Slashdot Mirror
More on Massachusetts' Push for Open Source
pbaumgar writes "With more than $32 billion in sales last year, Microsoft Corp. doesn't usually worry about losing one customer. But this one may be different. In a memo sent last month, Massachusetts Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss instructed the state's chief technology officer to adopt a policy of 'open standards, open source' for all future spending on information technology." Follow-up to this story.
Most of the article is no-shit, no-brainer stuff, but a quote interested me: "The momentum is unstoppable at this point," said Scott Handy, vice president of Linux strategy and market development at IBM. I think this is what scares Redmond the most, is the momentum and speed with which Linux is spreading. Major companies are likely to follow suite (no pun intended) if the goverment starts to switch. And some foreign governments seem eager not to be dependent on an American company. Aside from starting the sentance with "and", this is another good point, with a growing mistrust of the US abroad, many foreign governments are likely to adopt open-sourced alternatives. The is that cost factor too. Namibia defineatly cannot afford $300,000 in MS software to run the already poor and corrupt goverment. The can afford two people to impliment Linux though. "Politically, there are only pros, but in terms of government employee productivity there are quite a few cons," said Schadler, the Forrester researcher. I must agree on some levels. Until my iMac and AOL grandomther can use Linux, it won't be widely implimented. Not everyone "gets" technology, or has a BS in comp sci, or even knows the difference between AOL and the internet.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
How are security and reliability not cost related issues? If I'm hacked, what does that do to my expenses, uptimes, etc. Same if my server is down every 20 min. I'm in no way saying that MS should have ANY unfair advantage - compare both on the same playing field.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
There are occasionally reasons for such a blanket statement. Consider what he wanted: Open Source, Open Standards. There is no claim for free software, only open software.
I do not know, but there is a distinct possibility that the reason for this has a little to do with price and a lot to do with risk.
If the system follows open standards, other systems can be used along-side it reliably, meaning an upgrade won't mean upgrading the entire network. Also, it means that products can be replaced, in case a business fails or other problems develop, and their files can still be used.
Also, using open source means that, in a worst case scenario, the program can be fixed. For most businesses and individuals, this isn't an issue, but governments are very much about worst case scenarios. They have to plan for the worst that can happen, or it'll be really bad when the worst does happen. Using open source means MicroSoft cannot pull the rug from under their feet by refusing to fix serious errors.
Actually, according to the article, it seems that cost analysis was exactly one of the reasons this policy is being pushed. Also, this is not a blanket policy against MS; it is a blanket policy of open source. If MS wants to open the source of some of their products then they have as much opportunity as anyone else to compete for Massachussetts' money.
If a government picks a Windows solution, it is very hard to make sure that everyone can communicate with it (.doc files being a prime example).*
If government picks an open source (or at least an open standards solution - which just as effectivly denies them picking Microsoft who have at best shoddy compliance, although it would allow them to pick Apple) solution then everyone can communicate with it.
That way the pubilc that the government is there to serve can choose to run any platform they like, be it closed or open - and thats where the choice should be. Government shouldn't be making that choise for them by using a platform that doesn't interoperate well.
*This also goes for things like web services - deployments of ASP.net using ActiveX content on Windows aren't the most compatible things in the world. It also goes for in house software - any work paid for by the taxpayer should be available to the taxpayer, and if it's developed on Windows it will only run on Windows, denying the people of their right to use it on their platform of chocie.
Beep beep.
Yes, they should, but I think the principle here is that "What we don't know may cost us money in the future." This policy is not anti-Microsoft, it is anti-closed source and anti-lockin. Clearly, Microsoft's business strategy is to do everything possible to keep customers locked into their proprietary software; this can only make it more expensive in the future. Open Source's business strategy is to comoditize software and make the money on service and support. This is a much more competive model based on very small margins, and thus can only be cheaper -- provided the Open Source software provides the functionality you need. If it doesn't, it may be cheaper and easier for Mass to hire a consultant to add that functionality to the open source than to beg and plead with Microsoft to add it in, say, the Longhorn time frame (which appears to have been pushed back from 2002 to 2006 so far, somebody please correct me if I'm exagerating).
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
cost analysis isn't the only issue. the MA reasoning may be that they want OSS for the freedom of information quality. think about it, if the gov't is using closed source software, for instance, to tally votes, and someone files a FOIA request, they can't exactly get the propriety information (ie, source code).
it almost seems that OSS is absolutely necessary in order for a gov't to be able to comply with the FOIA.
Yes, we all want OSDN "stuff" to win out in as many possible applicable sectors, buisness, personal, government, etc. because we believe is is The Right Way on many levels.
:) I think the people are best served by a government that uses tools that came from the people themselves unfettered with political or monetary influence. Linux & OSDN projects have offered this alternative to humanity for the first time in force, as have all other open-source type projects.
I concur with folks expressing the opinion that legislating Open Source alternatives into government budgets is incorrect, because it is on principle - at no time should we ever, as a society, legislate any single thing as the "right way". Only GM for cars? Only Apple for music? Only MS-terminals for voting? We'd all revolt against this.
However, this isn't legislation - it's a directive from a state official, which isn't the same. Your elected official in your state of Massachusetts has made a determination and pushed forward a directive s/he feels is in the best interest of the state's citizens. Do I agree? Yes. Why? Simply on the principles that OSDN projects use open standards anyone can code to. Microsoft only opens standards when they see money-making opportunities in licensing, which is, well, buisness - they're supposed to make money, they're a company!
The "correct" place for this debate I think, is in the courts. Someone needs to file for a public injunction against a government agency buying Microsoft products to force the question of "were alternatives considered?" with an independant investigator that has the authority to disqualify Microsoft if they try to use their money or influence to force purchasing decisions through monetary ends. This is no different from anything else the government buys - cars, military hardware, paper, staples, etc.
A base problem that boggles me is that software is a commodity as I think of it - the best producer with a solution is just that. MS of course doesn't want you to believe this, but I think the reality of "software" as a whole is that we're moving to software as a commodity item that doesn't make it bland, but specialized and much more creatively rich through the adoption of common contexts and languages to express out programming needs. MS wants to "own" those contexts, and therein lies the sin most would like to accuse them of.
We could use a whole force of small companies going to the courts claiming legitimately they have been picked on by Microsoft because they dumped several gazillion into the re-election coffers of the Congress critter on the Committee for (X) and the obvious results.
Microsoft is a de facto standard, so of course, *anything* that isn't Microsoft will be perceived as good - we need to be careful netizens about that and make sure the public understands we're offering an alternative that needs to be examined, not a replacement bourne out of hate.
These are the same arguments they had with Peru a year or so ago. And the replies are the same. Public money must buy stuff that the public can access at the lowest additional cost. It must be able to be repaired, developed, modified and upgraded by any competent person, not just an M$ one. Being secure in some vague sense of that word might also be good
So, keeping the existing software they've already bought and paid for is cheaper the retraining people to use different software. Fine. Now, tell me how much more it costs to switch to Windows XP, train workers to use XP, and to maintain XP than to stick with the software they've already bought and paid for, and for which M$ will abandon support within about a year? Let's face it, even if M$ paid you to use their software, they still figure out someway to make it cost you more in the long run... afterall, that's what they are really good at -- getting money out of people.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?
Cost analysis, like every other decision making process is subject to interpitation. In this case, the winner of the cost analysis will be the organization that does the best job of influencing the parameters of the cost analysis to favor their product.
Since that is the case I think other criterea need to be considered - including the issue of proprietary protocols, closed source, file systems and file formats. In my opinion these do not belong in government. Government has a perfect right to set bid proposal parameters for software acquisition - and if Microsoft wants to play, it needs to meet these parameters.
Of course, the implementation of the software costs money. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that Free Software will somehow install and maintain itself. But do you really think it costs more to roll out? If so, please explain. Otherwise, I would assert that saving several hundred dollars per seat on software is a significant up-front savings... and that the process of getting that software up and running in-house is constant at worst and favors Free Software at best.
In any case, the call for "open standards" gets at the fundamental core of why Free Software is a better choice in most cases anyway. Imagine building a house and having to sign a contract for each component (ex: doors and door locks, plumbing, electrical, carpeting, etc) with a vendor... and not only do you pay them to install the component, but you have now agreed that unless you rip out that component entirely that the original vendor and only the original vendor will do any maintenance, improvements, or whatever to that component. That is exactly what you do when you set up a large system dependent on non-Free software.
What's worse is when your data gets locked into that format. Not only do you have to rip out the software entirely, but you have to hope and pray that your data can be ported to any new software. And there are lots of reasons you may need to switch vendors: scalability, incompatibility with some other component that is being upgraded or replaced, issues with the software that were not originally apparent, vendor goes out of business (sucks if you need to add users, but can't buy more licenses), vendor plays weird games with "activations" or "subscription" licensing that become unbearable, etc.
To me, these are much stronger arguments than the initial cost of the software, or the cost to install, or even the cost to maintain.
I do not have a signature
As a user and developer of open source technologies, I feel it's much more important to push open source into governments than it is to convince businesses and large corporations to make the move.
:)
The government represents us. They spend a helluva lot of citizens' tax dollars, and it is quite logical for us to encourage them to use inexpensive technologies where they can. Also, considering what a tremendous security risk it can be to have a government running a single platform, it's good to encourage diversity in the government's information systems.
As for businesses using Linux and open source... I can't see why people care so much. I run a small business and rely on Linux to save costs and make efficient use of old hardware, and this gives me a competitive advantage. Why should we, as a community, go out of our way to tell businesses what's best for them? Let capitalism sort it out right? Dog eat dog and all that
Perhaps you should read an EULA sometime. Especially the bit about where the software vendor is not liable for anything: errors, crashes, defective security or lost data. The direction Microsoft is heading is to clearly make the data stored in the files the property of Microsoft. Just look at what Palladium (or whatever the replacement is called this week) is supposed to promise: remote disablement of software and the data inside it. You want to sue us? We will disable your software and the data inside it until you bend over and drop your pants. And how will the government be able to defend itself from that sort of abuse? Simple, just don't buy it. And that is what Massachussetts is saying: we don't want to pay for that risk.
Do bridge builders give an unfair advantage to concrete vendors because their requirements are structured in a way that unfairly discriminates against marshmallow vendors? Should they consider all building materials on a "level playing field"?
Maybe the state is looking for the specific qualities OSS has to offer by its very nature. Not the oft-cited and vague assertions of "lower cost" or "increased security", but the direct effects of the licensing itself.
Namely, if, among other things, I want software:
then I don't see any reason why these very concrete requirements of mine give OSS an "unfair" advantage. It may be that it's impossible for non-open-source software to fulfill these requirements, but how is that "unfair," and why should I care? All I care about is finding something that fulfills my requirements. Why should the business models of some bidders, instead of my needs, dictate the bid requirements? How would it be "fair" to force me to forgo some of my requirements just so some company can try to sell me its product?
Now, I don't claim to know the real reasons why Massachusetts is doing what it is doing, but those are the reasons why I use Open Source software whenever I can. They are, as I am sure you can tell, directly sprung from countless past frustrations with proprietary software. Nevertheless, I am open to any company which is able to provide a product, even a proprietary one, that fulfills those requirements, and will then evaluate it on a features-per-dollar basis against other competing products.
You talk about fairness. That is an interesting term to use in a case like this.
The problem here is that Microsoft is a monopoly and monopolies are inherently unfair. Microsoft was in fact found guilty of being a monopoly, but powerful forces in Washington let Microsoft off the hook. At first that seemed like a break for Microsoft, but in the long run, I think it will prove even worse for Microsoft than it was for the computer industry as a whole.
I use and like Microsoft products. But monopolies are inherently unfair. With a few very minor exceptions, no company that charges money for its products has been able to compete with Microsoft. The government refused to break up the Microsoft monopoly, and the capitalist system can't spawn a company capable of competing with Microsoft.
But people don't like monopolies. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do people abhor a monopoly.
Unable to compete on the business level with Microsoft, computer users have been forced to compete via a new kind of animal: free, open source software. This new animal is very powerful. Over the long run, it will probably prove powerful enough to defeat Microsoft.
The tragedy here is not that Microsoft is a villian that is getting away with something. The tragedy is that the system has failed to stop the monopoly through normal channels. As a result, something new has emerged which does not create as much capital or jobs as a commercial company would.
Frankly, I wish Linux were a commercial product. I would love to see another company compete with Microsoft. Then there would be lots of jobs both at Microsoft, and at the competing company. Instead we have free software. Free software doesn't create as many jobs, or as much capital as commercial software. Capital means money for jobs and money for R&D, and R&D means great new technology.
This system is broken. The monopoly in Redmond should have been broken up. But it wasn't, and the result has been what is happening in Mass. The same thing will probably happen everywhere over time. The only people who can stop it are our elected representatives in Washington. They have a job to do breaking up monopolies. If they do their job, in the long run, it will be better for Microsoft, better for programmers, and better for the computer industry as a whole.
Weird things happen when greed runs rampant. This case in Mass. is one example of the many weird things we will see over the next few years if our government doesn't start doing its job.
- Charlie Calvert
So, here is once case where a Microsoft database is essential for crooked governments
Think global, act loco
I'm a big fan of open source, but I don't agree with exclusive mandates. While some applications are undoubtably top of their class (eg. apache, sendmail, linux[as a server], mozilla/firebird etc.), others have yet to reach a stable, user-friendly state.
/.ers are techno-literate, the average computer user is still a long way from understanding the workings of the computers and software they use. That is to say, they're not going to be able to tweak the product, run through a manual install or any other fun tasks required to get an unstable program to behave.
While many
While open source is nice to have, a closed source product that performs better must be considered under practical conditions (remember the bitkeeper saga in the lkml). I think OS developers understand this and eventually we will see many open source applications overtake their closed source counterparts in terms of quality and usability.
In their paranoia about open source competition, the likes of MS and other closed source development houses will probably shoot themselves in the foot as they have done many times in the past(like those fantastic halloween memos), and open more doors for implementation of open source. This is going to be a gradual but inevitable process and will probably take many years. Until then, if closed source works better then it should be considered along side open source, judged on all its merits including the genuine relevance of source availability, security requirements, stability, user-friendliness, ease of maintenance, licence renewal costs etc.
It cannot, and should not, be just a question of total cost of ownership but a true cost-benefit balance. What any customer wants, even if they're getting the product free, is bang for their buck over the life of the product. If a free product works 50% of the time and an equivalent proprietary product works 90% of the time then it's probably worthwile going with the closed product even on a pure TCO basis.
Open source should be adopted only after it becomes the better option and not before. Mandates to exclusively use open source will only hurt its case in the long run.