UK Gov't Considers Expanding Open Source Use

IonPanel writes "BBC have a story about the use of open source software at the heart of British government policy. The UK government is now running trials at both government and local level, citing the world-wide effort of a community of programmers fixing bugs and free upgrades as the reason. And all this despite the good friendship between Bill Gates and Tony Blair. There will be quite a few worried faces at Microsoft over the next few months ... Lets hope it's another Munich!" The experiments -- a joint effort with IBM, run by the Office of the E-envoy -- will "cover a range of departments, from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the e-envoy's office itself."

Comments

Manuals

[skinfitz]

This could be a major boon for tech manual writers - you know governments - like everything documented (well - supposed to anyway).

Tons of OSS stuff is severely lacking in the documentation department - if enough governments take it up then it could create a nice tech manual industry.

Don't get it . . .

[Idou]

This was brought up when South Korea announced its Open Source initiative due to MS having too much market control.

I can believe that countries would let MS know they are looking at alternatives inorder to get a better deal, but citing "avoiding MS market dominance" or stating that the Open Source model results in more secure and stable code is NOT going to win them points with MS.

No, if I was starting a project just to get MS to lower their prices, I would state that PRICE and only PRICE was what was driving me to look at alternatives. I wouldn't mention reasons that might piss MS off and hurt negotiations. Plus, I would look pretty bad in the public eye if I had claimed other significant reasons for using alternatives and then just caved in because MS lowered their price (what if we were hit by a worm after dumping the project for MS AFTER stating that Open Source is more secure?).

Here's a revolutionary idea . . . maybe UK and SK are really looking into OSS for the reasons they gave because, though the system isn't great, it is not messed up enough to be totally blind to the advantages of OSS?

As a UK local government councillor ...

[Tim Ward]

... I am involved in procurement. We are currently looking at an open source solution for a particular application (well, not completely open source, the back end is Oracle).

So far I am not impressed.

I'm not unimpressed witht the software; the difficulty is in getting a handle on what the software can and can't do and confidence that what it can't do will be fixed.

When you're buying commercial software you get some or all of

• a visit from a salesman
• product brochures
• a demonstration from an expert in the product
• documentation
• comprehensive on line help
• a road map or new features release plan
• clarity as to what you do and don't get in the support contract

and so on.

With this open source offering we appear to be getting few or none of the above: "here's the URL for the demo system, go and play with it". Um yes. Thanks. Not, I fear, a basis on which a public authority can spend lots of tax payers' money on a service for tax payers.

Whilst it seems entirely possible that the open source offering is well designed to meet our needs it also seems entirely possible that it will be unable to demonstrate this to an acceptable risk profile so we'll have to buy something else. The competitors, as usual, include paying for a managed service elsewhere or buying commercial software.

Re:As a UK local government councillor ...

[Triskele]

Much as I don't normally agree with Tim ;-), there is an important point here that everyone seems determined to ignore and that is the quality of support available. If you're an Open Source outsider looking to use OSS as an alternative to big boys like Accenture (who are truly corrupt - forget M$) you need some confidence that:

1. You've found the right OSS product to start from
2. It does all the things you need it to do
3. You can train your staff to use it
4. If it goes wrong someone can fix it or help work around the problem
5. As your requirements change you can track them

The salesmen and the product brochures are a shorthand for much of this. And slowly but surely companies are growing up whose raison d'etre is to champion OS products, sell them to clients, support them and make any mods required.

Indeed OS is a dream ticket for traditional small consultancies - all that software written by others that you can sell services around. And when it doesn't work just open up the source files and fix. No need to beg BigCo for access on behalf of your client.

There are several such companies around Cambridge with mixed success (including my own).

And if the salesmen turn up in Armani suits driving a Jaguar then they're probably rip-off merchants taking too much money from their clients just like with any non-OSS product.

Re:And...?

[Rhinobird]

I think the point they were trying to make is since the public (as taxpayers) paid for the software, that the public should have access to the source code.

a proposal for doing a/the trasition smoother

[danalien]

I don't know about you, but switching everything around for non-crafty-tech-folk isn't the best way of doing a transition. I found out that that could only make things worse, as they get pretty much confused, and demand their old configuration back.

so if I where an admin there, I'd do the trasition in several steps, slowly under a longer period of time (like 1-2 years...but it all depends on what level the users are on..):

1. start reclaping their Office-suite out with an open one;like OpenOffice (still running on windows)
2. Add Mozilla on their desktop, with the link "Internet Browser" (or other win32 open source allternative. and no, not Opera it is pay-for-app, so unless you want to run WAREZ, leave it be..)
3. (the biggest of them all) under the course of time *slowly* install (and replace only the still paying softwares installed) with alternative win32 open source apps. Here are a few links worth knowing of:
   • List of available open source/software for win32, with urls
   • Complete list of sourceforge.net projects for win32
   • Complete list of freshmeat.net project's for win32
   • Yet another list, though more structured :-)
   • A link to an old related slashdot post
   • ... and if that's not enough for you, just ask slashdot for more links =)
4. and everytime "they/you ask" for a soulution, dig deeper (than an M$/proprietary solution) and give/tell them an open source (still on their win32 platform) solution. (ps, maybe by this time it's time to, a) either send your available "only M$ & windows drones for admins" on open source/software coureses/lectures/conferences.. etc, b) xor if they protest, fire them =) *it's in your right as 'THE BIG HOUNCHO'=)*, and bring in new admins with knowledge deeper in open source/software than M$ *plenty out there...*)
5. ..one year lator *or so*; have available, in a "in-your-face"-kind of place, customized uptodate burned KNOPPIX Cd's somewhere your cooworkers can see them, take one and give it a spin; (HENCE, with all the availible software you are useing on the win32, for the linux platfrom, +plus additional. PS, also good if ${YOU the}/your admin customize more than what apps are on it, and configure it be just as/more like the win32 install you are useing/running....*and such stuff*)

then, when they start asking "why are we still running & paying for M$ windows?, when everything we do is available on the free/open enviorment linux (linux/gnu) platform, for a fraction of the cost."... then I would say, it's a supreme situation to dring forth that linux install...

think of the +plus side, of it; time will only make the linux kernel and distros better, and give you plenty of oppertunity to plan & execute the whole trasition very/more effectlly.

PS. Don't forget, that M$ had lots of time getting their users used to using apps only for their platform, that after a while users can't/couldn't see past running anything else than windows, as the software they know & love is only win32.... so it makes sense to first "un-program" them from that restriction...

Re:Continuity... DUH!! This is OPEN SOURCE!!

[iendedi]

The software - open or closed - does not maintain itself. The mere existence of the source code is as good as nothing if there is no-one who understands it.

If no one is using it, it probably isn't very good and you should find another option. One would think that this would be obvious, both for commercial software and for Open Source software.

It's dangerous to start thinking that as long as the source code exists, anyone (with a CS degree) can just take it up, fix it and start maintaining it. In less than a decade the languages and architectures change so much that a newly graduated person will have difficulties in dealing with ancient code.

No, I don't think so. I think it is much more dangerous to allow your government to lock itself into a relationship with a vendor that will never release the source code. The government will never have control over those systems and the people being governed will never have the right to inspect and audit how those systems work.

Any competent engineer coming out of University today could very easily deal with twenty year old code. In fact, they could probably write scripts (or find conversion utilities) that would allow them to bring it up-to-current, converting source code and whatnot. But in a case like this, one would think that any system that the government is considering would have enough of an interest level (certainly after it is put into practice) such that it will be supported continuously. But if it is not, at least we are safe in the knowledge that the code is not lost and CAN be updated at any time without lawsuits and Indiana-Jones style find-the-source-code adventures.

Just remember all those Y2K projects? Sure we had the source code for critical projects but the code was in Cobol or some other antiquated language. We suddenly found out that we need loads and load of people who know Cobol, but the people who had the skills to deal with it were already gone. A lifespan measured in decades is particularly typical for governmental projects. You see how silly your argument is? The availability of the source code is good but doesn't save you.

This is funny, because you are actually making MY argument for Me. Y2K is a great example. There was certainly an IT spending boost, but so far as I am aware, all of the real problems encountered were encountered with systems that came from out-of-business vendors and/or vendors that couldn't locate source for decommissioned products. The other major problem was in-house projects that had been in the attic for twenty years and often just trying to figure out how to do a build or install the build. Had these projects been open-source, there would have been a virtual guarantee that a small community would have formed around those projects to update them (you being one of the members), saving money, time and in many cases, just making it possible.

Getting and using the Cobol programmers? That was just a matter of money (consultants), and quite a temporary problem. I know of many instances of 'C' or ''VB' programmers grabbing COBOL books and jumping in the fray.

If did you homework when writing the contract you have nothing to fear. The company will be obliged to help you over the transition period.

When a company goes out of business, your belief that they will honor their contracts with you may help you sleep at night, but those beliefs are not going to pay the costs or motivate the people at the company that is going out of business to do such a thing. Your comment is silly. You know what happens when a company goes out of business? THEY STOP HONORING ALL CONTRACTS BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS DEAD.

As far as the end-of-life products go, that's just natural. I've never quite understood the obsession the open source has with maintaining obsolete code. From time to time it's good to end an old product line and write another one from scratch to meet the challenges of today not the past.