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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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

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 ^_^