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.

Comments

How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm not saying I'm an MS-apologist, but shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis? A Blanket policy against MS, without allowing for a competitive bidding process or even alternative analysis doesn't seem right.

I know you all want OSS to win, but not by cheating. Shouldn't all have to compete on a level field, especially when we're the ones paying for it?

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[nathanh]

I'm not saying I'm an MS-apologist, but shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?

The decision should in part be based on cost analysis but it should also consider immeasurable concepts like freedom and liberty and fairness.

The government isn't a business. They are your representatives. They are the legislators. They are the executive. They are the police. They are the judges. They are the cleaners. They are the social workers. The government comprises all the people who work for you, the taxpayers.

So any decision the government makes has to consider more than pure dollars and cents. They have an entire country to think about, both now and for the future. One of your representatives has decided that free software has non-tangible but long-term benefits to the country. I can't disagree: it's exactly what people like RMS and organisations like the FSF have been saying for nearly 2 decades.

Congratulations to the USA for recognising the social benefits of free software.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[dbarclay10]

I'm not saying I'm an MS-apologist, but shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis? A Blanket policy against MS, without allowing for a competitive bidding process or even alternative analysis doesn't seem right.

The article mentions that one of the primary reasons for choosing FOSS over Microsoft software was that of cost.

Other little things like accessibility, access to the code, and reliability were taken into account as well.

Though you didn't, I see a lot of kneejerk reactions all over the place (not just here in Slashdot, but amongst coworkers as well) along the lines of "they shouldn't be dictating what software will be used, they should let people use whatever they want!"

I work for a Crown corporation here in Canada (something halfway between a legal monopoly and a government ministry), and I would _love_ if Those Above would make edicts like this. Frankly, my direct superiors are _not_ capable of making good decisions. And they're the ones purchasing the software. No word of a joke, but just recently my boss signed a cheque for some $600,000 to license some software that was terribly buggy and unreliable. It was a trivial piece of code, too - it could have been developed in-house by one of our talented programmers for about $15k. And we'd have had the source and a pool of people who were already quite familiar with it. The rollout for the software that was actually bought will take six months and cost another $140,000. The in-house solution could be rolled out in two or three months (and that's including development time) for a similar cost. Why did my boss decide this? Fucked if I know. His reasoning is gibberish. All the vendors were taking him out to really nice retreats, so I bet no matter what we'd have gone with an out-sourced solution (nobody in-house is going to drop $8k to send him to a spa^Wworkshop for a weekend), but I don't think this guy chose the worst vendor 'cause they spent the most money, I think they were just able to swindle him the best.

Moral of the story? It's very possible that in this case, the State is seeing millions of taxpayer dollars being pissed away on substandard solutions when they know damned well that better solutions are available at a fraction of the purchase price and a third the maintenance cost. That's how it's like where I work, and all the other clients I've visited (mostly fairly large business) are in similar trouble - even if they don't know it yet.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

The point is, why give OSS any unfair advantage?

Hmm, so you're argueing that having access to the source code of applications your organisation depends on is not an advantage until you make it an issue? If acces to the source code is an advantage or added quality, why shouldn't a government require it? Sounds like some people are trying to downplay a real advantage to me.

Is the concept of a level playing field really that nuts?

That is where the open standards come in, they assure there is a level playing field because if documents are saved in open formats, changing software that processes/creates these documents becomes much easier. Right now we have no level playing field because large parts of the world are locked in to proprietary Microsoft formats and standards.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

"First off, I think it should be illegal for any corporate entity to lobby the government;"

Right on. In the US, corporations may be taxed, but they are not granted representation in government. Nor should they be. Our local, state, and federal goverments exist to represent natural persons, not artificial ones.

For a government representative to solicit, accept, or act on the input of a corporate representative would seem to be treason.

Corporate lobbyists are citizens who advocate for noncitizens for money and against the interests of other citizens. Such people are undeserving of citizenship in our country.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, being able to get some certificate at 15 doesn't necessarily imply the administration of that system is easy, it may as well tell that the certificate is too easy to get and therefore the holder of the cert is not actually a competent administrator. I am pretty sure if you want *quality* administration it will always cost you, no matter which OS you want to deploy.

Another triumph for common sense

[gilesjuk]

After all humans are supposed to be adaptable, so why not switch to a system that can do the same for peanuts?

Essential?

[loconet]

"Microsoft's risk of losing the public sector market altogether is small, at least for now.

The company's products are just too essential, and many open source alternatives too ineffective for many of the kinds of big database jobs governments require.
"

What MS database is so esential to the "big database jobs" government requires? Access? SQL Server? .. give me a break. Talk about being vague and inacurate.

Open protocols/formats

[teslatug]

Why don't they simply mandate open and free protocols and file formats. It would essentially be the same as there is no way that Microsoft would open theirs up. At the same time, Microsoft could not (with a straight face) complain that the government is being unfair if that were the case. This also has the benefit that those that need/want/find more beneficial closed source products can still do so.

It's a step in the right direction...

[petermdodge]

I approve of Open-Source in the public sector for one fundamental reason. The People (used in the broad collective sense) should be able to know what their government is doing and how their doing it, and with the source freely available, it's a lot easier to do a much more detailed analysis of their software side (not to mention more legal) than poking around with their M$ products.

I say more power to Massachusetts. One MS beats down another ^_^

Re:cost analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

To some, a human life is worth anything. To some, being open source is worth anything. To some, realizing that you can't save all human lives but you can use all open source would be a distinction. Things external to a person can hold infinite value. The idea of open source might be one of those things. You might not feel so, but that doesn't change others opinions.

This is refreshing!

[flacco]

Here is the state of MA's recommended browser list: http://www.mtpc.org/browsers.htm

Standards Compliant Browser list: (no particular order)

1. Internet Explorer versions: 5, 5.5, 6 (6 being the most compliant version)
2. IE 5 Macintosh Edition
3. Netscape 6.2 Available for a small variety of operating systems.
4. Mozilla Open source browser which Netscape 6.x is base on. Also available for many operating systems.
5. Opera 6 Also available for many operating systems.
6. Konqueror Full featured Linux browser for the K desktop environment.
7. IBM Web Browser IBM's OS2/Warp browser based on Mozilla (see above)

Nice to see mozilla and konqueror get some respect!

Meanwhile, the university where i work is slipping into the grasp of the borg from redmond. maybe i should start looking for jobs in MA state government...