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)
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.
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
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.