Slashdot Mirror
The Open Source Dilemma for Governments
Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein, open source consultant and Member of the Open Government Interoperability Project ("OGIP") working group, offers another incisive article in which he discusses the costs in the terms of lives and dollars when local governments do not deploy open standards-based software for data sharing. Asks Adelstein, 'Can local governments afford to create redundant applications to meet new Federal standards for first responder alerts, emergency services, law enforcement, broadcasters?' He posits that Open Source collaborative initiatives may provide the only solution for the US if the people want to create a safer environment."
If we want secure software, it has to be open source.. Granted, at the start the code quality of open source stuff is around equal to closed source stuff but the resources available to check code that is public are far larger than any closed source firm can muster.
Simon.
Can local governments afford to create redundant applications to meet new Federal standards for first responder alerts, emergency services, law enforcement, broadcasters
No! With or without open source, we can't afford such nonsense.
This is another clear example of the overgrowth of the role of the federal government. They're going to run our local governments deeper into debt with these ridiculous unfunded mandates that may be wildly inappropriate for a given locality. The constitution clearly states the roles of the federal government and leaves the rest to the states and localities. This along with over-regulation of personal lifestyles that's going to come with public healthcare, are the biggest disasters on the horizon.
The interesting upshoot of this has been that when governments actually commission a study on the total cost of ownership for a Linux/Open Source solution, they find switching is to their benefit
Microsoft's is doing it's best to keep the bleeding to a minimum, but more companies and governments are realizing that moving away from their dependency on MS is a Good Thing(tm)
Open source software plays a big role in many projects where I work, and our clients tend to be gov/mil related. While not all open source software is "good", you can't lump it all together and say it's "trash".
Open Source collaborative initiatives may provide the only solution for the US if the people want to create a safer environment."
Here's another related thought. (And, this is not intended as a slam on Microsoft)
Open Source systems (bazaar) are often much more stable than commercial systems (cathedral) just because of the number of bug hunters, and when it comes to military apps, stability is absolutely crucial. Would you really want your military systems to blue screen or dump core right in the middle of a firefight?
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
The issues that this article brings up are similar regardless of whether commercial software or opensource software is used.
This article is really talking about standardization and consistency across government organizations -- a huge job.
Imaging thousands of individual offices who have operated in a certain way for a hundred years. Imagine all of the paperwork, homemade spreadsheets, interoffice memos that spawn secondary spreadsheets, etc. This unfortunately is how the US government works.
Now imagine someone coming in and promoting replacing whatever random assortment of tools is in use with opensource tools. This means retraining. This means new hardware. This means *A CHANGE*. Uh oh.
Is this the right long-term thing to do? Yes!!
Is this going to be easy? NO!
In order for this to be successful, it will have to have very important people behind it pushing it from the top down and funding the proper resources (hardware and people) where necessary to bring the government into the 21st century.
I for one, certainly hope it can be done, and it would be great for the US and the rest of the world (except Microsoft) if it can be done with opensource software.
I don't know what police force your looking at, but around here the equipment is hardly specialized. It is commodity hardware, with some specialized software. And way overpriced, and slow to boot...
Some might consider this off-topic, but I would be willing to bet the site doesn't get /.ed. Why? this page is mostly text.
Time will tell.
LK
Art by Mindy Herman, my wife.
1. Small commercial company A develops app and provides support for the town police. They GPL the source. Town pays full price.
2. Small commercial company B reuses A's source, provides service to their own town's police. The cost is minimal. Rinse, repeat.
3. The small commercial companies collaborate to improve the software. The cost is absorbed by service contracts and is split among all involved towns.
Much better than reinventing the wheel N times.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Who says that FOSS and commercial companies are different world?
On the contrary. Niche apps are custom programmed, either in house or contracted and cannot usually be sold again. This would be the perfect place for FOSS -and- companies working on FOSS.
This is a big world. Other communities usually have the need similar niche programs. Modifications are necessary, but most companies aren't so pervasive, that they know who requires this niche product, or known to provide it, and/or cannot provide the modifications.
But, when those niche products are FOSS, those communities can hire a local company to provide the modifications for themselves (and others).
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The original Internet and Open Source standards came out of public monies mostly granted to university research departments by the Department of Defense. Who paid for those efforts? Why must the public have to pay for those technologies once again because companies like Microsoft adopt them and then resell them as proprietary software?
What the hell is he talking about? In the previous paragraph he writes:
If the Internet failed to follow accepted standards, it simply would not work
So the Internet works because it "follows standards", and we know MSIE (price: free) has the largest share of the browser market. So MS hasn't broken the Internet. Can someone give an example of what he's talking about? And don't tell me Kerberos because it's not the example you're looking for (MS did not co-opt it - MS extended Kerberos in accordance with the spec).
He started out reasonable and then got shrill. He throws out statements like, "Seventy-five percent of the municipalities and schools in the United States cannot afford proprietary software" So...that means 75% of the municipalities are either a) running OSS, b) using pen and paper, or c) pirating all their software. A source reference would have been nice.
Oh no...he has recommendations too:
the states should require the use of Open Standards and Open Source Software when applicable
When applicable? So, who decides when the software "applies"? Availability? Cost? (cost of development for a custom solution vs cost of COTS software) Everyone knows offshore development is cheaper - since he beats the fiscal drum so loudly does he also advocate sending any custom programming jobs overseas? He did have one good idea:
If we can pay for software one time and share it with all government entities, we empower Americans to participate in the security of the homeland.
Solution: site licenses for America!
Excellent, the first poster so far that appears to have RTFA.
The crux is standardization, or, for you DBAs out there, normalization across applications instead of databases.
One of the examples he gives talks about differing field names (last_name versus surname, for example). Well, sorry, but that has nothing to do with whether you're using SQL Server or MySQL and everything to do with standardizing architecture.
But how does one do that across an entity as large as a government? How do you tell programmers they must use only these field names? And how much will it cost to rename fields in existing applications, and ensure all the links, dependencies, etc., are rectified as well? It's not really anything to do with the platform; at the least, it doesn't have anything like the impact the author suggests.
An important issue, as the author says, is that for many applications (such as SAP and JD Edwards), no open source equivalents exist. This is a big problem for purchasers, because it makes them wonder how long open source will take to give them the applications they need (or if they'll ever come). They may have to pay big bucks for that other software, but it integrates with their existing applications and it's a known quantity. Never underestimate the power of familiarity.
And, although I hate to be a grammar nazi, the author might just find himself being taken more seriously if he learns how to use words properly.
The costs of development would be borne once (quite likely whatever software they'd need has already been done by some community or other,) and used as is and/or modified under the GPL, and copied into the pool.
Some existing body, like the GAO, could administer the pool and send CDs to any community, state or federal department that would require the software.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I have a lot of experience with software for local law enforcement agencies. This particular area is a morass of smaller and larger companies, each with their own software packages that may or may not interoperate with their competitors. I've seen a number of small police agencies that have been trapped by trying to support a package from a vendor that either (a) is out of business, or (b) is no longer supporting the package/version in question. In my judgement, a good open source package supporting local law enforcement could make major improvements to the situation.
Having said that, I don't think the existence of such a package would, in fact, put many of these vendors out of business. Most local police departments don't have the expertise to manage the installation (including data conversion!), tailoring, etc. that is required for any such package. There would still be plenty of opportunity for companies to provide this as a service.
However, the fact that the underlying package was standard, and known and understood by more than the employess of a single company would help insulate the local police from the problems that arise when their support organization moves on, for whatever reason.
In addition, there is a big drive these days for national, state, and regional, and local interoperability between law enforcement agencies. Anything that helps to standardize data models, etc. etc. would be a big help in this area.
But how does one do that across an entity as large as a government?
Publish a namespace reference as a RFC, dictate that all governmental entities that are having custom apps developed adhere to those guidelines, and that they submit addendum to the maintainer of those guidelines when they are adding named feilds to the list.
The programmers have access to the spec before they bid on the job, and the spec is included with the customers criteria.
Read, L
If someone wants the government to use their software then their software must be capable of saving to the government standard GPL format.
Government documents will always be accessible.
Goverments will be free to switch software and not worry about format incompatibility.
They can choose to use the best software for their formats...free(dom) software or proprietary.
The playing field will be leveled. No document lock. A software package will compete on its pricing and merits.
Chances are all of these benefits will transfer to the private sector as the sheer volume of government documentation will force the inclusion of government standard gpl formats into software made for the private sector.
As a bonus the GPL will get a shot in the arm as far as legitimacy go.
The government formats will also spread and be improved being GPL as anyone will be free to use or change it.
If the government sees a nice modification they can make it the standard.
Steve