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?

[flossie]

Maybe the "Open Source" bit is a little excessive, but "Open Standards" is fair enough. And if the state has determined that only Open Source will ensure that software meets Open Standards, then so be it.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[c0dedude]

A cost-only approach ignores other issues such as security and reliability, which clearly are a major factor for a finance dept. and here open standards/open source have a far better track record than closed source. Not only that, the bidding, in cases such as these, would likely be open to any open souce supplier, of which there are many. There's no cheating here, just a better long term strategy based on evidence availible at the present time.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Jameth]

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Sebby]

"And despite Microsoft's lobbying, a Pentagon report concluded that open source was often cheaper and more secure, and that its use, if anything, should expand."

First off, I think it should be illegal for any corporate entity to lobby the government; regardless, there's plenty of proof that using OSS alone, ignoring initial cost, is still cheaper in the long run (also see this story)

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Read your own post:

"often cheaper and more secure"

Often=!always

The point is, why give OSS any unfair advantage? Is the concept of a level playing field really that nuts?

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[El]

shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?

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).

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[ljavelin]

The Massachusetts policy, as drafted, doesn't preclude the use of closed-source or proprietary systems. Many news articles seem to miss this important point, making it sound like it's a closed-source mandate.

Instead, the policy states that a preference should be given to open standards (such as open-standard document types, SSL, SQL, Postscript, email standards, open-source products, the RFCs, etc).

The policy as drafted also clearly states that when proprietary systems are judged to be superior to their closed system counterparts (in terms of direct and indirect costs, features, compatability with existing systems, reliability, etc), the proprietary options must be selected.

It's pretty simple, but some people are against it because it can in fact hurt segments of the software and IT consulting industries.

In any case, right now, the policy says that with all things being equal, open source is preferred.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Maestro4k]

• 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?

Well, the article doesn't tell everything, but it's important to note the mandate doesn't just say open source, but open standards. This alone would cut Microsoft out of most things, as their implementation of "open" standards tend to change them to only work on Windows.

While I will agree we don't want OSS to win by cheating, we don't know what went into the decision, it very well may have been that they studied it and found that using MS software was costing more (trying to fix all those "features" that make MS products only work with other MS products for instance), and just simply decided it was time to stop wasting the taxpayer's money on that.

In any case it's hard to feel sorry for Microsoft here, they've been intentionally trying to stifle competition, and make it difficult (if not impossible) to use a homogenous OS solution for many years. Now it seems their time to pay the piper has come.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[rsilverman]

shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?

They should be based on sound analysis, surely, but cost is only one component. There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to prefer -- indeed, to demand -- open source in government. The following letter, purportedly from a Peruvian official to a MS exec, lays them out very well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25157.htm l

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[sphealey]

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.

Large organizations, and particularly large government organizations, typically have approved specification lists that control what is and is not acceptable to purchase. Large propriatary suppliers such as Microsoft lobby very hard (directly and indirectly, as through standards bodies and trade associations) to have these approved specifications written in such as way that only a few (propriatary, commercial) products meet the specs. That way they may have to compete with, say, Lotus, for any given government contract, but they don't have to compete with hundreds of aggressive small providers. And often the top 2 or 3 biggest players don't mind losing the occational contract to one another as that allows the appearance of "competition" to be maintained while still locking out the hungrier competition.

I think all the Mass. government is saying is that in the future they want the standard specifications re-written so as not to prohibit the selection of Open Source products, and to require open standards for various document formats to prevent "Office lock-in". That wouldn't be cheating - just leveling the playing field.

sPh

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Foofoobar]

Let's put it this way...

Why pay for something when there is a product that is equally good for free? Would you want your government buying $500 hammers when you were able to get one just as good if not better for free.

To me, this isn't just a choice for the tax payers, it's a choice for common sense.

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?

[buffer-overflowed]

Because OSS is freely available to everyone and any development work paid for by government is freely available to the citizenry. Software isn't like a Car, or a physical asset.

Ideally, Government would use only BSD liscensed stuff, but this is a step in the right direction IMO.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[rokzy]

how do you determine the cost of private information being made public? do you use the RIAA strategy of $150,000 per file made public?

making everything about cost is a stupid dogma imo. I know there are some ultra-capitalists who'd like everything to be determined by the bottom line, but I think most people realise that some values such as security can stand on their own merits without need for cost-justification.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Well, I hope this is the case.

For instance, I use Windows, but I also use Thunderbird, Firebird, and OpenOffice. For each of those, I've tried to decide based on ease of use, ease of transition, interoperability, etc.

However, I fear that you might be overly optimistic. IIRC, the MA government has some reason for bitterness towards MS (involvement in anti-trust lawsuit), and it's entirely possible that this is an attempt to sanction them theirselves. If this is the case, to any degree, that constitutes an egregious violation of responsibility.

It is decidedly not the responsibility of Messr. Kriss to decide punishment for anti-trust violations.

Overall, how much more a vindication for OSS would it be for a large state government to choose an open solution based SOLELY on merits, or further, even in the FACE of opposition from MS, instead of winning on an uneven playing field.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

I think this response is getting a little tired. OSS easily might be the best solution, but no solution is completely free as in beer, especially when it comes to a rollout of this scope.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[zulux]

A Blanket policy against MS, without allowing for a competitive bidding process or even alternative analysis doesn't seem right.


It's not a policy that Microsoft can't work around. Microsoft is free to submit a package that includs Microsoft Linux, Microsoft OpenOffice couupled with Microsoft's 'world-class' support.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Ianoo]

Again, I'm not pro-Microsoft, in fact quite the opposite (my boxes are Linux Desktops all the way), but it's not as clear cut as you make out. All systems need support, and it is more difficult to find OSS/NIX specialists who know how to administer huge networks whereas there always seems to be a surplus of MSCE geeks (a 15 year old can get this qualification if they work hard enough!). A simple supply-and-demand curve shows you that the Linux support techies can demand more money, and depending on how much support you want (i.e. who does your line manager want to shout at down the phone and how often?) it may actually be more costly to deploy Linux

That said - it looks like we've finally moved in to a time when a Linux bid can be accepted in the rare instance that it higher priced. Firstly you're not tied in to end of life problems or compulsary software upgrades when MS decides on a whim to change their software licensing, but as we've seen from examples Linux is now in a position where it can be faster (Samba) AND more secure (Apache) AND more customisable AND as easy to use or easier (Gnome, KDE usability testing) on the SAME hardware and in the SAME role as a Windows server.

Doesn't bode too well for Microsoft, although I suspect Windows 2003 could run twice as fast as it does at the moment if they didn't compel you to run a GUI on a server that doesn't even have a monitor!

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?

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[ichimunki]

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Apreche]

How can you possibly have a competetive bidding process? MS would have to give the software to the state for $0.00. They would never do that. If they don't then OSS automatically wins.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

This is tired and wrong. Statements like these make the OSS community seem ridiculous. I'm sorry not to enumerate all the reasons this statement is silly, but if you scroll up a bit I think it'll help ya out.

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?

[Corgha]

why give OSS any unfair advantage?

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:

• which does not subject me to burdensome licensing schemes that waste my time and resources;
  
• which protects my investment by ensuring that I will have perpetual access to it, and will never "lock me out" in the future if the company that wrote it goes out of business, or gets purchased, or decides for some reason to change its licensing policy;
  
• which does not require me unduly to surrender any of my rights in order to use the software;
  
• the source code of which I can audit for security and comprehension reasons, then compile to be sure I'm actually running that same code;
  
• to which I can make any desired or needed modifications without having to wait for the author to get around to it, and modifications of which I can distribute directly to or receive directly from other users, instead of waiting for the author to approve them; and
  
• which provides open document standards and open protocols with no "intellectual property" resctrictions that prevent the implementation of alternative editors, readers, clients, and servers, and which therefore does not place an undue financial burden on poor constituents who wish to communicate with me,
  

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Daengbo]

No really an unevern playing field: more like affimative action for software. MS has been heavily preferred for some time now.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[sphealey]

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.

Excellent point. The concept of cost/benefit analysis is very different for governments than private organizations. The movement to turn Citizens into consumers has obscured that difference.

sPh

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Yaztromo]

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.

Nobody is preventing Microsoft from putting in a bid in this case. The requirements simply specify that the products must be Open Source Software.

Personally, I don't see any problem with an organization specifying certain features or requirements in their software. Source availiability is no exception.

As such, all Microsoft needs to do to fit into the requirements are to make their products Open Source. Problem solved.

Yaz.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Nekhlyudov]

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.

While I agree that spending ridiculous amounts of money on a closed-source solution from some random company is a bad idea (having dealt with much the same behavior in government), I would have to say that rolling their own product internally is probably a bad idea too. One of the age old problems that the Canadian government has with IT is just that, with the result being some half-assed solution that only works (poorly) in the sandbox that they have created. Rolling your own product should be a last resort -- at worst case, they should take something pre-existing and enhance it to cover their needs.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[shis-ka-bob]

In any case it's hard to feel sorry for Microsoft here, they've been intentionally trying to stifle competition, and make it difficult (if not impossible) to use a homogenous OS solution for many years. Now it seems their time to pay the piper has come.

Microsoft makes it easy to use a homogenous OS solution. What they make difficult is using heterogenous systems

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[ccalvert]

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

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[elgaard]

The problem with cost analysis is that they are only reliable on a short time scale. I.e. if you keep basing you decisions on short term (3-5 years) analyses, you can end up wasting the taxpayers money in the long term (10-20 years).
It is not uncommon for goverments to spend money to increase competition to save money in the future. The most common example is probably when the goverment itself have a monopoly and try to break it using privatisation. It rarerely save the taxpayer money the first few years.

And it is not only public administrations that have policies like that. I know of big companies that does not allow their suppliers to become too dominant. I.e. they choose to put their orders at a more expensive supplier to make sure that in the future they will have several competetive suppliers.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Great post, I agree with almost everything.

The problem is this: It is is no way the responsible of the executive branch of Mass. to punish anti-competitive behavior. This action, if taken in this sense, is not better than vigilanteism.

I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand, and I hope it doesn't stand (I'm such an astroturfer, huh?), but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner.

Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent. Everyone knows that Redmond has more lobbyists than OSS. Now that a move like this is kosher, what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS? Obviously, it might not occur in so many words, but what if they mandated "Commercially developed software, including full support, verification of IP contained within, etc. etc."

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[adarn]

I think an important issue is not just how much the total cost of ownership for open source vs. proprietary software, but how the money you are spending effects the economy. Spending money on open source software is putting money and more importantly skill and know how into people, often local people, rather than putting a bunch of money into one corporation (in massachusettes case, one corporation on the other side of the country).

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[fishbowl]

>Cost analysis, like every other decision making
>process is subject to interpitation.

I interpret this as a strategy for the State of Massachussetts to acquire deep discounts on Microsoft products. If a heavy player starts making noise about switching, that's just so that Ballmer will get on his jet and come do the grovelling thing.

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?

[JJahn]

Interesting that you bring up getting an MSCE at 15. I got my MCSE certification at 14.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[j_w_d]

Aside from the comic aspects of worrying about the cost-effectiveness and not using Microsoft software, the critical aspect is not the software and source so much as the problem of accessible data storage standards. Where your data and electronically stored documents are stashed in formats that cannot be opened legally without a license from some software company, the public is potentially closed away data and documents that their taxes paid for. For years it has been more or less winked at when one rival company or a lone shareware hacker blackboxed a means of reading and saving some specialized format like a dbf file or a MS doc file. Because, while the software used to accumulate the data or write the document was indeed a licensed closed source program, that data or document did not belong to the software company; it belonged to the agency or person who produced it and to the people who paid for the work.

Ethically, simply because you produced an application, there is no grounds for you to claim ownership of the software's output, stored data, or any other product of someone else's hard work. DRM now presents the grim potential of a serious abuse of public trust through locking away publically paid-for data in proprietary formats that are protected from "hacking" through the DMCA and various similarly poorly thoughout laws.

There are huge realms of data collection that are paid for publically including assessors tables and plats, census data, mapping, aerial and sattelite imaging, documents that have entered the public domain, etc. There is absolutely no justification that can be offered for requiring the use of expensive, proprietary software to access that data, regardless of whether the data was collected with a Microsoft program, Autodesk, ESRI, Trimble or any other company that produces software frequently employed for public purposes.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Guppy06]

"It is is no way the responsible of the executive branch of Mass. to punish anti-competitive behavior."

Article IX. All judicial officers (...) shall be nominated and appointed by the governor

Article XI. No moneys shall be issued out of the treasury of this commonwealth, and disposed of (except such sums as may be appropriated for the redemption of bills of credit or treasurer's notes, or for the payment of interest arising thereon) but by warrant under the hand of the governor for the time being(.)

From here, it would seem the governor of the Massachusetts has a role in punishing illegal behavior as well as overseeing the commonwealth's spending practices, and has had it since at least 25 October 1780.

"I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand,"

Just the opposite: history has shown that robber barons will continue to persist and fester unless and until government ensures free and fair access to the market. There is no reason to believe Vanderbilt's Standard Oil, for example, wouldn't continue to own the oil market to this day without the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

"but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner."

Secretary Kriss, as an appointee by the governor, can dictate his department's spending practices however he damn well pleases (and the commonwealth's Information Technology Division is a part of his department). Otherwise, what would be the point in having the office to begin with?

"Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent."

Allowing government officers to manage their own departments by their own discretion is a "dangerous precedent?" Huh?

What alternatives did you have in mind? Athenian democracy? Should we have Kriss drink some hemlock?

"what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS?"

The fact that this isn't a mandate; it's a decree. There are no campaigns to donate to or voters to buy as far as this policy is concerned, just the secretary's discretion. The worst Microsoft could do is buy a new governor, and even then the new governor would have to have a better reason to replace Kriss than "out-of-state money told me to." Especially since the commonwealth's attorney general is independent of the governor.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[KrunchTime]

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.

While many /.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 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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Good lord buddy. I guess I'll try to take these one at a time. You wrote a lot, so I'll try to paraphrase then answer. I promise I won't distort you (or, that any perceived distortions stem only from personal inadequacy).

1. The governor has some role in punishing anti-competitive practices

Agreed! And your excerpts pretty much show what that is. He should appoint judges. Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor. Maybe if you posted the fulltext it would have been enlightening? You also didn't post this little gem a

Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

Well, what have we here? Checks and balances? Hmmm, fancy that. I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary? Whoddathunkit?

2. Robber Barons WILL stand, unless the government intervenes (as opposed to my contention that history shows they will not stand).

Okay, I should have been clearer; yes, monopolies are inherently self-perpetuating. But why do you think the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act? (or the preceeding, less effective Anti-Trust acts?) They were passed as a responsible to the inevitable (imo) abuses that come from a monopoly power. My point was, I think it is impossible for a robber baron monopoly to exist, without eventually, FORCING government intervention. However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS (which doesn't challenge the tenents of US democracy, or either the federal or state constitutions in question).

3. Eric Kreiss should be able to dictate his department's spending practices in any way he pleases.

Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative! Also, I hope he uses his public office to deal with personal agenda's and grudges, or at the very least, be the instrument of the governor's attempt to do the same. That's what your applauding here.

3. You don't think allowing him to do this (this being the ridiculousness discussed above) sets a dangerous precedent.

Well, okay, thats your perogative. I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values, but as long as we're still allowed to make outrageous comparison s between Kreiss and Socrates, everything is peachy.

4. There is no way this sets a dangerous precedent, because it's simply the secretary's discretion

Hmmm, well I guess the pretext of immature grudge overrules the pretext of being bought out. Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent.

Okay, I'm done here. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, "People who use poor reasoning are slum lords, and it is my duty to put them out of business".

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Foofoobar]

Totally valid point. But for the kind of thing a MSCE person could do, you are not talking that much of a price diff. Now, developing a clustered datawarehouse is something you are going to pay alot for regardless and most MSCE people are going to be out of their league on huge enterprise level deployments like that.

Personally, I think there are places where Linux or other open source software really is the best option... back end. Back end deployment for web servers, networking, databases, etc is great. Use windows to push user images to their desktops and use open source as the backend for databases, CRM's and other more universal resources.

I've used a web server, a database and server side scripting to hook up alot of my companies
resources and make them more universally usable by all departments both locally and on the road. I can export dynamically generated reports and pagesd as PDF's, DOC's and even XCL spreadsheets... and all using a simple AMP architecture.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[duffbeer703]

"Competitive bidding" in government is not what you think it is with regards to IT.

For example, say you have a large computer company. Management at a government agency wants to purchase a bunch of servers from that company. So the large computer company submits a bid, and then two resellers (or "business partners", "system builders", etc) also submit bids (for the same hardware.

The result is that management gets to buy from whomever they want.

Another example would be to rig the requirements. Lets say that company XYZ exclusivly offers a specific model of tape drive or video card with a computer. The purchasing manager simply makes the exclusive component a key requirement of the bid.

In other words, if you are concerned about fair competition that delivers value to the government & the people... you are far too late.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Jason Earl]

In the past an organization had one of two choices when it came to acquiring the software they needed. They could either buy something off the shelf and make it fit their organization, or they could build custom software from scratch. It's a small wonder that purchasing software off the shelf became so popular when the alternative was to gamble on your own software development project.

Nowadays, however, there is a third choice, and it is a fairly compelling one. That choice is to take a piece of Free Software and modify it to fit the needs of the organization. Reusing Free Software has a whole host of advantages. It allows for highly custom software without most of the risks (and cost) of starting from scratch. As an added bonus it becomes fairly easy for several unrelated organizations to share the costs of software development.

This trend is almost certainly going to drive down the profit margins of commercial software companies in the long run.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[crucini]

No. The rule does not discriminate against any vendor. It is a rule about what kind of goods government will procure, not about what vendor they are procured from. Microsoft is perfectly welcome to offer open-source solutions.

When the government buys combat boots, the boots have to meet a government spec. That means Nike can't sell them Air Jordans instead. Is that unfair? No; Nike is free to bid on the item requested.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Thank the Lord in Heaven for your post. No one else on this thread has pointed that out.

Seriously though, your answer does not address my real point. I contend that the reason behind this "spec" is largely a grudge on the part of MA against MS. Further, I argue that it is not a necessary spec (for instance, army boots being waterproof), but a spec that only contributes to an overall decision (well, this army boot is a little heavier, but more durable). In the latter case, it would be improper for the government to specify, without a clear reason, a minimum weight for the boot (okay, these aren't the best applications of the analogy, but I think the point comes across). It's even worse if there's some idea the weight requirement might be instituted as part of an abuse of constitutional power on the one specifying it (if this idea isn't apparent to you, check out many other responses in this thread).

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Guppy06]

"Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor."

Its only context is that of the powers of the governor's office. The "for the necessary defence and support of the commonwealth; and for the protection and preservation of the inhabitants thereof" part doesn't mean "only defense spending" any more than "the people have a right to alter the government," means "armed insurrection." Why else would the governor have to sign the yearly budgets?

"I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary?"

Civics 101: It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret the law. Law enforcement is the role of the executive. Judges can't tell the police how to do their job, only whether or not what the police are doing is actually legal.

"However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS"

Outside of things like, say, the Fourteenth Amendment, Massachusetts and federal courts (especially not the federal courts) have no say in what the commonwealth's budget looks like. Or are you forgetting your previous reference to "checks and balances?"

"Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative!"

Nice straw man. Not only would that run afowl of commonwealth and federal guarantees for freedom of worship, he isn't dictating policy for the entire commonwealth (or even the entire commonwealth government). His decision in specific and his power in general don't extend outside of his department.

"I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values,"

OK, you obviously saw the links I had to the Massachusetts Constitution, and copies of the federal constitution are easy enough to come by. Exactly what parts are being violated here? For example, you say that he's trying to exercise power delegated to the judiciary. Which specific articles did you have in mind?

"Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent."

What rights? Whose rights? The governor still has the power to replace him, and the voters still have the power to replace the governor. He's not giving himself any more money to spend, so he's not stepping on the legislature's toes. The only "harm" he's doing to Microsoft is not giving them more money, so I fail to see how this steps on the judiciary's toes (or does Microsoft have a right to his department's money?). His decision is clearly based on Microsoft's procedures and policies, so it can't be argued that he's hampering Microsoft's civil liberties. What have I left out?

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[BizidyDizidy]

Alright, I'm sorry, I will assume all responsibility for not making my position clear. Here we go:

If this decision is in any way motivated by dislike for MS following from the antitrust suit in which MA was involved, these actions are WILDLY inappropriate. To wit, the decision makers (Kreiss and to whatever extent he was influenced by the his superior, the Governor), this is taking the responsibility for deciding such a case, and deciding the punishment for such a case, out of the hands of the judiciary. THUS, the system of checks and balances is being violated. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE to provide extra-judicial punishment for offenses. In fact, it is a clear violation of the sep. of powers.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[toddler99]

are you on crack? of course this makes sense all he's saying is lets use open source because is more cost effective and better use of tax payers money!!! cheez some people are so dense

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Bat_Masterson]

How do you know that "here open standards/open source have a far better track record" in security? Could it be that the track record is due to number of systems available to attack more than the type of systems they are? That is, perhaps M$ has had problems in security because they are popular more than because they are closed source...

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[antiMStroll]

Short answer: no. Cost is only one factor. Documents serve a government for decades, locking them in to a single manufacturer's proprietary document format and filesystem is against the best interests of the electorate. The next round of DRM will make it worse. Your analysis also considers only short term costs - the next bid - and ignores the skyrocketing cost of vertically integrated MS solutions.

Finally, how is this a 'cheat'? You make it sound like the decision was made by one of 'Slashdot's Linux Zealots' instead of being the result of a considered and researched analysis by the Massachusetts state government. Labelling it as one, and focusing you discussion only on Microsoft when all prorietary software is affected, makes your denial much less convincing.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Ohreally_factor]

The policy (afaik) does not specify Linux. This in no way prevents Microsoft from participating. All they need to do is open up their source and use open standards.

No one is forcing MS to open their source or comply with standards. It's their choice. If Massachusetts requires Open Source/Open Standards, even SCO can bid on projects. All they need to do is open up their source.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[crazylinux]

What are you talking about.
It is not about OSS winning market share.It all about quality of software and solutions. And when it comes to MS they have clearly showed that they are only interested in market share.

At least with OSS it is money well spend and not money thrown out of the window because MS is the easiest and most common and because MS has the best marketing around.

Using OSS in places where the public interest and information is involved is crucial.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[lysium]

Well said.

A real "abuse of power" would be a closed-source vendor that provides a service to one of the States -- say, by computerizing their elections, and then running the process so secretively that no one knows if the elections are even valid anymore. I think the States may be a little weary of mercenary IT vendors in general, and not just the largest one out of the pack.

==============

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[dafoink]

well, why stop at software. Why not have all products the state buys be free? Stop lights, dump trucks, roads, etc.

Why stop there, why not also have state employees work for free.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[SiChemist]

I agree with many of your points, but I think you're a bit off the mark with some of your assumptions.

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.

Another company? Like, say, IBM? Or Red Hat?

I don't know of any credible source of information that proves that open source creates fewer jobs or less commercial development. There are many companies paying people to write and support open software.

I'm not saying absolutely that you are wrong about this, but I don't think that you support your assumption that open source spawns lesser capital investment and less R&D.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[0x0d0a]

The main problem is that OSS's (well, any truly open-standards software, and OSS to a somewhat greater degree) benefits are very much present when it comes to preventing lock-in. This is of extremely high value (it's the main reason Microsoft continues to have a death grip on the office market). In general, at least in the corporate world (and I would assume the bureaucratic one), purchasing decisions are generally made with an eye to the next few quarters, and with a tendency to avoid sticking out. Ideally, a purchaser wants to do something that isn't out of the ordinary, but be able to present it in a money-saving way. This minimizes his personal risk for blame, and maximizes his potential for promotion. The latest "money-saving" plan-of-the-month from the regular old vendor does exactly that.

The idea is to produce a divergence between the interests of the purchasing agent and organization being purchased for. If your product has vaguely plausible bar graph attached showing that it saves lots of money that a purchaser can hand upwards when he makes his decision (and after a sufficient amount of wining and dining), it acts as a huge incentive for the purchasing agent. It does not, however, benefit the organization being purchased for.

Furthermore, I disagree with you about the anti-trust bit. Not only is Microsoft the *least* likely to be impacted by this (it's *still* difficult to move away from them), but considering OSS first primarily tends to ward off future monopolies. It keeps lock-in from getting *established*. It's less good at fighting it once present. Clearly, organizations have paid through the nose in the past when it comes to purchasing.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[0x0d0a]

a) Being open source and conforming to open standards is only viewed as a highly desirable pair of attributes, not mandatory. (I wonder whether purchasers will do anything with the second other than looking for an "XML" checkmark, but we'll see...)

b) There's plenty of OSS that isn't free-as-in-beer. There's shareware (xv), and commercial (Qt) OSS software -- and Qt is even GPLed, though I expect most OSS wouldn't be free.

I hope Microsoft doesn't manage to sell "shared source" as open source, because, frankly, it's not.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[0x0d0a]

It is is no way the responsible of the executive branch of Mass. to punish anti-competitive behavior.

The government is the elected voice of the people. How in the hell do you expect the people to *do* anything if they can't even add requirements that might exclude some current offerings?

This is about a lot more than Microsoft. It's about moving their purchasing to open-source based systems. This covers a vast amount of software.

Furthermore, in an environment where OSS authors get paid, OSS is significantly more economically efficient. Right now, closed-source vendors are provided with an incentive, in that if they produce a closed-source piece of software, someone has to reverse-engineer compatibility or a full clone for it to be replaced. In an OSS environment, this is no longer the case. This just provides a counterbenefit to OSS companies, producing a vaguely level playing field, perhaps in the benefit of OSS, which is in the Mass. govt long term benefit.

Obviously, it might not occur in so many words, but what if they mandated "Commercially developed software, including full support, verification of IP contained within, etc. etc."

Then some company would provide "verification guarantees" and resell Linux. Christ, it's not like closed-source products haven't contained other folks' code before.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[0x0d0a]

I'm not saying absolutely that you are wrong about this, but I don't think that you support your assumption that open source spawns lesser capital investment and less R&D.

There is one, but it runs counter to the result of his assumptions. If you assume that closed-source software allows the producing of barriers to entry and that not doing so allows for a perfectly efficient market, then profits may only be obtained by producing closed-source software. Profits are required for capital, and capital is required for R&D. Hence, closed-source is the only system that provides for R&D.

Of course, the grandparent was also pushing open markets, so I really don't think that was where he was going.

I'd rather see state-sponsored research than corporate research, anyway, which tends to be aimed at building up patent portfolios than producing a good new product. Corporate R&D (this is big company stuff, not dinky research lab stuff) tends to consist of acquiring new companies that did something correctly and are now making money, using 90% of in-house research to build up patent portfolios to build a barrier to entry, and doing a minimal amount of actual work on new features and products in-house.

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.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[0x0d0a]

I contend that the reason behind this "spec" is largely a grudge on the part of MA against MS.

And I contend that it's not. Amazing as it sounds, MS is not the only software vendor that supplies governments. This also is likely to have a major impact on Oracle (and may be fallout from the California-Oracle debacle). Lots of contractors that do custom jobs may not provide source. This now provides a soft requirement that they do so.

The problem is that you're assuming a decision maker that is honest, perfectly logical, and has the company's interests conjoined with his own. This just isn't the case. If purchasers now have to *justify* each non-OSS purchase (i.e. checkbox is not filled in), it acts as a check on ignoring the drawbacks of proprietary software.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[IA-Outdoors]

The key point that many governments are heading toward is to force their technology experts to at least *consider* open source and open standard solutions prior to procurement. In a perfect world that would force some due diligence for a cost effective open-source/open standard solution before possibly wasting money on a closed/proprietary soltuion. The one thing this does bring up is that with this trend, it will be important that more and more of the popular open source initiatives out there start organizing some sort of business plan that offers support because that will often be a deal killer when comparing open vs closed solutions. Also, it was interesting there was no mention of participation in open source projects. Why are government entities engaging in open source initiatives that they start and partnering with other government entities (i.e. between two states). There isn't near enough of that going on.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Evo]

Just out of interest, how are you generating your doc/xls documents? I assume from your post that this is on a Linux backend.

I'm in a situation where I need to generate dynamic Word documents, and so far my choice pretty much seems to tie me to C#/ASP.net as those are the only architectures available to me that can do the Word DDE things to autogenerate documents.

If there is an easy way to do this with a Linux backend I would be very very interested to hear about it!

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[ClubStew]

It's not free. It takes more intelligent people - who typically ask for more in salaray / wages - than what most Windows server require. Yes, truth be told, far to many trade schools educate certified IT people that don't really love computers - just the money it brings. These people are available in greater quantities and can run a Windows network decently enough (arguably).

Cost is not always the cost of software and hardware, but the cost to maintain and run them.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Foofoobar]

You can create and manipulate OpenOffice.org docs
directly inside of PHP using XML. And openoffice can save as words docs. :)

You just have to have open office on your machine.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Foofoobar]

Well hell yeah! You show me where I can get some of these free light, dump trucks and roads that are just as good as paid for ones.

Oh... they don't exist? So what was your point again?

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[gabe]

As a tax payer and resident of Massachusetts, I have absolutely no problem with this, just so long as the system they pick is secure. Windows has many flaws, Linux has almost as many, and even BSDs and Mac OS X have some security issues occasionally. After all, my information is going to be stored in these systems and I don't want it to be accessible to any unauthorized persons.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Sebby]

Nice try buddy, but lobbying isn't considered speech. And anyone in their right mind sees the inbalance that coporate lobbying creates in democracy.

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[Evo]

So do your end users have OO installed, or can you call OO to automatically convert the XML into a Word document and send the end users that?

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?

Re:Another triumph for common sense

[bKT*]

This is very true. Although... they probably used it in the first place because they aren't hiring people who know *nix ;)... also will need to look at sending their ITs to training and stuff.

Re:Another triumph for common sense

[gilesjuk]

Depends what their staff do, Word runs under Crossover Office as good as it does under Windows. As long as they have a good tech support team they'll be alright.

Re:Another triumph for common sense

[bKT*]

I was moreso talking about network and server software than basic office software. To me, once you learn how to use Word, you can use any office application out there... atleast that's what I believe; but expect the worse.

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.

Re:Essential?

[DaveHowe]

That's what I was wondering - ok, Oracle is still front leader out there, but MS SQL is worse than Postgres (and for certain applications, noticably inferior to MySql)

Re:Essential?

[shis-ka-bob]

Go Google for Bev Harris Microsoft access. It quickly becomes apparent that Microsoft Access is used in a rather bizarre way in the Diebold voting machines. There are details at Scoop. I'm not completely convinced, but I am alarmed by tthe deisgn of the Diebold machines - they really do seemed to be designed to allow officials to throw an election. In what seems to be a radical departure from proper database design, the Diebold database is radically DEnormalized with votes recored in 3 databases. While Microsoft can hardly be blamed for idiots that happen to use Access, it is well known that Access is a poor choice for secure systems.

So, here is once case where a Microsoft database is essential for crooked governments

Re:Essential?

[DaveHowe]

I can't think of any real way to avoid this - if a machine can log into a local database unattended, there is a way to extract the login data and do the same (or directly manipulate the database files from code)

Admittedly the denormalization is a massive security problem - but that is database agnostic - and to be honest there is no real reason to *have* a local database; votes could have been recorded "raw" as a continually appending, PKI encrypted records file, preferably to WORM media; the same WORM media would then give you your recount "audit trail" and could be sealed by local observers once uploaded to the master server (which then counts and displays the votes)

simplistic

[littlerubberfeet]

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.

Re:simplistic

[16K Ram Pack]

"The momentum is unstoppable at this point," said Scott Handy, vice president of Linux strategy and market development at IBM

Tonight on ITV (1st or 2nd most watched TV channel in the UK) there was an IBM advert all about Linux. Not at peak time, but around 9:30pm (so would have a reasonable audience).

Non-technical people all over the UK are now saying "Lin...what?" (and probably asking geeks what it is).

Re:simplistic

[harikiri]

Here in Australia I heard a radio advert for the online store Everything Linux, on the 2UE (Sydney) channel. My mind suffered a brief freeze for a second - Linux - advertised on radio!?

Re:simplistic

[spiritraveller]

Until my iMac and AOL grandomther can use Linux, it won't be widely implimented.

Call me crazy, but I doubt that the IT infrastructure of Massachusetts relies very much on the iMac. Linux applications are just as good, and just as user friendly as Windows programs.

OTOH, I'm sure all employees will be in mourning when they finally realize that Clippy has left them. "It looks like you're trying to post a comment on Slashdot. Would you like some help with that?"

Re:simplistic

[antiMStroll]

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. [ Reply to This ]

Odds are low that your Gram's will be loading software for Massachusetts state government. People who don't know AOL from the Internet will be just as confused by Word as by OpenOffice. It's a non-issue in an Enterprise environment.

Re:simplistic

[IM6100]

I remember that same feeling the first time I saw full color display ads for Linux products in Linux Journal magazine back in about 1995.

Re:simplistic

[fferreres]

I am living with my girlfriend and a friend, and I have this notebook, which is the only computer at home. My girlfriend didn't even notice it's Linux, and can do everything she needs. (Open Office, Gaim, Evolution, Galeon). My other friend also uses it without complain.

What unix needs are good admins that will install the best programs for each tipe of user (not everyone want's vim - not even me, even though it's what I use when coding) and maintain the PC and the health of the system, and that can teach the basics (how to login, where they can write to the disk, what happened with C:, etc).

It's really 85% usable now, though 10% instable or maintainable by non techies.

I love this line...

[bakreule]

It's about M$ complaining about being excluded from even bidding...

"It says that's bad for technology companies and bad for taxpayers, who may get stuck paying for inferior, more expensive products."

Isn't this our line??? Isn't this what we say when we say that everyone should consider Linux?

Re:I love this line...

[flossie]

Isn't this our line??? Isn't this what we say when we say that everyone should consider Linux?

First they ignore you, then they deride you, then they steal your lines, then ...

Re:I love this line...

[ljavelin]

No, you're grossly misinterpreting the Massachusetts policy.

Microsoft isn't excluded from bidding, as proprietary, closed-source products are not prohibited. ONLY if all things are equal is a preference given to open "products".

Microsoft can bid, and they can win if they prove that their product is superior than open source alternatives. However, if they are virtual equals, open source must win by policy.

Re:I love this line...

[lifebouy]

You can't really expect any other response from M$. One reason they don't want govornment support of open source is that the more states invest time and energy into open source, the more difficult it will become for them to successfully lobby against open source initiatives. In other words, once the majority of states mandate Open Source, M$ and almost all proprietary software companies will be living on borrowed time. The paradigm will have changed, and they will simply be waiting to die.

cost analysis

[commodoresloat]

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.

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Insightful?

Gah.

Listen - this reply is entirely disingenuous, in the context of this discussion.

My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration. So, consider a situation where a MS product would win; it's then ridiculous to say that if all factors were considered, MS should be banned for just this reason. In fact, it shows that this policy isn't entirely mindful of the true situation.

As an example, what if I was hiring at my company and you interviewed. Afterwards I informed you that I had a blanket no people named "commodore" policy, but otherwise you were far and away the best candidate. You're welcome to have the position, as long as you don't mind changing your name.

I hope you'll agree that this situation is ridiculous: If I've decided you're the best candidate, why should a quality that DOESN'T detract from you being the best candidate disqualify you.

This situation mirros what's going on here exactly (now read this carefully, because I'm sure this analogy will be under attack). Once it's been decided on a playing field that considers ALL factors that an MS solution is best, it should be used. Holding one criteria against it, in the face of an overall superior product is ridiculous.

The point is, I'm not saying MA should only use MS. What they should do, is genuinely choose the best product for each application. Open Source and Open Standards should def. be considerations, but not THE consideration.

Re:cost analysis

[Guppy06]

"My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration."

Except that there are more important things in government than how much something costs.

Let's say your state is like most and maintains an online database of legislation, past and present. As a concerned voter, you would like to see what your elected representatives are up to. What would you rather have: A more expensive solution that lets you review bills in an open format (plaintext, PostScript, etc.) or a cheaper solution that requires all curious voters to have Office XP?

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Goodness sakes. How can you copy a piece of text without reading it? I suppose maybe the gulf lies in understanding.

Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be.

Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere.

I wish I had mentioned benefits in my post, thank you for helping me out.

On a less jackass note, this gets EXACTLY back to a cost benefit analysis. Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion? Unless you're mad as a hatter, I'm guessing that at some point there you said, no, not worth that. Guess what you were doing? Hint: (My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration.)

Re:cost analysis

[Free_Meson]

Parent is stupid, troll, or both. please mod down.

My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration. So, consider a situation where a MS product would win; it's then ridiculous to say that if all factors were considered, MS should be banned for just this reason.
Some benefits are binary. If a system doesn't work but costs half as much, you don't buy it. Massachusetts decided that one benefit it wanted was access to the sourcecode of any software that they purchased. When yet another devastating worm infests every MS box connected to the internet and microsoft ignores it for a few weeks before releasing a patch, or releases a patch that causes new problems, MA wants to be able to fix the problem themselves. Self-reliance is an immeasurably valuable benefit to open source and microsoft normally doesn't offer it.

As an example, what if I was hiring at my company and you interviewed. Afterwards I informed you that I had a blanket no people named "commodore" policy, but otherwise you were far and away the best candidate. You're welcome to have the position, as long as you don't mind changing your name.
This is moronic. A person's name means very little to anyone else. The ability to modify source in the event of a bug or the ability to support internally should the vendor terminate support is of vital importance. not a big deal, you say? MSFT has terminated support for win98 and no doubt winME will lose support shortly. the government no doubt wants computers and software that will be supported for more than 3 years after purchase...

I hope you'll agree that this situation is ridiculous: If I've decided you're the best candidate, why should a quality that DOESN'T detract from you being the best candidate disqualify you.
But closed source does detract from the value of a software product. Just because most because you don't fix the bugs in (say) MSFT powerpoint doesn't mean that another client, say a state with hundreds of thousands of users, would want to be able to fix it themselves. If you don't get this you're just obtuse.

This situation mirros what's going on here exactly (now read this carefully, because I'm sure this analogy will be under attack). Once it's been decided on a playing field that considers ALL factors that an MS solution is best, it should be used. Holding one criteria against it, in the face of an overall superior product is ridiculous.
1) where is the analogy in the above paragraph?
2) Why do you want to consider all factors except the openness of the source?
3) Why do you assume that you know the Costs/Benefits of MA better than MA does?
MA is making a decision as to the level of support they require, and they consider the availability of source code to be a bare necessity. They know more about what makes an "overall superior" product for their purposes than you do.

The point is, I'm not saying MA should only use MS. What they should do, is genuinely choose the best product for each application. Open Source and Open Standards should def. be considerations, but not THE consideration.
MSFT hasn't been excluded from anything. They can still make bids, they just have to give their source. It really doesn't make sense for companies to hide their source any more anyway as it's easy to acquire and use unlicensed software without the source. Closed source undermines legitimate uses while doing little to impede illegitimate ones.

Re:cost analysis

[pantherace]

I hope you'll agree that this situation is ridiculous: If I've decided you're the best candidate, why should a quality that DOESN'T detract from you being the best candidate disqualify you.

This is the whole issue: should the Mass government be forced into a best canidate that may force you to pay more over the long run, and have only certain features, vs you hiring the programmers to implement features, if you need them. But that is a tangent: the basic thing is: What are the qualifications to being the best canidate? I would think that the Open Sourceness of an item should be considered, and admittedly it is a qualification which does not favor Microsoft (or any other proprietary software vendor).
As I digressed above, I would like to make the point that longevity of a piece of software is a very important thing, as I would also consider the ability to modify the OS/Application/Server/Library to your needs.

because I'm sure this analogy will be under attack

Actually I think it is a good analogy. (minus disagreement about the qualifications)

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.

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Wow, so insightful. If you'd read the thread, the only major MS app I even use is Windows XP. Further, I said it would be great if OSS was adopted. I just think it would be even GREATER if it happened on a level playing field. IHBT, I know. Nonetheless, just wanted to make sure no one took your statement as less than completely ridiculous.

Re:cost analysis

[Guppy06]

"Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be."

Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."

"Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere."

The benefit is access to government, something generally not associated with price tags (unless you're a die-hard cynical Marxist). It's also something that rarely gets mentioned in the competitive bids you referred to earlier.

"Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion?"

None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.

"Unless you're mad as a hatter(...)"

So be it.

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Good heavens bud.

Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."

You obviously misjudged my original post, I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion.

None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.

Oh, for heavens sake. It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer? How can I argue when you make an argument this ridiculous? At some level of expense, almost nothing is justified. Your example is clearly not one of the exceptions.

Re:cost analysis

[Archie Steel]

How about this: as long as costs are in the same ballpark, then the Massachussets govt. should favor Open Source over MS products. Talking about "trillions" is ridiculous - if there is a price advantage to MS it won't magnitudes cheaper!

Let's put the question another way: how much is freedom from vedor lock-in worth? How much does maintaining the monopoly cost? It's not always about the lowest cost of purchase, too, but about long-term costs. Remember that a monopoly can lead to inflated prices quickly!

I understand your basic concern - and in fact, if there wasn't such a thing as the MS monopoly (which Massachussets tried to fight in court), I'd say you would be right. But a monopoly changes the rules of the game - weakening it is something we can all benefit from. As such, it this is an important decision - it makes sense financially in the long run (and most probably in the short run as well) and it makes sense socially. I'd say it's a win on all counts - except for MS, of course.

Re:cost analysis

[Guppy06]

"I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion."

The "taxpayer money" and "competitive bidding" parts.

"It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer?"

Here is another example of you equating "cost" with "price tag." Requiring a download from Microsoft may not cost any money, but it still costs civil liberties

Microsoft's Word format is a black box, legally if not technologically. Requiring laws to be published in Word format gives Microsoft ultimate control over how those laws are viewed and interpreted, and by whom (especially as new DRM policies are implemented in the format). Requiring voters to download a free (beer) Word viewer means that their government is open to public scrutiny and review only by Microsoft's good graces. Other than Microsoft's say-so, what assurance is there that the text in the Word document I'm reading is actually the same text that was passed by the legislature? Consider your answer before dismissing this as Orwellian paranoia.

Free and open access to government by the constituency is one of the cornerstones upon which modern republicanism is built. Closed standards in government by their very nature inhibit public review and discourse, because you can't complain about what you aren't allowed to see. They abridge the freedom of speech.

You wanted to know what I would pay to avoid putting unnecessary restrictions on access to government? I would pay with my life. What dollar amount that's worth I'll let you decide for yourself.

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Well, to just finish up with your analogy:

My Word program (Word 2000) will save a document in HTML, RTF, and .txt. Are any of those open?

So, in the unlikely scenario where MS stopped offering a viewer, would these be a possibility?

I think you're too much equating "closed standards" with unusuable standards, and have too much of a tin hat mentality.

Note that, at a fundamental level, I'm not disagreeing with you. Also, despite having a legal version of Office2k on my system, I use OpenOffice out of preference (largely because I'm a math major, and like to typeset with OO's formula editor. I'm too lazy to learn LaTeX just yet).

My point isn't ANYTHING against OSS. I'd be just as happy if everyone used it (I love getting all this free shit instead of paying out the nose). However, I have certain standards to which I hold my government, and I don't think MA is respecting those. You also have standards, which are similar and different, and think MA's decision is a step in the right direction. Okay, I've got no problem with that.

Re:cost analysis

[Feztaa]

I would argue that a government agency, being funded by you and me, doesn't have the right to lock their documents into a proprietary format like MSWord's .doc.

Everything they do is funded by public money, so everything they produce should be accessible by the public. I can't (reliably) open .doc files, therefore they should not be used. If they want to buy MSOffice and then save all their files as RTF, that'd be ok with me. But it would be even better if they used PDFs or OpenOffice.org's native format. Then they could ensure that everybody would be able to read the files, since the files are stored in an open format that can be implemented by any format.

Re:cost analysis

[BizidyDizidy]

Keep in mind that MSWord can also save to .pdf (using a third party solution, granted. However, it would be impossible to remove this functionality without removing print functionality AFAIK).

Also, HTML is an option.

Re:cost analysis

[Xerithane]

Oh, for heavens sake. It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer? How can I argue when you make an argument this ridiculous? At some level of expense, almost nothing is justified. Your example is clearly not one of the exceptions.

You are playing a deliberate slippery slope argument. What if the price of freedom outweighs the lack thereof? What if an open standard is cheaper than the closed standard? You can play these theoretical games to infinity and beyond.

The facts are very simple, in which Microsoft excludes itself from the open-standards ballpark (with the notable exception of C#) and several open source providors are included.

What he is saying is that requiring a closed product to communicate with the government should be an expense carried by the government. Not carried by the tax-payers. By allowing the Microsoft-exclusive market in the Government, you disallow several other competitors and force those who wish to effectively communicate with the government to purchase Windows(tm).

Freedom to communicate outweighs the freedom of the Government to force you to speak to them in a certain format.

Re:cost analysis

[IM6100]

How much is freedom from Admin-lockin worth?

In many instances, since the software is more open-ended and configurable, the Open Source solution involves all kinds of 'glue' and 'customization' and so you'll end up having to hire 'smarter' staff to implement and maintain it. There are many more variables involved, since it's open, and your cost of maintaining the system will be higher. Further, you can find yourself 'locked in' with a custom solution that some surly BOFH has control over.

With the Microsoft (or, say Oracle) 'cookie cutter' product, there is a whole education system churning out trained people who can maintain the product. There are dozens and dozens of people clamoring to apply for the position maintaining the system. If one doesn't work out, you can hire in another.

I don't think many places with actual products and/or customer/citzen bases to serve want to turn into source-code shops with a team of programmers.

Re:cost analysis

[IM6100]

But it would be even better if they used PDFs or OpenOffice.org's native format. Then they could ensure that everybody would be able to read the files, since the files are stored in an open format that can be implemented by any format.

What you're demanding from government can be taken to ridicuous degree. Why should citizens have to have an expensive modern computer capable of running OpenOffice to read said documents? What business do you have implying that everybody can afford a computer that runs OpenOffice?

Shouldn't said documents be available in a format where people who can only afford a used VT-100 terminal can access them?? (or equivalent, i.e. there are 'free internet' services out there that are accessable with a 1200 or greater baud modem that basically have lynx as their user interface. tcfreenet.org is an example)

Where does the demand for open-ness end? Should access software be supplied on punched paper tape if that's what some of the citizens want?

Re:cost analysis

[AKnightCowboy]

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.

Ah, the old give me something for nothing routine. Here, let me just give you my source code and then hand you a bill for $50 million. What, you won't pay it because you have the source code now and can just get someone else to compile it? Dirty bastard.

Re:cost analysis

[Zigg]

With the Microsoft (or, say Oracle) 'cookie cutter' product, there is a whole education system churning out trained people who can maintain the product.

In my never-to-be-humble opinion, backed by experience, these people can't act without their umbilicus to the respective company (Microsoft, Oracle, etc.) Most blindly follow advice without understanding the respective ramifications, having had their trust built up because it often works, at least temporarily.

On the flip, an open solution means that any intelligent independent observer can be brought in to look at every single bit of what's been done. I consider this a stronger mitigation of risk than being able to throw a marketing indoctrination program graduate in the mix. And at the end of the day, there's nothing to say the "trained" admin isn't going to try his hand at BOFHing anyway...

Re:cost analysis

[Zigg]

This is a just plain silly argument. If your job is to make a document and a PDF, OpenOffice.org is going to win out. Seriously, several hundred dollars per seat for Word+Acrobat or $0 per seat for OpenOffice.org? No contest.

Now if you have an investment in heavily Word-macroed .doc files or some of the more obscure Word features, I can see the scales tipping. That's not to say the scales can't be tipped back by considering a one-time investment in converting away from Word...

Re:cost analysis

[IM6100]

In general, big companies like IT solutions that work like them. That means: with hugely scaled support teams and 'drop in replacement' staffing capabilities.

Big organisations abhor 'hot dog expert' solutions.

And rightly so, as it's not how they operate either.

I'm not saying it's always a good thing. Most of the truly innovative 'progress' comes out of tight small team efforts. But it's just the way it is.

Re:cost analysis

[sphealey]

What you're demanding from government can be taken to ridicuous degree. Why should citizens have to have an expensive modern computer capable of running OpenOffice to read said documents? What business do you have implying that everybody can afford a computer that runs OpenOffice?

In fact, even in the initial ruling in Veeck vs. City of Austin the court did hold that the municipality was required to provide free access to the text of laws in a manner and format accessible to the voters. Most state constitutions and local government charters codify such requirements and access is most often provided by that subservice facility, the "library".

sPh

Re:cost analysis

[Archie Steel]

How much is freedom from Admin-lockin worth?

Funny, in surveys made among large businesses, "Admin lock-in" is never an issue, but "vendor lock-in" is. Fact of the matter is that, the more Linux will be used, the more qualified admins for it will be available. In fact, Linux is already quite popular in many CS programs. As you say yourself, if your admin doesn't do, you can hire another - they may be less plentiful than MSCEs right now, but they're not so rare that you can't find them!

There are many more variables involved, since it's open, and your cost of maintaining the system will be higher.

Not necessarily, as it has been proven that a *nix admin can handle more servers than a MS admin, and that Linux installations require less maintenance than MS ones. Independent TCO studies confirm this - of course, MS keep spreading the FUD that using Linux is more expensive to use, but then again they are an interested party and one cannot expect them to say the truth about this.

Further, you can find yourself 'locked in' with a custom solution that some surly BOFH has control over.

Well, open-source doesn't have to mean free-for-all. There are a number of established solutions for particular IT needs. Some, like Orbitz, may decide to do everything themselves to save even more on costs, while others might want to go with IBM or RedHat support. But in any case, risks of being "locked-in" with a particular solution (I won't touch the BOFH stereotype, as this is a serious discussion) are entirely dependent on the approach you take, and the amount of planning you do. All things considered, these risks are remote at best.

I don't think many places with actual products and/or customer/citzen bases to serve want to turn into source-code shops with a team of programmers.

More stereotypes. That is a very reductive - and inaccurate - view of the new Linux reality. In fact, according to IBM, there are lots of places with actual products and/or customers who have switched to Linux and have already seen a decrease in costs.

Re:cost analysis

[bit01]

Funny, didn't even reply to the parents main point ie. whether they are an astroturfer? I wonder why?

Government should be open...

[Realistic_Dragon]

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.

Re:Government should be open...

[Adam9]

Thinking along the same lines..

It really disgusts me to see this for the "minmum computer requirements" for SERVE, the new online voting that the federal government has been developing:

Minimum Computer Requirements
1. a Windows-based computer (Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, NT or XP)

2. a connection to the Internet (dial-up modem, cable, DSL, LAN, WAN, etc.)

3. one of the following Internet browsers:
- Microsoft Internet Explorer, version 5.5 and above
- Netscape Navigator, version 6.x and above

If you are using an older browser, you can download a new version at the Microsoft or Netscape websites:
- Internet Explorer: http://www.microsoft.com
- Netscape Navigator: http://www.netscape.com


At the Midwest ACM Reflections Projections Conference today, the keynote speaker mentioned that the government would be requiring ActiveX for one of the online voting systems. So not only do you have to be 18, you must run Internet Explorer on Windows too. I find this very frightening.

Check this site then click on "How to Participate" then "Minimum Computing Requirements." They're using some kind of POST form, so I can't link to them directly.

Re:Government should be open...

[Realistic_Dragon]

I have never heard that term, Active X Content. Aren't Web Services based on standards such as XML and SOAP.

Active X content is Microsoft's attempt to leverage their installed user base to make an imcompatible replacement to Flash and similar technologies that is only available to Windows users.

Re:This is bad..

[KGBear]

Florida? Oh, now I believe the cost analysis... After all this is Florida, know for its high standards in politics.

Re:This is bad..

[Cat9117600]

First off, I wouldn't call "antitrust lawsuit" an "immature grudge". Secondly, you mentioned the high cost comes in switching to open source, and training new people to use it. Wouldn't this cost be the same then as switching to new versions of previous software (and needing to retrain for the new versions), but perhaps without the cost of the actual software (not having to buy all the MS licenses)?

Re:This is bad..

[commodoresloat]

the cost to switch to open source software, to train works to use the software, and to maintain it, is over 40% more expensive than the closed source counterpart costs to currently maintain and use.

But did they study the cost of upgrading the closed source counterpart, training, maintaining it, and cleaning up the messes made by viruses and worms that the closed source computers are more vulnerable to?

From the article:

[Dr. Photo]

Microsoft says it knows it won't win every contract, but it opposes any type of mandate preventing proprietary software from even being considered. It says that's bad for technology companies and bad for taxpayers, who may get stuck paying for inferior, more expensive products.

And who is a better expert on such products than Microsoft? :)

not the only issue

[Spetiam]

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.

Re:Taxachusetts

[El]

Give the liberals a break. Their heart is in the right place; they just think that they know what's best for you better than you know yourself.

Run, Microsoft, Run!

[Fjord Prefect]

Be very scared, Billy Boy!

MS not excluded from bidding

[Corgha]

It's also worth noting that Microsoft is not actually excluded from bidding. They are welcome to provide their own open source solution to win the government contract.

Now, they may be unwilling to do so, but that's their problem. If they don't want to attempt to fulfill the requirements of the request for bids, they don't get a shot at the juicy government contract.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[KillerHamster]

Exactly. Open source doesn't have to mean free as in beer. Microsoft could write and sell open source software if they wanted to.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

Exactly. Open source doesn't have to mean free as in beer. Microsoft could write and sell open source software if they wanted to.

Your statement rests on the assumption that all users who then bought that software would keep it to themselves, and not give it away to others.

This might work for one or two people... but after a very short time, someone would share that software out.

So they're left with two choices: charge the full non-recoverable engineering cost for the Open Source software, and take their revenue as that, or don't open it at all, and sell it at a deep discount on a per-user basis (as they do now).

Take your pick; high volume, closed-source commercial software, or low volume, high price, open-source commercial software.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[pinkocommie]

Whats the difference between sharing source and sharing binaries? Rampant piracy happens with binaries doesnt it? :). If the licensing terms are kept the same, the only difference with the source being open under the same M$ license would be that any subterfuge or bugs etc could be detected by a group of reasonably competent coders.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

Whats the difference between sharing source and sharing binaries? Rampant piracy happens with binaries doesnt it? :). If the licensing terms are kept the same, the only difference with the source being open under the same M$ license would be that any subterfuge or bugs etc could be detected by a group of reasonably competent coders.

The difference being that you can legally share the source and/or binaries under Open Source. So person (A) (the first customers), buys the OSS version of a piece of software for (say) $500. They then put it on the web, and everyone else can get it for free. Perfectly legally.

Therefore, as I said before, you either sell for a bucket load of cash, or you keep it closed source and rely on the legal system to prevent as much piracy as you can.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[pinkocommie]

Hmm, I don't think I understand your point exactly :). Why does it have to be GPL or Closed Source? Can't someone (M$) author a license by which you can recompile and mess with the OS you bought on a SINGLE installation on a single computer but can't share, just liked current closed source systems just um, not closed :).

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[16K Ram Pack]

I think it's quite a clever way of saying "we want Linux" (if you said that, it could probably be contested as uncompetitive).

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[DonGar]

Your statement rests on the assumption that all users who then bought that software would keep it to themselves, and not give it away to others. This might work for one or two people... but after a very short time, someone would share that software out.

Um.. doesn't RedHat operate under this exact constraint? And make money? Perhaps not as much as MS is used too.... and without as much control.

On a side note, I'd be happy to see the state stay on Windows, but move away from Office. Get those documents into a known format, and the state is in a much safer situation over all..

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

Hmm, I don't think I understand your point exactly :). Why does it have to be GPL or Closed Source? Can't someone (M$) author a license by which you can recompile and mess with the OS you bought on a SINGLE installation on a single computer but can't share, just liked current closed source systems just um, not closed :).

The original poster said "Open Source", which apparently has a specific and trademarked definition, created by the Open Source Foundation.

Microsoft already has a Shared Source license, which Massachusetts could already use, which acts the way you describe.

Simon

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

Um.. doesn't RedHat operate under this exact constraint? And make money? Perhaps not as much as MS is used too.... and without as much control.

Nope. RedHat sells software that others write and give away for free. They also sell support - and a few small utilities.

A far cry from Microsoft, who employ tens of thousands of software engineers, and write all their own software from scratch, while paying those engineers to do so.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[pod]

Of course MS is not excluded from bidding, that's just silly. When the government is taking bids for some shuttle parts supplier, is Joe from Joe's Landscaping pissed that he's excluded from bidding? If the government is looking for open source software, and MS is not capable, or willing, to make the product sought, then they can't bid.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

And what stops MS from doing the same? BTW, RH has full time developers writing GPLed code, including Linux kernel code.

Yes, several orders of magnitude less developers. As I mentioned in the prior post. You did read it, didn't you? Or are you seriously claiming that RedHat has tens of thousands of developers? Instead of about 30?

Add in the fact that the shareholders of Microsoft would file a lawsuit against them the moment they deliberately cannibalized their own profits in this way, and you can see why they can't do it.`

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[Bert64]

Write all their software from scratch? what about IE? wasn`t that bought from spyglass? And how about DOS, the product that really kickstarted the company, they bought that from a third party too.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[spectecjr]

Write all their software from scratch? what about IE? wasn`t that bought from spyglass? And how about DOS, the product that really kickstarted the company, they bought that from a third party too.

My point is, however, that they don't leech off the back of people writing software and giving it away for free. They pay people to write their software.

Re:MS not excluded from bidding

[Bert64]

Did they ever pay spyglass? last i heard, they ripped the deal was that spyglass get a cut of the profits from sales of ie, and since it was given away for free there were no profits...
but since ie is such an integral part of windows, perhaps they should sue them for a share of windows profits

Re:Taxachusetts

[good soldier svejk]

I don't get the Taxachusetts moniker. I live here and pay 5% income tax, 5% sales tax and $.21/gallon gas tax. Doesn't seem so bad to me. New York has 4-6.85% income, 4% sales (plus $1.50 on cigarettes) and $.226 gas tax. Li'l Rhodie has 7% sales, $.31/gallon gas and a flat 1/4 of your federal income tax liability. West Virginians pay 6% sales, $.2535/gallon gas and 3-6.5% income tax. Californians endure a 7.25-8.25% sales tax, $.18/gallon sales tax and 1-9.3% income tax. Sure, I could move to Wyoming and pay less, but how many unix sysadmin jobs are there in Wyoming and what do they pay?

De-Facto vs. Desire vs. Disparaging...

[tyrcadia]

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 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! :) 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.

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.

Re:De-Facto vs. Desire vs. Disparaging...

[rich_r]

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.

I feel that legislation of Open Source is no bad thing. Whilst there is no specification of GPL only, Microsoft can still compete by simply opening it's source. It may not trickle down to the end user, but it will ensure that the IS departments will be in a position to deal with incombatibilities in such things as file formats etc.

Re:De-Facto vs. Desire vs. Disparaging...

[mrscott]

If it's determined that the courts really need to oversee the purchasing policies of every government agency, there needs to be another condition that goes along with "Someone needs to file for a public injunction against a government agency buying Microsoft products to force the question of 'were alternatives considered?'"

Someone needs to file for a public injunction against a government agency using open source products to force the question of "were alternatives considered?

The people who are in the decision making positions in government agencies are theorectically there at the behest of an elected offical (maybe not directly, but through the hierarchy).

I really don't agree with the suggestion that the courts deal with it. If someone isn't doing their job by performing a reasonable analysis it's an HR issue for which the populace can fix by voting the offending elected official out.

Keep in mind that MS sometimes IS the best solution. If the agency wants productive employees that can serve their constituents and the best solution is MS, great.

Re:De-Facto vs. Desire vs. Disparaging...

[antiMStroll]

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.

Wrong analogy. Try only one gauge of rail track, only one correct means to modulate an FM signal, only one proper side of the road to drive. Massachusetts made a choice about type of software, not manufacturer.

Looks like they've been listening to the Peruvians

[keynet]

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

Re:This is bad..

[Simple-Simmian]

Since 99% percent of all computers are used as word processors how is training people to use a new word processor more expensive in the long run? In the long run it's going to be cheaper.

In any case the article indicates that closed source would be used where their is on alternate choice.

Re:This is bad..

[El]

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.

Re:This is bad..

[El]

They're also famous for how good they are at counting... which sort of essential in cost analysis, isn't it? And I'm sure their is nobody in the state of Florida whose opinions could be swayed by dinners, vacations, lavish gifts, or even outright bribes, which some marketing departments are know for...

Hey ...

[pherris]

Hey Steve, what's up man? Don't you have a /. account yet?

Re:Taxachusetts

[Jameth]

As opposed to the conservatives, that never make intrusions into your privacy with massive things such as the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act. No, they would never try to decide what was best for you.

Advice for the clueless.....

[Newer Guy]

Massachusetts' tax burden isn't even in the top ten of states! Even New Hampshire (you know, the 'live free or die' people) have a larger tax burden. While it's true that they have no state income or sales taxes, ask them what they pay for property taxes. You'll find them to be almost FOUR TIMES what someone in Massachusetts pays!! Why? Over a decade ago, Massachusetts passed Proposition 2 1/2, which limits property taxes. I lived in a town where we still had a town meeting form of Govt. EVERY PENNY SPENT was examined with a magnifying glass. So, next time, get your facts straight, clueless ones!!!

Re:Advice for the clueless.....

[QuackQuack]

While it's true that property tax is higher in NH, it is not 4X the MA rate! It does vary by town though. For example, the towns of Methuen MA and Salem NH border each other. Methuen's prop tax rate is 11.74/$1000, while Salem's is 20.20/$1000. Not quite double. Also consider that property values are generally higher in MA.

Someone who lives, works, and shops in NH has a lower tax burden than someone who lives, works and shops in MA. However, southeast NH has become a Boston suburb, so many people who live in that area work in MA, and still have to pay an income tax. Also many people in MA take advantage of the tax-free shopping in NH.

But I do agree that MA doesn't live up to its tax reputation.

Re:Taxachusetts

[geoff2]

Of course, if you took the time to actually look at the facts instead of spouting off unclever quips, Massachusettes' state tax burden is significantly lower than the U.S. average and is in about the middle of the pack when viewed as percentage of personal income.

- a defensive Bostonian

Re:This is bad..

[mormop]

The cost of retraining users to use Linux apps instead of Windows equivalents is primarily born at the time the switch is made. Top up training will probably not cost any more than top up training for Windows.

All these Windows is cheaper than Linux studies neglect to mention annualy repeated licencing which will, over the years, bump the cost of the Microsoft option up by a very large percentage. After several years of re-licencing, MS will be more expensive.

Besides, the original Quote called for Open Source and Open Standards. While the need for Open Source is arguable the need for Open Standards is not. The installation and maintainence of publicly funded IT projects is carried by every taxpayer. Assuming MS goes down a path of excluding competitors with bastardised standards, tax payers who contributed to government IT projects will be excluded from using services they paid for. It is arguable that publicly funded bodies have a moral obligation to provide web services which are accessible to all taxpayers/citizens regardless of their choice of operating system, web browser, wordprocessor or whatever.

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.

Re:Open protocols/formats

[Spoing]

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.

Agreed. One 'gotcha';

MS Office uses XML...is it open? MS networks run on TCP/IP...is it open? If MS provides documentation that is incomplete, or does not reflect thier own implementation (one they may pronounce defective), is it still open?

Conversely, if an open source project does not document all details, does the source become the documentation for the open protocol or format? What if it changes?

My fear is that MS will likely redefine itself -- make no changes -- and still continue with business as usual...and that others who aren't MS will attempt to do the same.

Re:Open protocols/formats

[pointwood]

I actually think that's what they require (free, open standards and specifications), I believe most of the journalists that wrote those articles, have misunderstood the message. There is a pretty big difference between requiring open source and open standards.

Re:Open protocols/formats

[kris]

Of course they can.

By forcing Microsoft into the confines of a publicly mandated file format, the government stifles innovation and makes it impossible or more expensive for Microsoft to improve their software in a way that guarantees a richer and more satisfactory customer experience.

See, I did not even grin when saying that.

Kristian

Re:Open protocols/formats

[0x0d0a]

Yup. And the people evaluating these purchases are folks with an MIS degree. They don't have a fucking clue when it comes to evaluating low-level technical benefits of one or another. They do understand bullet points aimed at checkboxes ("open protocols...check!").

Frankly, I think even "open source" is two vague, and a specific set of requirements should be put in place -- i.e. no NDA for source access.

This is not against MS

[HermanAB]

MS is a software company - a huge one - nothing prevents them from using open standards and writing open source software. Same as everybody else, they are free to do that.

Open source push should be in govt, not corporate

[bigberk]

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 :)

Re:Open Source software: you get what you pay for

[aligma]

Please, Microsoft does not provide rock solid support. Firstly, there is a development and support community who provide most of the technical support for Microsoft products. Secondly, I have found errors in published technical information about their own products, authored by them.

I use Microsoft products all the time, and I think they are very useful, but I think this zealous view of Microsoft products is flawed.

EULAs are an abuse of power

[Tangurena]

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.

Re:EULAs are an abuse of power

[John Hurliman]

"Especially the bit about where the software vendor is not liable for anything: errors, crashes, defective security or lost data."

As opposed to the GPL?

"This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details."

Re:EULAs are an abuse of power

[theonetruekeebler]

As opposed to the GPL?

Perhaps. But the GPL goes on to say "by the way, here's the source code. If run up against any problems, you're welcome to patch it up, or just post to comp.foo.whatever. Enjoy!"

Whereas the standard EULA says "by the way, any attempt to tamper with our software is an act of piracy and we will take all your possessions away and maybe even put you in jail. it's not broken unless we say it's broken, and we say it's not broken."

Ignore your high school English teacher!

[jacoberrol]

A frequently asked question about conjunctions is whether and or but can be used at the beginning of a sentence. This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and:

There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues. from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it.

iMac and AOL grandmother?

[axxackall]

Until my iMac and AOL grandomther can use Linux, it won't be widely implimented.

Your family might be rich if your grandmother can afford iMac. On the other side, your family is not rich if you grandmother cannot afford any ISP but AOL.

Jokes aside, Linux runs perfectly fine on iMac. The list of distros include:

• Gentoo - the fastest one on PPC;
• YDL - the specialized on PPC only;
• Red Hat - for most of average people it IS the linux;
• Debian;
• Suse;
• Slackware;

As for AOL, yes, no AOL client for Linux yet, but... does AOL still keep 90% of American home ISP market? I guess not - there are many other ISPs (especially broadbands) which are OS neutral, perhaps together they keep upto 50% of american home ISP market. Besides, outside USA, AOL is presented only in Canada (where it may have less than 10% of home ISP market).

Re:This is bad..

[Cat9117600]

not only that, the turnovers could help with the expense when switching to a new system. Instead of hiring people proficient in Windows, just hire people with open source knowledge, and training money is no longer needed.

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

[Thing 1]

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

As a Massachusetts resident, I must say that we abbreviate our state as "MA". "MS" is Mississippi.

See here.

PostgreSQL for goverments!

[axxackall]

Ok, you asked for it, for database flamewars.

1. 90% of goverment database applications don't require any big DBMS. The rest might do, but they are typically are a top secret, so we don't know about it either (NSA, CIA, FBI and other Big Brothers).

2. Oracle's leadership is based on a mind inertion, not on real benefits. Among commercial DBMS vendors I can recall few cases when Sybase and DB/2 where more appropriate than Oracle. In many (90%) cases in goverment IT projects the cost/performance ratio of Oracle is way worse than of PostgreSQL.

3. PostgreSQL is never *noticably* inferior to MySql. There are some cases when MySQL can be 5-10% faster - such difference is hard to notice in real life. Most of (in)famouse benchmarks are made by switching off any integrity in MySQL, ignoring that you can switch some integrity off in PostgreSQL too. Well, enough about those myths. Just to add: PostgreSQL is well known as the most programmable DBMS on the market. MySQL cannot beat that either. Neither Oracle or MS SQL.

Conclusion. Sometimes PostgreSQL is considered to do to Oracle in upcoming two-three years exactly the same as Linux to Microsoft Windows - getting the market from it. It doesn't have enough hype for it yet (is it b/c of its BSD license?). But giving it some goverment support - it can get that hype. Let's see.

Re:PostgreSQL for goverments!

[theonetruekeebler]

90% of goverment database applications don't require any big DBMS. If you mean 90% of the running instances, yes. But governmments do tend to need databases for

• Income tax returns
• Sales tax records
• Property tax records
• Vehicle registrations
• Driver's license records
• Childhood immunization records
• Medicaid
• Pension funds
• Employee payroll
• Crime and police records

Those have millions of records in their tables and occasional demand for very high throughput. Now for things like

• Business licenses
• Liquor licenses
• Sex offender registries
• Fingerprint registries
• Epidemiology
• Contract bids
• Convicted felon DNA

Any open source RDBMS should suffice. But you'll notice that some of those systems may have to interact with one another. Try this: Go through the unsolved sex crime records and match any DNA or fingerprints against white male convicted felons over forty. You need a wee bit of integration for that.

Re:PostgreSQL for goverments!

[0x0d0a]

Any open source RDBMS should suffice.

What the hell are you talking about? What feature or specific performance issue do you have with Postgres?

My only guess is that you're trolling, since you group all open source software together.

Re:PostgreSQL for goverments!

[axxackall]

I don't see any problems of running those aplications with PostgreSQL DBMS on the backend.

In my personal PostgreSQL experience I worked with a single table as long as about billion of records. Also, I worked with a database total size of which was about 1 TB. It worked fine. Millions committed transactions per day? No problem.

By the way, do you know what DBMS is hosting all .ORG domains? That's right - PostgreSQL.

As for "integration" - PostgreSQL is the most programmable DBMS available today. Even no commercial DBMS can match with it. So, choosing a commercial DBMS for fingerprint lookup is at least stupid.

Any open source RDBMS should suffice.

Now I see - yes, you *ARE* trolling here.

Re:PostgreSQL for goverments!

[theonetruekeebler]

My question is: How does PostgreSQL do when you have to issue a query across multiple remote instances? Because with Oracle (just for instance), it's basically a matter of adding permissions at one instance and aliases at another.

No, I have never touched PostgreSQL. If I had, I wouldn't be asking questions. But I do know what certain other products are capable of.

But judging from your response to my comment (and the other response), it would appear that PostgreSQL is the Macintosh of RDBMSs.

Re:PostgreSQL for goverments!

[DaveHowe]

Ok, you asked for it, for database flamewars.
grin I know.

1. 90% of goverment database applications don't require any big DBMS. The rest might do, but they are typically are a top secret, so we don't know about it either (NSA, CIA, FBI and other Big Brothers).
Indeed so, yes - few if any databases need more than postgres can offer, in fact, few if any need more than MySQL can offer (think about what the backend to this server here is :)

2. Oracle's leadership is based on a mind inertion, not on real benefits. Among commercial DBMS vendors I can recall few cases when Sybase and DB/2 where more appropriate than Oracle. In many (90%) cases in goverment IT projects the cost/performance ratio of Oracle is way worse than of PostgreSQL.
That I dispute - yes, oracle loses a cost/performance comparison, but that is because it is unreasonably expensive for what it offers - but it still leads the field for large or excessively complex databases.
If you are saying that a lot of companies choose oracle when postgres would do nicely then yes - this is true. Most companies with oracle will never need to move to the sort of scaling or redundancy that pushes oracle out in front, so have bought a V8 (at V8 prices) for something a lawnmower engine could do as well at :)

3. PostgreSQL is never *noticably* inferior to MySql. There are some cases when MySQL can be 5-10% faster - such difference is hard to notice in real life. Most of (in)famouse benchmarks are made by switching off any integrity in MySQL, ignoring that you can switch some integrity off in PostgreSQL too. Well, enough about those myths. Just to add: PostgreSQL is well known as the most programmable DBMS on the market. MySQL cannot beat that either. Neither Oracle or MS SQL.
To be fair, MySQL doesn't claim to - on large, largely read-and-append databases with no complex multitable sql to handle, MySQL tends to be faster and have less problems. Again, look at what Slashdot use as a back end :)

Conclusion. Sometimes PostgreSQL is considered to do to Oracle in upcoming two-three years exactly the same as Linux to Microsoft Windows - getting the market from it. It doesn't have enough hype for it yet (is it b/c of its BSD license?). But giving it some goverment support - it can get that hype. Let's see.
I would love to see that happen - perhaps not actually crush oracle, but oracle has been far to complacent for far too long (they still see their biggest competitor as MS SQL, based on MS mindshare - and as a techical comparison its a joke, but unfortunately as you point out most companies don't *need* oracle, and MS SQL will work just as well for a much smaller ticket price. of course Postgres and MySQL will also both do just as well, but the old adage about IBM has been transferred to Microsoft with a vengence....

Not Ruling out MS

[mAineAc]

I see no where in any of this that it says that it is ruling out Microsoft. I see that it is stating that they have to take Open Source Software into consideration when they are shopping around. Why does everyone argue that it is bad to mandate Open Source when all they are doing is telling the people in charge of purchasing to just take it into consideration. The problem is that Microsoft does not want Open Source considered because they are very afraid of what is happening around them. If governments start adopting then more people will start using the same software to be able to better communicate. When an Open Source alternative like OpenOffice will do everything the basic person wants to do, why would they shell out several hundred dollars? People shouldn't twist leveling the playing field to look like everyone is against a giant. If we took the same stance of creating equality between the blacks and whites in America as we took with trying to stop Microsft from using their place to continue their monopoly we would have slavery in common practice still today.

Re:Taxachusetts

[shis-ka-bob]

Typical .. when the facts don't back a conservative they just say that the facts are irrelivant

Costs associated with Open Source.

[$criptah]

I wonder if not going along with Microsoft is going to be cost effective in a long run. I have several computers at home and opted to get a Mac for my main "office" computers. Although most of my development work has been done on FreeBSD, I found that some Open Source software is not at the level where I'd like it to be for everyday careless work.

Take office applications for example. When I was in college, I wrote most of my papers with Emacs and LaTex. However, it is complicated and definitely not for everybody. I tried using KWord, but after it crashed "on-save" several times, I quite using it. Do things like that bother me? Absolutely. Oh, then there is a big HCI (human-computer interaction) factor. As far as I am concerned, most Open Source GUIs that come with Linux boxes are very far from what I'd expect from a solid system and that can do some damage to productivity. Going all the way with Open Source may be a good money saver for now, but what will happen in the long run? I think we should opt for a mix of Open Source and commerical software for some time.

Re:Costs associated with Open Source.

[mgkimsal2]

"The mix" will happen because this directive isn't saying 'always open source', but 'when equal, give preference to the open solution'. If things are clearly not equal in terms of usability, obviously it wouldn't be pushed.

I would, however, point out that, as you saw, KWord is just not usable on a large scale. The latest Suse or Redhat with Ximian Desktop 2 and OpenOffice 1.1 *is* usable. A department of office workers needing to email, write reports, crunch basic numbers and browse the web would do *quite* well with that, from a simplicity and technological standpoint. My assumption is that for an entire dept, there would be one competent admin to set up network printing, then you're done.

Re:This is bad..

[cel4145]

Florida is also spending a fortune turning all of their IT work over to Accenture. I wouldn't be surprised if any Open Source cost analysis wasn't a result of the same lobbying which resulted in the switch to centralized IT for all state agencies.

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...

Re:This is refreshing!

[MrRage]

The school I work at has been in the clutches of MS for a while. I find that it generally promotes mediocre computer users. Some of the people who teach a computer literacy class (which is a MS Office literacy class) know a fraction of what I know about computers. Many think they know a lot when they really don't. I have a network administrator asking me questions all of the time about stuff and I've had hardley any formal training besides a couple of basic programming classes.

It's about time...

[vicnot]

It's about time that government and other publically financed entities make a cognizant decision to fully explore open-source alternatives.

Limited closed-systems like Microsofts should have no place in:
schools, government or non-profits.

Closed systems are best suited in the market that drives them - that being for-profit money-driven companies and in the homes of the drones that power such.

The United States finds itself in a pickle. While education instituitions abroad find a great adoption of open source in schools and governments, in the United States peope are chemically and financially dependent upon Redmond/Microsoft for their technical survival. Microsofts latest advance to ITify Philadelphia's schools and essentially create Microsoft High will create nothing more than more MS drones with useless certifications - and more IT folks who barely understand how things work, but rather have mastered how to navigate the finite steps of being a Microsoft IT person.

I'd much rather see schools use open source exclusively and encourage creativity and independent thinking. We don't need another generation of Mavis Beacon's secreatarial enhanced typewriting drones.

The less we encourage open source within schools the more ground the US loses to foreign countries where open-source is becoming common place.

As for the core issue of government - How can you have a homeland defense department that allows the vaarious branches to endorse and use MS products when major security issues and patches are a weekly issue that requires reboots and downtime?? Using Microsoft products in such settings is dangerous and un-American. There are alternatives - unfortunately, too many Microsoft drones would lose their jobs and have to learn new things if open source was recommended and accepted. Unfortunately, making good decisions and learning is un-American to most of the people out of the academic womb stage.

Actually...

[Fished]

State vehicles are often serviced by state mechanics. This is especially true of Police vehicles, which have, in times past, even been substantially modified by state mechanics for greater performance. Maintenance contracts for state vehicles are also often placed out for bid.

As another example, consider that military vehicles *always* have maintenance done by military mechanics, and usually most minor repairs as well.

Simpler answer

[dmaxwell]

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?

Ok, so MS can threaten them with their extra 'leet backdoors. The goverment has all the guns. If Ballmer and Gates had AR-15s jammed in their ears, I do believe they would pull their peckers out of the goverment's ass in a hurry,

A software company threatening the goverment with IT armageddon is laughable.

Stop Making Sense...

[qtp]

Yes, but Taxachusettes sounds funny, and therefore is easy to remember and must be true (as are all things if you are able to convince enough people).

You need to learn to think like a Republican if you want to understand these things.

Re:Stop Making Sense...

[good soldier svejk]

Yes, but Taxachusettes sounds funny, and therefore is easy to remember and must be true (as are all things if you are able to convince enough people).

You mean like Rumsfeld's repeated assertions that Iraq "threw the inspectors out?" Oh wait, that wasn't funny. It was just a lie. I guess I just can't get the hang of this stuff.

I see little difference between the government taking over the companies and the companies taking over the government.

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power" --Benito Mussolini

Trite Perhaps, but appropriate nonetheless.

Re:Looks like they've been listening to the Peruvi

[morelife]

The items you mention were of course in there, but my take on the Peruvian answer was that the Government (and the people) must A) be able to see what is inside their software for reasons of security and also to ensure that the government has no special interest in the purchase of the product, and B) that the government should never be beholden to a business interest for maintenance, repair, or availability of the tools it uses, when those tools are used to serve the taxpayer and house private information like tax/medicare records.

It was for these reasons that in addition to being a fantastic answer from Villanueva to the MS FUD, that the shotgun was momentarily pointed at the U.S Government for having so many proprietary systems. Also let's not forget Germany as an early adopter of these principles.

Re:Open Source != Free

[b17bmbr]

1) It takes money to develop open source software. Even if it is not money from licensing, the money does come from somewhere. Most open source developers are developing on the dime of their companies. There is a cost to doing this.

huh? don't you think they'd get fired really soon. how about stuff like OO.org or netbeans which are open source, but are funded by companies.

2) Open source is genuinely not as polished as a commercial product, and products that do add that polish tend to drive up the cost of open source stuff. For example, Oracle on Linux is still more expensive than SQL Server on Windows Server, by about 5k per server.

oracle is open source. does larry ellison know about this? and by polished you mean what? a gui/desktop? perhaps. but linux is marginally behind. don't say office, they break every GUI standard possible. like toolbar button menus, wtf? and as for polish, i'll take a rock solid stable kernel, and how about apache, samba, et al. they're far more "polished" than anything from redmond.

as for .NET, it is relatively new. it doesn't have a track record. sure, you can say, "i've been developing in .NET for the last six months and I can do ...", but compared to the win32 API, anything is an improvement. and rememebr, microsoft has already fixed on, vbx, ocx, activex, com, dcom, mfc, and others. how long until they add another.

as for IDE's, try eclipse. really nice. ms IDE's are for windows only. fine, they control the desktop, they are poor cousins when developing anything else. say web apps. ASP is a freaking joke, and .NET only works (i know, mono, but...) on windows servers, and i think netcraft has them at about, what, 30%. and IDE's don't make a developer. they are more a crutch than a tool.

Re:Open Source != Free

[Penguin Follower]

1) It takes money to develop open source software. Even if it is not money from licensing, the money does come from somewhere. Most open source developers are developing on the dime of their companies. There is a cost to doing this.

Anyone in IT with a clue knows that OSS is only free in source code form and that you will be paying for a distro where that code has been compiled and assembled into a working, ready-to-install OS. That's why it should always be called "Open Source" instead of "Free Software" so that people can make the distinction.

2) Open source is genuinely not as polished as a commercial product, and products that do add that polish tend to drive up the cost of open source stuff. For example, Oracle on Linux is still more expensive than SQL Server on Windows Server, by about 5k per server.

Yes, the more polished the application, the more time that was required in development to get to that point. It only makes sense. What I don't get is why you're comparing Oracle on Linux to SQL Server on Windows... how about apples to apples comparing Oracle on Linux to Oracle on Windows. Is Oracle on Linux more expensive than Oracle on Windows? If so, then you have an argument. (And I don't know if the Linux version of Oracle is more or less than the Windows version -- I've never looked it up.)

3) Open source has yet to produce developmental tools as effective as .NET. Java is close and good in some ways, but that's a commercial product too. NO open source language initiative, with the possible exception of Perl 5, has the vision or the reach of .NET framework and the CLR.

4) The Language Wars are on again, and C# is the opening salvo. I hate to admit it, because I really do love C++, but the latest specs for the next major version of C# are absolutely wonderful. C# developers are getting really good generics to go with a surprisingly well thought out framework.

I cannot comment on C#, I've never used it. However, K Develope is a decent IDE... I was taught C++ on Visual C++ and K Develop was cool in that I had it set to use the "child frame" option where it looked very much like Visual C++. I got used to K Develop easily. It's not quite as polished as Visual C++, but there were many things I DIDN'T like about Visual C++.

It's a tall, tall order for open source to match MS in the IDE development. When it was just an editor that was one thing, but an editor that now knows about your class hierarchy as you key it in, real two way tools ala Delphi (by the guy that invented Delphi), and MS is putting together one remarkably coherent and solid offering in .NET.

Heh, I never had the luxury of an IDE or even a debugger when I learned JAVA at school. We (the students) logged in to the solaris server over telnet in the computer labs and used pico to type out our source and compile it at the command line... from there we had to debug it manually from the errors spit out by the compiler :P

If the weight of the language wars continues to favor MS, then Linux application development will become more costly than the equivalent of MS, source code, or no source code.

I'd personally rather take quality over quantity, but upper management doesn't always see it that way. If the OSS code cost more but was better quality (and most importantly... followed standards) then I'd rather have that OSS code than any closed source code with proprietary standards.

forgetting cost for a moment

[senatorpjt]

Putting the debate between cost between OSS and proprietary software aside, I personally feel it is a great advantage for the source code for systems that will be holding sensitive public data to be available for code audit by the government. Using proprietary software to archive sensitive governmental data is tantamount to giving a private corporation ownership of the data.

What about California?

[lightspawn]

It would seem to me that a political outsider in office committed to poring over the books, combined with a fiscal crisis, would provide some kind of opportunity to advance the cause of free (beer / speech) software.

Re:This is bad..

[sharrestom]

This study came from that same state that had significant difficulty holding an election? I can't describe the incredible boost in confidence you've given me! Personally, I like the concept of local communities maximizing the benefit of technology, creating the supporting jobs, and keeping the money circulating in the local community (even in this case at the possible expense of Apple as well).

Govt productivity

[Nf1nk]

but in terms of government employee productivity there are quite a few cons

This makes the basic assumption that there are any productive members of the Goverment. This assumption is not nessisarily true

Why Oracle + Linux vs SQL Server + Windows

[tjstork]

The comparison of Oracle + Linux vs SQL Server + Windows is a valid one.

If I am going to switch database servers, I may as well compare the best operating system for that database server to run on.

For me, Oracle is a Unix database first and a Windows port second.I've not actually had good experiences with Oracle on Windows. The question for Oracle is "which Unix?" You could make a strong argument for Sun, but I threw in Linux as it seems that's where the world is headed.

Opposed to that is SQL Server, which only runs on Windows.

When I was in school

[tjstork]

We had no real debugger for our DEC Pro 350 assembly language, only halts and register dumps. We had no debugger for our USCD P-System, just Writeln. And, the editor was a joke. Oh, and the Apple II that I teethed on in some ways was the best because you could CTRL-C an AppleSoft BASIC program and print out the variables. But good look in 6502 assembly because you were dead!

Borland's Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ were amazing at that time, and I went right for them.

I still think IBM IPMD for OS/2 was the best debugger I'd ever used for its time, and GNU's GDB was possibly the worst.

No

[iamacat]

Government's decisions should be based on all the impact the action will cause, not just the direct cost. You could argue that spending on support of open source rather than Microsoft will benefit local companies (hmm.. FSF?) and improve state's economy.

Or you could consider that government documents should be still readable after very long time (say, 300 years) and Microsoft may not be around to write a viewer for whatever people use to read at that time.

You can argue with the particular points I brought up, but no cost shouldn't be the only factor.

Re:Taxachusetts

[good soldier svejk]

It's not so much the tax burden that warrants the moniker it also has to do with mismanagement and misappropriation of funds that becomes prevalent in a state that is so predominantly democratic. One such glaring example would be the "Big Dig", another might be the fact that people are still paying tolls on the mass turnpike even thought it has already been paid for. Things have been getting better since Romney was elected but what can he really do when his veto is moot due to the overwhelming majority of democrats in the house and the senate?

The Big Dig fiasco was the result of collusion amongts Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the Republican governor's office and the predominantly Democratic Legislature on Beacon Hill. Both the Governor's office and the Legislature made the project a patronage bonanza. When this corruption resulted in fiascos, they simple payed Bechtel and Parsons Brinkerhoff to clean up the messes.

Regarding the Turnpike Authority, you are really taliking about the same problem. The main reason we still have tolls, and in fact they have gone up, is to finance the Big Dig. Two board members (one Democrat one Republican) at the Mass Turnpike Authority spoke out on Bechtel/BP corruption at the Big Dig, and in fact threatened to terminate their contracts in 2001. Republican Governor Jane Swift quickly fired them and increase tolls on the Mass Pike. Her predecessor's, predecessor Bill Weld (also Republican) at one point considered selling the whole Mass Pike, but instead used it as collateral on $2.7 billion in loans to pay for, you guessed it, the Big Dig.

Painting the Big Dig as partisan issue is ridiculous. It cuts across every level and wing of Mass politics.
I'm not sure what makes you think Romney is so much better than the last three governors, all of whom were Republican. I happen to know he is a lying sack of crap. He openly claimed my rep, who is a prominant Democratic known for his honesty and independence (one of the few who voted to fund the Clean Elections law we passed by referendum) endorsed him, which was an outright lie.

Re:Taxachusetts

[El]

Gee, funny how those damn conservatives managed to pass all those with a Democrat majority in congress...

OT: Re:cost analysis

[Captain Segfault]

largely because I'm a math major, and like to typeset with OO's formula editor. I'm too lazy to learn LaTeX just yet

Really, you need to Just Do It. It doesn't take that long to figure out how to use LaTeX to the point where you can typeset your math homework... find time some afternoon or something and get started; you'll have to do so sometime. You can probably find someone to walk you through it. (Once you can do your math homework, then you can start figuring out how to use the rest of LaTeX's nice features)

FOI (Re:How is this not an abuse of power?)

[jiri B]

Besides, your sig says "Democracy dies behind closed doors." If proprietary software isn't a closed door, I don't know what is...

At the very least, governments should get software that will allow them to comply with the spirit of FOI. Citizens should be able to demand the source so they can check that it correctly and lawfully implements the acts and regulations that it should. Open Source is one way this can be achieved (not the only one, but a fairly good one).

Re:FOI (Re:How is this not an abuse of power?)

[aserra]

Citizens can demand the source of almost *any* government-written software. This is usually done under public disclosure or so-called "sunshine" laws. Unfortunately, usually the most important (security, personnel) are not subject and vigorously defended. These apps are probably the ones that would benefit most from a new pair of eyes taking a look at them.

What better way to participate in government than to assist in the development efforts?

Re:FOI (Re:How is this not an abuse of power?)

[jiri B]

Citizens can demand the source of almost *any* government-written software.

Yeah, but not government-purchased. This Massachusetts initiative will extend this right to government-purchased software.

Re:Taxachusetts

[slamb]

Jameth wrote: As opposed to the conservatives, that never make intrusions into your privacy with massive things such as the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act. No, they would never try to decide what was best for you.

El replied: Gee, funny how those damn conservatives managed to pass all those with a Democrat majority in congress...

Gee, funny how that didn't happen. The Republicans have the majority in the House and the Senate now. When the PATRIOT Act was passed on 24 Oct 2001, they had the majority in the House and the Senate was evenly divided (see this page about the 107th congress).

Re: iMac and AOL grandmother? (inept)

[littlerubberfeet]

I guess the crux of the matter is: Can she load Linux, and then administer (use) it effectively?

Absolutely not. That will be the day that Linux will see widespread adoption.

Re: iMac and AOL grandmother? (inept)

[gurumeditationerror]

Can she load Linux, and then administer (use) it effectively?

Can she load Windows and then administer it/use effectively?

Re: iMac and AOL grandmother? (inept)

[axxackall]

Can she load OSX, and the administer (use) it effectively?

I saw people f*cking with OSX, from printing anf file sharing to Shockwave Flash nob-recognized by many web-sites version, to non-recognized file-types to save and so on, to locked/frozen Mac on Flash/Java plugins.

No wonder Macs are spread only among 5% of american PC users who are brain-washed zealots and who can ignore the importance of such problems (grandmother cannot, unless she's a grandma of a zealot too).

Re:Irony, Open Source News doesnt support Open Sou

[idamaybrown]

But, if they have a different perspective than Open Source, they are flamebait - right?

Re:This is bad..

[mormop]

Agred to a certain degree but then if the staff are trained already they can pass their knowledge on as needed. OO.org isn't that different to MSOffice for end users nor is Kmail that hard to transfer to. An office we kitted out is full of 40-50 year olds with one 17 year old and to date their support requirements have been minimal.

It is not a policy against MS

[Per Abrahamsen]

It is a policy that all data managed by software from one company should also be accessible by software from any other company that might want to bid on a future contract. I.e. it is a mandate for open standards, a mandate that put all companies on an equal term for now and in the future.

It is a pro-competition law, which is why MS hate it. They don't like competion, there is much more money in being a de-facto monopoly.

Re:This is bad..

[0x0d0a]

Are you the same astroturfer that posted the first post I see on the article?

Re: iMac and AOL grandmother? (inept)

[0x0d0a]

As effectively as Windows, which falls into the I-wish-she-knew-more-but-Windows-aint-gonna-help.

The overwhelming majority of home PC work is done by a friendly guru or someone following step-by-step directions. If Linux get step-by-step directions from vendors (which it will with enough market share) there will be no problems.

The standard ABI on Windows is a big deal, though. It means that "supporting Linux" means supporting Red Hat.

Muddled thinking

[dist_morph]

I was actually at a meeting with the guy who wrote the memo and I couldn't help but think that there was a lot of muddled thinking going on:

• there was absolutely no understanding of what "open standards" actually means. He used the non-controversial HTTP standard as an example, but when audience members tried to get clarification on Java (ubiquitous but company controlled spec), .NET (MS but ECMA), C++ (public standards process but levels of non-compliance), there was just one thing that became clear: in his mind "open standards" means free software. It's not about philosophy, it's just about money.
• there was absolutely no understanding of open architectures. One pretty famous guy in the audience pointed out that Outlook talking to a POP3 server was actually an open architecture whereas Outlook talking to Exchange was not. Again, the approach was that if it costs anything, it's not open.
• all examples that he gave had to do with savings on licensing costs. Even some very OSS-friendly people in the audience cautioned him that there are many other costs and that he should not expect any significant savings right away.
• he mentioned that the real problem was that they had told contractors to just go and implement. Which the contractors did with predictable consequences (closed architectures, no interoperability, etc.)
  I would reccommend that he hire some good architects to write decent RFPs instead of throwing out commercial software. I see the character of lock-in changing from corporate to project-based. You might for example find yourself to be locked into struts when everyone has moved on to the next new thing (JSF or whatever). Getting rid of struts 20 years from now will be expensive, no matter what else you do.

One thing became pretty clear to me: there is indeed no stopping the OSS train. Based on my experience in creating and selling commercial software, price beats every other argument in the long run, and there is no competing with free and open source is mostly associated with free. You have to be and continue to be 10x better than the closest free competitor and that is really hard to do in the long run. Even if there is no free competitor that really does what you do, customers will use the free software as a tool to press you on price (and you almost always have to give in because you never know whether they really are so clueless to believe that the student project they found solves their problem).

In that context I mourne the state of the world, because commercial software quality is actively discouraged in such an environment.

Between offshoring and free software, I'm giving local, commercial software another 20 years, and then the problem will have solved itself, with government agencies having the coice between foreign software and free software.

Open Source and big government in real life

[BigGerman]

I am honored to work for large and unpopular US three-letter government agency.
Just this morning I read their report on environment and languages. Report acts as an advisory for choosing technology / tool sets for new projects.
It is very long and thorough and contains a lot of details including performance metrics and lots of comparasons - price, vendors, caveats, etc.
Aside of the results (Java beat C# by narrow margin), I was shocked to see absolutely no reference to open source software or technologies. No Linux, no Apache, no Tomcat/JBOSS, nothing.
And that how it is like in real life.

Standards Only

[4of12]

A Blanket policy against MS, without allowing for a competitive bidding process or even alternative analysis doesn't seem right.

Yes, you're correct. The decision should be based on cost analysis.

Unfortunately, most CIO's won't do a complete cost analysis.

There are costs associated with both Microsoft technology and costs associated with open source software that typically are ignored.

In the case FOSS, what's typically unaccounted are the training and migration costs for a workforce that is largely familiar with Microsoft's way of doing things.

In the case of Microsoft, what's typically unaccounted are the costs of lock-in from using interdependent Microsoft technology and being put on a forced upgrade path that requires hardware upgrades, software upgrades and relicensing on a more frequent basis than a business analysis would demand.

I love FOSS and I think it brings great value to computer users.

But most advocates for legislation take it one step too far by requiring use of FOSS for governmental business. In some particular isolated cases, such as voting machines, complete openness is justifiable.

So, what legislation should do is

• Mandate use of complete, free, publicly-documented, open, standard interfaces.

Then, good business policy for purchasing should address thorough consideration of all options and all costs, so long as these interfaces are provided. Multiple vendors, including Microsoft, could compete on providing the highest quality, highest performance, most secure, lowest-priced, best-maintained implementation of a software product.

Mandating use of FOSS is needlessly restrictive; doing so would compound a long history of mistakes that have been made in flimsy sole-source contracts to companies [like Microsoft]. There, we've learned how a "solution" you've bought for your organization, while providing some benefits, simultaneously makes your data and your business processes hostage to someone else's demands for money.

Both purchasing models are not good business, and they can cost the taxpayers in more ways than are typically known at the time of the decision.

asdf

[brennz]

most govt types would be happy with

GNU/Linux + openoffice + evolution

Backend, govt is always hit hard by the "MS worm of the month". A GNU/Linux infrastructure would go a long way towards curing that dilemna.

Re:Looks like they've been listening to the Peruvi

[zCyl]

I wonder if the state autos and trucks are being serviced with OEM-certified mechanics? With OEM proprietary diagnostic equipment? Or are their vehicles being serviced by "any compentent person?"

Vehicles are interoperable. You can take the same drivers, put them in a different vehicle from any manufacturer, and they'll still know how to drive. This means you are free from proprietary standards and can spend tax payer money responsibly.

MS FUDs Itself

[webzombie]

Ok the following quote is from a Microsoft executive that is trying to explain with Open Source is bad... Does anyone see the humour in this quote! :-)

Microsoft says it knows it won't win every contract, but it opposes any type of mandate preventing proprietary software from even being considered. It says that's bad for technology companies and bad for taxpayers, who may get stuck paying for inferior, more expensive products.

LOL!

Re:Taxachusetts

[QuackQuack]

My understanding that taxes used to be much worse in Mass than they are now (in the 80's, I think), which is where the "Taxachusetts" moniker came from.

I agree that right now MA taxes are not unreasonable. The worst I encountered was a 12% short term Capital Gains tax, but I think even that has been reduced to around 5% in the past couple of years. The income tax fell from 5.9% to 5.3% in the past 5 years.

Did you notice the "optional" tax rate on the MA tax return form this year? Yes that's right, you had the option to be taxed at a higher rate if you wanted to! For a state that has a reputation for being overwelmingly liberal, very few people chose that option. ;-)

Re:got me thinking

[schon]

slap linux on this and bam, he's out of a job.

Why? Does this school not have an IT department?

it would make life harder for the other 97 percent of computer users

Again, because Mass. doesn't have an IT department?

windows has the advantage of protecting us from ourselves. there is no init to kill. no kernel modules to delete. no kernel to compile

You seem to not know anything about how large organizations are run - they have sysadmins who make the computers work, so that the users can get on with their jobs. Normal users don't install kernels, or have the ability to kill init, or compile their own kernels.

Contrasted with Windows (95/98, but also 2K to some degree) - under Linux, there is no way for a virus to take the system down, there is no way for a user to accidentally delete a system file.

In a large organization, Linux makes life easier, not harder.

Open source's time has come

[LightSail]

The real advantage of open source is only realized after a second or third generation of use: The ability to customize systems to the minimum necessary hardware yet maintain administrative controls. Open system customization can end the waste of purchasing Windows XP Pro and a full MS Office suite when the users need access to e-mail and a word processor. After a governmental unit has experienced the freedom of open source, the proprietary software with its limited choices will pale in comparison.

Once open source has been established as a viable option, you should see an energetic bidding process among a growth industry of companies that can build on the open source structure. This revitalized bidding should lead to decreased costs and increased options.

Personally, I work in an organization where we have found the proprietary document formats fall short of the needs to the organization at times. We have to spend extra effort on a daily basis to force documents into an open standard. The open standards that allow universal access to documents is essential to a government that wants to communicate to every citizen. Any movement that calls for adherence to open standards is in the best interests of the citizenry. The cost of access by the private individual is reduced by eliminating expensive proprietary software on their personal systems.

All government units should support open standards at a minimum. The maturity and availability of open source products can create a better environment for both the government employees and the citizenry. Monies spent on open source by the government will return more and better open source products for citizens.

New joke: MySQL has no problems on /.

[axxackall]

MySQL tends to be faster and have less problems. Again, look at what Slashdot use as a back end :)

Ha! That's exactly what I am experiencing with Slashdot:

• when I submit the form it doesn't retuns any response, and it happens sometimes annoyingly often;
• simple queries return with annoyingly long waiting time;
• instead of the page I expect the page with slashdot logo on it tells me that there is some internal server error;

How would you explain that? Slashdot has been slashdotted? Or wrong backend database? By the way, similar problems I've described here are typical by my observations for weblogs and forums with MySQL on the backend. Those ones with PostgreSQL work much more stable and smooth.

Re:Taxachusetts

[good soldier svejk]

I agree that right now MA taxes are not unreasonable. The worst I encountered was a 12% short term Capital Gains tax, but I think even that has been reduced to around 5% in the past couple of years. The income tax fell from 5.9% to 5.3% in the past 5 years.

IIRC there is still a higher short term rate for people who hold equities less than a year. OTOH short term losses are deductable against long term gains. Overall, it should apply to a very small segment of the population. Until mid 2002 the long term capital gains rate graduated down to 0% after seven years. Now it is a flat 5.3% (same as earned income), slightly more than offsetting the five point reduction in the Federal capital gains rate.

Did you notice the "optional" tax rate on the MA tax return form this year? Yes that's right, you had the option to be taxed at a higher rate if you wanted to!

Yes, a legacy of the battle over the rate reduction. What pisses me off is the partisan bickering over what to name the northbound Central Artery tunnel. How our Democrats could oppose naming it after the late beloved Silvio Conte is beyond me. Conte worked closely with the House Democratic leadership under Tip O'Neill and endorsed Democrat John Olver as his successor before he died.

Did you catch Paul Krugman's latest tax article (free reg.) in the NYT Magazine Section? Nothing earth shattering, but appropos of this discussion.