and are comfortable with it)
Furthermore, I saw that CAGW is opposed to Microsoft's DRM initiative, as told by this url:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename =get_i nv_Advocacy_Govt_Mandate_on_Tech_IssuePage
Of course, this begs the question, if you don't have access to the source code, how can you be sure there are no such measures built into your software? Microsoft has been convicted of using illegal anti-competitive measures to maintain their monopoly, measures which have frequently resulted in end-users' rights being taken away for the purpose of maintaining revenue streams. Do you really think that supporting such a company is going to reduce government waste?
A South American Congressman outlined all of the benefits of using Free Software over proprietary software in government in a very clear and concise fashion. I urge you to read this letter, posted on the internet as an open letter. I host a copy of it on my own website, and you can read it here:
http://benedict.servebeer.com/index.php?page=Fre eS oftwareInPeru
In this letter, he will address all of your concerns about what was described in your press release as the "socialistic nature" of Free Software.
I do not live in Massachussetts. Quite the contrary, I live in Bellevue, WA, approximately 10 miles away from One Redmond Way. In the Seattle Metropolitan Area, many schools have migrated to GNU/Linux-based networks when they found themselves being audited by Microsoft. Have you considered the costs of dealing with such software audits? That is money spent that cannot be recovered. There is no Return on Investment associated with software audits. There's just a big black hole that wastes the government's money and human resources just to satisfy the paranoia of a convicted monopolist.
Many competitive support vendors and software providers exist for Free Software, including RedHat Linux, Mandrake Linux, IBM, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell. With all of these com
Like what I said? You might like my music
From: Leon Brooks
Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication
To: Tom Schatz
Subject: What a waste!
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: CAGW Media, Peter Quinn, ESR, RMS
I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article:
Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts.
I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen.
The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait.
Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software".
If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you?
Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares.
Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do.
Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair?
Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market"?
Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on.
Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to.
You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose.
If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
What is soo wrong with them asking the government of Mass to keep open the choice to use other OS's than Linux?
Maybe it's the fact that Massachussetts was't mandating Linux, it was mandating open standards, which isn't exactly the same as mandating open source, and is definitely not the same as mandating Linux.
Like what I said? You might like my music
How do you , as a citizen, ensure transparency and accountability for software of which you don't have the source code. Voting software for example? Do you trust the goverment for that? Nope, I would not, I would like anybody to be able an audit the software used.
To be frank, goverments got away for far too long using closed source software. That kind of software has its place on society, but not in goverment where every single thing that is done shuld be fully accountable to anybody that wishes to see that things are done the right way.
Or at least I believe it should in democratic countries.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A bit misleading- John actually wrote the core engine, I wrote the gui wrapper for it. and yes virginia, I'm a whore(karma or otherwise):)
3 7215.shtml ?tid=103&tid=126&tid=163&tid=98&tid=99
I D=6&MenuI D=7
-----
This message is in direct response to this article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/10/01/22
Linux is the absolute opposite of waste in government. As I type this,
I sit at a Linux workstation, sending mail through a Linux mailserver.
I have an email client, a web browser, instant messenger and an office
suite. Not only that, but about $600 worth of educational software I
plan to share with my kids when I have have some.
Cost of this software: $0. Not because of piracy- because the creators
of the software choose to give it away for free. I should know- I am
also an open source developer.
Each Massachusetts computer using linux is $200+ that is not shipped out
of state to a large corporate sinkhole. This money can be spent on
important things like rebuilding roads and schools. If however you feel
that the schools are over fiananced, I'm afraid there is little I can do
to convice you otherwise.
Shame on you for speaking on a subject you know little of. Perhaps you
should check news.google.com. Count the positive number of Linux
articles in comparison to negative articles on other operating systems.
Keep a tally over the course of a month.
As I mentioned before, I am an open source developer. I, along with my
friend john, wrote the program GatGui.
http://morgajel.com/index.php?GPMID=5&PM
GatGui is a cancer research tool. It helps identify which genes are
most likely to be involved with certain forms of cancer. John and I
give this program away for free. Why? Because damnit, PEOPLE NEED IT.
It's not about the money, it's about helping people. Before you deride
my effort, I should mention that GAT (previous version of GatGui) is
being used by the Van Andel Institute for cancer research.
I suppose my program is evil and wasteful now, as well, huh?
My point is that you shouldn't complain about a product BEFORE you know
what it is about. Do not let corporate sponsors, or those that are
sponsored by them, make your decisions. If someone is Microsoft
Certified, chances are they will support the decision to stay with
Microsoft. Don't let ignorance blind you.
I apologize for typos- I was up late trying to find the cure for cancer.
-Jesse Morgan
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Anyone heard of MIT?
Choose yer poison: Prophets or Profits
For what it's worth, here is the reply I sent to this organization: To whom it may concern: As a systems administrator and a citizen of Massachusetts, I was delighted to read the news in the article on your website titled "Mass Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly". I think that it is wonderful that my state is moving into the 21st century and making such well-informed procurement decisions. If this plan is implemented, the state could save millions on their IT procurement budget, freeing up these funds for development, maintenance, training, and support that will increase the security and reliablity of our IT infrastructure. I don't understand your insistance that this creates a monopoly or hurts the position of technology vendors in our great state. Having a standardized platform for all state computers is an obvious decision that many large organizations make. Interoperability and standardization are important goals for the IT managers of such organizations. The idea that "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." is ludicrous. Any vendor who wishes to provide software that runs on the chosen platform is welcome to compete for the states business, and most vendors of enterprise level software solutions do provide software that runs on open-source UNIX derivitives. Perhaps your understanding of systems administration and IT procurment issues is not as rigorous as other areas of expertise in your organization. Please do not lobby your position to Governor Romney on my behalf. - Mark Scarbrough
Here's what I just emailed to them, cc'ing the IT directors of Mass. and Minnesota:
Subject: Linux is not a 'boondoggle'
Dear sirs,
I would like to respond to your press release 'Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly'. In that press release, you claim that by requiring open source techonolgies, such as Linux, costs to taxpayers will increase. I strongly disagree with that assessment, and I wish that my own state, Minnesota, would take similarly bold cost-saving measures.
Linux and open source are not monopolies-- there are many companies that compete to sell Linux products and support-- and they are by no means boondoggles. Linux and open source software are used prominantly by such high-tech companies as Yahoo, Amazon, Google, and Apple Computer. Even Microsoft has been known to use open source software (including BSD Unix, a Windows and Linux competitor) in its operations.
I work for a five-person high-tech service-oriented company as the guy who writes our support software. We're a start up with very little money, so every employee constantly looks at ways to cut costs and reduce waste. All of our furniture, plus our printer and copier, was purchased used, at eBay, garage sales, or local auctions. If government can cut waste by emulating the private sector, they should follow our lead!
We have one desktop or laptop computer for each employee: the CEO has his personal Apple Powerbook, two employees have low-end Windows laptops, and the two techies (myself and the system administrator) have the cheapest desktops we could find, with Windows ripped out and replaced with Linux.
Our server room houses five computers, three of which run Linux. We plan to get rid of one of our non-Linux machines and put its functionality on one of the Linux machines. We also own two iMacs we use for trade shows. (These were chosen because they are eye-catching; the price of both computers was less than the cost of running a booth at one trade show.)
For us, Linux has been a big win in keeping costs down. In the server room, we can do more on cheaper harware. On desktops, nearly all of our support problems have been related to viruses, worms, spyware, and trojan horses on our two Windows computers. We can keep most of it out with anti-virus software, but not all. We've considered switching the Windows laptops over to a commercial version of Linux (ApplixWare), but we're holding off for now because the change would be as disruptive as upgrading to a new version of Windows.
Granted, we're not a typical organization. Three-fifths of the company is tech savvy enough to diagnose their own desktop problems, and support costs are built into salaries we can't avoid. However, we know exactly how much time we're spending on desktop support, and we know exactly how much money we're spending on software. Linux and open source software has three major advantages: up-front cost, ease of support, and predictability of upgrade costs. It's a big win on all three.
I've studied the issues and have come to the conclusion that open source software is no more expensive to support, and often far cheaper. An entry-level Linux administrator often demands a higher wage than an entry-level Windows administrator, but employers demand more from the Linux administrator. Linux desktops can be administered remotely more effectively than Windows, so a Linux administrator can take care of an entire company's computers without leaving his/her office. Thus, far more machines can be serviced per administrator. Also, Linux machines can be locked down far more effectively, so damage from employees customizing their computers (either deliberately or due to email viruses, if they were to exist on Linux) can be minimized.
As you're aware, governments sometimes make really dumb decisions. To minimize this, they often make policy decisions to limit decision-making. These aren't always perfect. For example, when times are tough they might implement a hiring free