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?

[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?

[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?

[nathanh]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[dbarclay10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:How is this not an abuse of power?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

Another triumph for common sense

[gilesjuk]

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

Essential?

[loconet]

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

[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.

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!!!

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.

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 :)

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.

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 ^_^

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...