The Open Source Dilemma for Governments

$56 billion... by Taboo · 2004-01-05 07:36 · Score: 0, Troll

for retrofitting of local governments to standards based applications

Big deal. That only amounts to a couple dozen B-2 bombers.

Re:$56 billion... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:49 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Government. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

Sad news, Stephen King dead at 54 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:37 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details yet. I'm sure we'll all miss him, even if you weren't a fan of his work there's no denying his contribution to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news, Stephen King dead at 54 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:42 · Score: -1, Troll

Been awhile since I've seen one of those. So I almost took it seriously. :)

Heh, when he dies it's going to be one troll fest...
Re:Sad news, Stephen King dead at 54 by siskbc · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Heh, when he dies it's going to be one troll fest...
Thes question is, will anyone get a "+1, Informative" for posting it?

--
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Re:Sad news, Stephen King dead at 54 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:06 · Score: -1, Redundant

They will get a -1 Redundant.

first by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:37 · Score: -1, Troll

first post is back and waaaay K001!!!!!

The Open Source Software Institute... by tcopeland · 2004-01-05 07:37 · Score: 5, Informative

...is a big supporter of this sort of thing. Check them out here. The OSSI is chaired by John Weathersby, who seems to have a good handle on how to communicate effectively via standards, reports, certifications, and so on with folks in the U.S. government.

--
The Army reading list

Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:45 · Score: -1, Troll

So as more people use open source, the bigger target it becomes to hackers.

Its a catch 22.

--

Standards aren't exclusive to open source. The government shouldn't intermingle the two.

I wonder what would happen if the government had to approve all data formats, no matter how small. That would be interesting for security.

PS, I dont know how, but Im not seeing the safe URl
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by ReTay · 2004-01-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

"So as more people use open source, the bigger target it becomes to hackers."

Care to tell me why that Apache is so much more secure then IIS?
Apache is the most popular web server in the world. But IIS has the most flaws....
Re: The Open Source Software Institute... by Black+Parrot · 2004-01-05 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

> > So as more people use open source, the bigger target it becomes to hackers.

> Care to tell me why that Apache is so much more secure then IIS? Apache is the most popular web server in the world. But IIS has the most flaws....

Because Apache was written to serve Web pages and IIS was written to make somebody rich(er).

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by dasmegabyte · 2004-01-05 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative
Apache is more secure than IIS because:
- Apache generally runs as an unprivliged user -- IIS by default runs as the local system and on some systems I've seen has been set up to run as a privlidged network user (to get around problems with content on networked drives).
- Apache is designed to do less than IIS. Comparing the two isn't even fair...IIS is a web server, an email server, an ftp server, etc etc. It's designed to do EVERYTHING. So it's not apples to apples...more like apples to an appleseed.
- By default, Apache only installs a few basic modules. Almost everything is optional. IIS, designed to be an end-to-end solution for internet servers, installs everything. If you lock it down, remove the crap you don't use, it's much better off.
- Apache has more people working on it and more frequent bug releases. MS has to worry about massive overhead and support costs with every release...so they space them apart further. My company does the same thing.
Anyhow, this article is a lot of FUD. I write software for local governments, and at least in this state (which is one of the richest in the US), OSS wouldn't save any money nor eliminate any problems. "Code Security" is not a big problem in local government -- as local governments generally only use their digital systems to warehouse and process publically available information. These guys keep paper records going back to the 18th century, and if anything seems out of the ordinary they check the paper. Heck, if tax rolls come out twenty cents unbalanced from the invoice, we have to audit the programs line by line. And if asked, we readily turn over our code to local auditors. Very rarely do we do this. Nobody cares about anything except getting the software to cut down on their workload.

And that's the biggest problem in this market: accountability. Small companys come in, install software, and then disappear. So when laws and regulations change, there's nobody to update the old software. Most of these people don't have IT departments (some don't even have computers in some departments, or use their own personal machines...the assessor in my home town runs a computer shop and that's how he got the job!). There is so little money, that only by relying on companys to help with everything from installing printers to writing custom tax logic for way less than the standard consulting rate (hoping to get a chance to use it somewhere else) can these towns get their software written.

Can you imagine the accountability headaches associated with asking a "community" to write custom tax logic? With not having a responsible party you can call when stuff breaks? You'd still have to pay somebody out of your budget (which is sometimes set five or more YEARS in advance) to support the program, only they wouldn't have any real interest invested in fixing the program quickly. There's incentive with private software to deliver the best, easiest to use stuff you can for whatever price you can get.

Don't get me wrong...I like the idea of getting more eyes on my code...but I can't imagine injecting community code into a hectic development schedule like we maintain. It seems like it'd be inviting too much uncertainty in an arena that only thrives with a stable support structure. My boss would surely never go for it. Of course, I don't expect many of the OSS acolytes to agree with me...some people don't seem to understand that the minimum wage people working without possibility of overtime at the county clerk's office don't want to visit the newsgroups for help when they have bugs preventing their license software from printing.
--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by dasmegabyte · 2004-01-05 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh. I almost left out the key to interoperability concerns: Governments have had them for years. Speculation over open standards aside, the way they've been best met so far is when the government agency requesting the data creates the spec and a reference implementation itself. I do not think there is any benefit to relying on an Open group to do this...as the current method works really well. I'm thinking specifically of the tax assessment software we use in this state...I wrote an application which integrates with it and produces data update requests, and this was possibly one of the easiest things I've ever done despite the fact that the database structure was a little dumb. There is no problem, so there's no need for an Open solution to one! Besides...the last thing these poor goverment people need is a fancy programmer's solution to the human problem of data integration.

Besides, all it takes is a single government agency in the pocket of some software company (*cough* California *cough*) to trump any attempts at creating a single universal solution. So we may as well accept that there's going to be some conversion necessary, and not waste our time trying to hold back the deluge of incompatible formats. Far better to be the flexible party who can bring them altogether...

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by cayenne8 · 2004-01-05 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

"...this was possibly one of the easiest things I've ever done despite the fact that the database structure was a little dumb."
Unfortunately, THIS is one of the leading causes I've found of govt. computer problems. They start with a flawed data model, and man, I've seen some doozys!!! But, it gets cobbled together to 'work'. Then, it becomes the standard..and more things are hooked to it...also kludged to work..and systems kludged to work with those systems...ad nauseum.
I know its tough, but, if you can get the data model created correctly to replace the old one...would be the best way to go if caught early, to prevent the potentially coming mess of spaghetti code...
Of course, if you can talk them into creating a new system from scratch...with a proper data model, and open standards..better for the govt., and a long term bit of work for you!!!
:-)
So few people understand this...if you get the data model right...most everything else will fall into place, but, I see so often, this cornerstone to good computing put together by someone who just never seems to have had any training in relational theory...at least since RDBMSes still predominate the scene for now...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by bit01 · 2004-01-05 09:26 · Score: 1

"So as more people use open source, the bigger target it becomes to hackers."

Care to tell me why this quote, not in the parent article, made it into your post?

While true it is offtopic and commercial. If you're trolling or an M$ astroturfer trying to distract people from a useful first post please get a life.

---

User friendly M$Windows/XP.
User unfriendly M$Windows/XP license.
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by dasmegabyte · 2004-01-05 09:41 · Score: 1

The problem is: you cannot (repeat: can not) predict everything that is going to happen in government. Relatively simple legislation can blow any application to hell. So over the course of a program's lifetime, the thing gets more and more complex -- and there's never room in the budget to pay somebody to revisit your software. It is not bad design, but DEMOCRACY itself which leads to this complexity...and "open standards" aren't going to fix this any more than closed ones, since once the thing BECOMES a standard, you can only deviate or extend it so far before it becomes either too convoluted for the end users to use efficiently, or too complex for machines to understand effectively.

Oh, and RDBMs are a relative newcomer to the local government scene...most of our customers (and support staff) still refer to such things as "lookup files."

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by cayenne8 · 2004-01-05 09:57 · Score: 1

Whew...where is the govt. you are working for?
My argument was, with respect to the parent of my original post, that if using a data model that is properly designed and normalized (for a RDBMS), then additions over the years would not be a problem since a good data design is modular,and can have things added as needed. If you start with a good model, then you won't end up with the convoluted crap you see out there today.
And if the govt. entity you work with/for isn't using a RDBMS yet...sounds like a good business opportunity for you to try to sell them into the 20th century. From there, you have a chance to slide them slowly into the 21st....
:-)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by chrisreedy · 2004-01-05 10:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by dasmegabyte · 2004-01-05 11:56 · Score: 1

Anything that helps to standardize data models, etc. etc. would be a big help in this area.

A bigger, more efficient help in this area would be a single project developed and offered for free to law enforcement agencies from a national agency. This has happened with several segments of the computer industry in my state, and has proven surprisingly cost effective. The property tax system is the big one...integrating all the various possibly taxable variables of all the properties in the state into one big database (driven by entries from smaller localized databases operated by municipal and county tax agencies) has resulted in a much more controllable tax roll system.

In other words, the state paid to have a program developed and forced everybody to use it. They allowed other companys to bid and create alternate versions, as long as they met a stringent export standard (which is easily done...it's a one day task for anybody using an RDBMS). And the effort paid for itself in increased tax revenue due to fewer freeloaders slipping through the cracks.

I don't think a truly open project will have the same drive as a privately produced one, mainly because there's no carefully delineated accountability (nobody to blame when it fails) and no responsibility (nobody to act proactively to prevent failure). These two elements are essential to the politics inherent to all government contracts. Which is the big problem. If the software becomes a political issue -- and it often sometimes -- there needs to be somebody to call to move the project along, somebody to push.

Of course, this isn't to say there's no room for open source software in government -- just that it may not be the best choice for top down interoperability. I fear too many government purchasers see relying on open source for their software is a bit like relying on volunteer EMTs for their medical needs -- sometimes, you need the guarantee more than the expertise.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by cmacb · 2004-01-05 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Anyhow, this article is a lot of FUD. I write software for local governments, and at least in this state (which is one of the richest in the US), OSS wouldn't save any money nor eliminate any problems."

That's a strong statement. I'd say that there is more FUD in your post than in the original article. Maybe you forget that a lot of Slashdotters are, or have been government workers too...

'"Code Security" is not a big problem in local government -- as local governments generally only use their digital systems to warehouse and process publically available information. These guys keep paper records going back to the 18th century, and if anything seems out of the ordinary they check the paper.'

I worked at a federal agency that had everything stored on paper too. One day they decided to double check some things and found out the off-site storage facility they had been paying for years had no idea where most of their documents were. Those that could be found were water damaged beyond being readable.

So much for using paper as a back-up mechanism. I think part of the point of the article is that local governments do things on-the-cheap and that if they all shared more of their systems the systems would likely improve for everyone, even the smallest local agencies.

"And if asked, we readily turn over our code to local auditors. Very rarely do we do this. Nobody cares about anything except getting the software to cut down on their workload."

Sam here. But they never ask. Thats the problem. They don't know if contractors are sticking to standard coding practices, they don't know if third party "shareware" components have snuck into their systems (and they have) and they don't get involved with these issues until something breaks, and by then it's probably too late. More eyes on the code solves this too. Worst case, after the same breakage occurs for one local shop, other local shops will at least be aware that there is a problem that needs to be addressed (and most of them will only have to apply the fix, not invent it).

"And that's the biggest problem in this market: accountability. Small companys come in, install software, and then disappear."

Right, small companies like yours, supplying one of a kind mixtures of COTS software and local code. You most likely have a long term contract where you are because you have wired a dependence on your institutional knowledge into your systems. Good for you, not good for taxpayers.

"Can you imagine the accountability headaches associated with asking a "community" to write custom tax logic? "

Again, you seem to have missed the point, which was that there is not all that much variation from one location to another. The types of variation caused by different tax rates etc. should not be buried in code logic anyway, but should be in parameter control files and be alterable at a fairly high level.

"Don't get me wrong...I like the idea of getting more eyes on my code...but I can't imagine injecting community code into a hectic development schedule like we maintain."

Well, from what you have said, it most likely wouldn't be your code getting examined. Most likely in fact you would adapt code written at a larger, richer locality to your needs.

"My boss would surely never go for it. Of course, I don't expect many of the OSS acolytes to agree with me...some people don't seem to understand that the minimum wage people working without possibility of overtime at the county clerk's office don't want to visit the newsgroups for help when they have bugs preventing their license software from printing."

Both you, and your boss probably won't go for it until you see other similar localities going for it successfully. At the federal level almost everyone looks to other agencies for guidance. With no agency in a clear leadership position you end up with the same thing you get in any leaderless organizations, n
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by jdray · 2004-01-05 13:57 · Score: 1

A good data model or standard does not indicate a complete one. Quite the contrary, a well constructed data model, or protocol, or whatever, assumes that there are going to be changes in the future and makes accomodations for those changes. That's the beauty (okay, one of the beauties) of the relational database model in that it supports additions to structures after they're created, rather than locking the developer into data structures where fields start n number of characters to the right of the previous field or something.
The best thing that you and any other application system developer can do is start building your systems in a loosely-coupled fashion, with clearly defined interfaces to a clean, yet extensible data model. At that point, systems components (tax calculators, payroll engines, etc.) can be swapped out (excised, killed, regrown) without rampant destruction to the rest of the system. So long as the interfaces are maintained, the inner workings can change all you want.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by glitch23 · 2004-01-05 16:29 · Score: 1

"So as more people use open source, the bigger target it becomes to hackers."

I think the correct equation is: Bigger hole == Bigger Target

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by 4of12 · 2004-01-06 02:46 · Score: 1

the biggest problem in this market: accountability. Small companys come in, install software, and then disappear.

The biggest problem is that the software the small company installed is binary so the local government has no option but to keep running some crusty old machine with 15 year old OS on it.

It gets worse.

The binary application not only runs on some old OS, but does I/O using some other crusty old application binary undocumented file format.

So the local government is obligated to keep up old systems, which not only consume electrical power, floor space, air-conditioning, maintenance contracts, but requires people there at the office to maintain expertise about some old system. Worse, they probably have to train new employees about the finicky quirks of the old database system that is essential to their business.

If only that binary application came with source code that was on a community site, so that when everyone upgraded from DOS 6.x to WinXP the code could have been recompiled and the I/O interface rewritten from FoxPro to XML.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by Dashing+Leech · 2004-01-06 07:04 · Score: 1

But, it gets cobbled together to 'work'. Then, it becomes the standard..and more things are hooked to it...also kludged to work..and systems kludged to work with those systems...ad nauseum.
I had to stop and check again that this was referring to government databases. It sounds like a very accurate description of NASA technology and analyses that I have to work with regularly. I guess that comment can apply to many things though.
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by thedugal · 2004-01-06 12:16 · Score: 1

Actually whether it be businesses or governments noone really cares how "crusty" an application or OS is provided it still functions. One of the biggest problems with computer people in general is that they think the computer is important. To non-computer people (which believe-it-or-not is actually almost everyone) the computer is just a fancy pencil.

Whether governments should rely on open source remains highly questionable and it certainly depends on the level of government and type of application. When a "community" is writing software, it is most definitely cheaper ala Linux, however most governments can't contract a "community" to mystically create a custom software package. The government must contract a vendor, small or large, and in general it will cost more to get the source from the vendor.
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by ccp · 2004-01-07 05:45 · Score: 1

I write software for local governments, and at least in this state (which is one of the richest in the US), OSS wouldn't save any money nor eliminate any problems.

And you raise an interesting point: in most of the rest of the world, Governments, local or otherwise, wouldn't DREAM of paying Billy G anything unless there was a big kickback involved.

So, the battle outside the USA will be OSS vs. pirated MS vs. envelope under the table.

It will be interesting to watch, and that's an understatement.

Cheers,
Re:The Open Source Software Institute... by ccp · 2004-01-07 05:52 · Score: 1

Can you imagine the accountability headaches associated with asking a "community" to write custom tax logic?

Yes, but in most countries there's an accountants "college", the equivalent to the lawyer's "bar", that would be more than happy to provide the tax logic if you were willing to do the programmong part.

I think that in the future you're going to see a lot of these collaborations between OSS programmers and interested parties.

Cheers,

Al Gore Invented Open Source Government Dilemmas by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:39 · Score: -1, Flamebait

And Break Dancing Too!

Well i would have thought this is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by Lord+Kholdan · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Potential resources mean nothing. Open source code that no-one bothers to read isn't going to get better on it's own.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by bit01 · 2004-01-05 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wonder why all this commercial propaganda on slashdot recently?

There are 6,000,000,000 people in the world. It is a statistical certainty that a significant fraction of these will have both the means and the motivation to work on any commonly used piece of software, if it is accessible. ie. open source. Please remove your paid commercial blinkers.

---

User friendly M$Windows/XP.
User unfriendly M$Windows/XP license.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

As a State Government Project Manager - of an Open Source Project (still being developed)... I've seen a number of issues.

1. Most of the folks that are in the position to make development decisions - do NOT have IT backgrounds. After all, salaries for state/local civil servents are not up to industry levels, promotion is usually more politically motivated than merit oriented, and it takes so long to move up the ladder to get into an IT management position. These factors conspire to mean that decision makers only go with recognized companies (Red Hat/Suse/Mandrake etc are not known entities) - or they go with the companies who have big / well supported sales staff Micro$oft, Ci$co, etc).

2. Technically, state/local governments are VERY conservative in their decision making process. They typically want to hear how many other similar organizations have ALREADY acquired the COTS product - that's how they feel they can be successful. They do not have a good history with large scale developments in-house.

3. Technical Staff in most state/local IT shops do not receive the pay/training - nor have the skills for the latest and greatest... many are still using AS400's and Cobol extensively. JAVA/PERL/C on INTEL/AMD servers more risky than they are comfortable with.

4. Funding. The bottom line. Most state/local IT shops do not have a real budget... they get in line with other public services and hold their hand out... it's amazing how much gets done by way of Federal Grants. The Feds could go a LONG way in demanding OSS and standards when they aprove grants... that will change the course of events.

5. A big "gotcha" that happens when state/local AND FEDERAL goverment pays for development - the contractor shows where they have contributed from internal funds - to the extent - that they get to sell the same systems again and again... the public is NOT getting their $$$'s worth.

My project uses LINUX, XML (the same JXDD referenced in the posting), JAVA, PostgresSQL, Apache/Tomcat. And we are making sure the contractor has no strings attached so we can freely release the code to all Criminal Justice activities. We also intend to let it be well known that OSS does work with Criminal Justice projects...

I'm one Public Servent who spends like it IS MY OWN MONEY... every cent is counted - just as I do myself. I too am a taxpayer... and I am under public review... I do NOT want my name on the news/newspaper for poorly spending the publics $$.

In general a very good writeup... with lots of valid points - - despite the dilletantes and naysayers comments here...
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by Michalson · 2004-01-05 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quoting from http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/ 85676 You may not be counting, but there are about a dozen active perl 5 developers on p5p, about half with commit rights. Similarly parrot has about 5 active committers. This is the number of competent volunteers that a well established 16-year old programming language used by many individuals and many organisations can muster. From the entire world. Now tell me, when was the last time *you* actually downloaded some open source software, and instead of using it (a home user really has no user for custom government software designed to sort peoples tax returns or other similar jobs) you went through the code line per line looking for bugs. Assuming you somehow got past question one by fudging the truth (i.e. you downloaded something OS for personal use, and seeing a "source" directory you spent 2 minutes randomly opening files for fun), when was the last time you actually identified a bug, and submitted it (20 bonus points if you actually produced a patch yourself) Simply put, even with several million people world wide who have the equipment and skills (most of that 6 billion lives in poverty, and most of those rich enough to own computers usually don't even understand the concept of right click), there are not enough willing to give up their time to do code reviews, especially on a piece of software they personally will never use and will never care about. To perhaps better highlight the flaw in your logic, shouldn't litter be non-existant? With 6 billion people on the planet there should be more than enough willing to volunteer their time to go out to parks and streets they don't ever visit and pickup trash. The reality of course is that even the people who use those streets almost never think to pick up a piece of litter.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by refactored · 2004-01-05 12:34 · Score: 1

...when was the last time....
I do so regularly.
These are the tools of my trade, so I like to keep'em sharp and clean.
...streets almost never think to pick up a piece of litter.
I always pick up the litter in front of my house. So do all my neighbours. I don't know where you live / work, but it sounds like a bit of a dump. Perhaps you should gently lead the way around there to a better existence.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by bit01 · 2004-01-05 12:55 · Score: 1

Now tell me, when was the last time *you* actually downloaded some open source software, and instead of using it (a home user really has no user for custom government software designed to sort peoples tax returns or other similar jobs) you went through the code line per line looking for bugs.

You're imposing the commercial model on the open source world. I don't do this because I don't need to. I report bugs when I find them during normal usage. Occasionally I'll review in a small bit of the code that I think is important. Many thousand people do the same. Sometimes companies are involved too. Together with the core developers, we are often superior to the usually one person closed source commercial review team, if it exists at all. It works, deal with it.

Assuming you somehow got past question one by fudging the truth (i.e. you downloaded something OS for personal use, and seeing a "source" directory you spent 2 minutes randomly opening files for fun), when was the last time you actually identified a bug, and submitted it (20 bonus points if you actually produced a patch yourself)

I've been on a travelling holiday for the last six months. Before that I produced dozens of patches and reported dozens of bugs. I do not regard myself as an active OS developer.

Simply put, even with several million people world wide who have the equipment and skills (most of that 6 billion lives in poverty, and most of those rich enough to own computers usually don't even understand the concept of right click), there are not enough willing to give up their time to do code reviews, especially on a piece of software they personally will never use and will never care about.

I didn't say everybody was doing it. I said a statistically significant fraction were doing it. Big difference. A statistically significant fraction of 6,000,000,000 might be a few hundred developers for a major project, only one or two for a small project and maybe zero for niche projects. Plus all the users. The developer might be a teenager wanting to show how smart he his and also to socialise, a commercial programmer wanting a break from the cubical farm, a university researcher with an idea, a paid programmer with an open source company, a retiree wanting to have something to do and give something back to the community or a third world programmer wanting to make his name known in the first world to get a paid job. The world is a big, complex place.

To perhaps better highlight the flaw in your logic, shouldn't litter be non-existant? With 6 billion people on the planet there should be more than enough willing to volunteer their time to go out to parks and streets they don't ever visit and pickup trash. The reality of course is that even the people who use those streets almost never think to pick up a piece of litter.

Sorry, it's your logic that is flawed. While there are millions of people interested in keeping streets clean there are millions more making the litter. It cancels out.

Open source software is written once and if wanted copied and used by possibly millions. Each one of those millions has the potential to help all the others by feeding fixes and improvements back into the source. Conventional, commercial per-copy pricing tends to break that model because it restricts distribution and redistribution.

Open source is not a panacea but it is, almost by definition, superior to closed source software for the customer because every option available for closed source (apart from security through obscurity) is available for open source as well.

---

User friendly M$Windows/XP.
User unfriendly M$Windows/XP license.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by belmolis · 2004-01-05 14:50 · Score: 1

Reading through the source isn't the only way in which people improve free software. Another way is by encountering bugs when they use it and fixing them, or by discovering that a feature would be useful and adding it.

This happens even with software that has been around for decades. To take a small example from my personal experience, some years ago I added a feature (the figname keyword) to GNU pic, the figure-drawing preprocessor for troff/groff and TeX. I found this feature very useful and eventually submitted a patch to the maintainers. They incorporated it, and it is now part of GNU pic.
Re:Well i would have thought this is obvious by budgenator · 2004-01-06 06:23 · Score: 1

Now tell me, when was the last time *you* actually downloaded some open source software, and instead of using it ... you went through the code line per line looking for bugs.

there has been 3 projects, where I have downloaded and examined the code, and not found any bugs by looking, intsalled the software and played with it long enough to find bugs, track the bugs back to the source code and repaired and submitted the patch results:

a. project maintainer univesaly rejected submited patches, project forked to a more responsive maintainer.
b. project died due to withdrawl of corporate sponsor, mine may be the only verson in the wild that works.
c. patch was independently submit by sombody else and fixed to bug in the new version released the next day after my submition.

OBTH, in Michigan we have adopt-a-highway, adopt-a-park programs where volunteers go out and pick up litter on the roads and parks; sure the people actualy use the roads or parks. If open standards/open Source software meant my state save millions, my municipality saved 10K and I only had to change my primary residence address at one agency instead of 15 because the databases were fully integrated and normalize, I'd benefit there too.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Open Data formats more important by i.r.id10t · 2004-01-05 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't care if the US Senate or House chooses to use MS Office or vi or whatever - as long as the documents they produce are of an open format (text, rtf, XML, whatever), and can be read by us Citizens (and others, why not?) wihtout needing to have a particular piece of software. Same can be said of exchanging data between various levels, types, and branches of government.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Re:Open Data formats more important by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd rather my government spend my tax dollars on something other than Microsoft software.
Re:Open Data formats more important by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: -1, Flamebait

I'd rather my government spend my tax dollars on Microsoft software. It's the best of what's out there, and more importantly, the best tool for this particular job.
Re:Open Data formats more important by happyfrogcow · 2004-01-05 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Score: -1, Use of the word "Terrorist" to strengthen argument
;) just kidding... mostly.. a little bit anyway.
Re:Open Data formats more important by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:32 · Score: 0

Terrorism this and terrorist that! Please! I am very tired of hearing that. Please stop it.
Re:Open Data formats more important by pballsim · 2004-01-05 10:36 · Score: 1

You can download Office format readers free from the Microsoft website.

Here's a whole slew of them:

http://office.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?Sc ope=DC&Query=viewers&CTT=6&Origin=EC0103311210 33

Granted it's only for Windows, but if you are running Linux or Mac OS just run an emulator.
Re:Open Data formats more important by stephenbooth · 2004-01-06 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

'Terroist' seems to have replaced 'Commie', 'Russian' &c in the language of US politics. Compare the speeches of President Bush Jr with those of Vice-President Bush Sr in the 1980s. SSDD (Same shit, different decade).

Stephen

--
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Re:Open Data formats more important by tiger99 · 2004-01-06 06:47 · Score: 1

The fact is that every single office in the world can, right now (not literally please, don't overload the servers!) get a free Office suite that works, if their managers have the guts to do it. OpenOffice.org comes to mind, but there are others.
If they want support, let them mitigate the risk by buying Star Office. That will not break the bank.
There is not the slightest excuse for anyone anywhere to persist in using the bug-ridden, incompatible, user-belligerent virus-nutrient abomination called M$ Office.
I am a contractor, and wherever I go, I take OpenOffice.org. Usually I need it to rescue corrupt Word or Excel files that M$ software has created but can't open. I always leave it behind when I go. Others take copies home, some even continue to use it at work. In most cases the IT department will at least look the other way if it is contrary to official policy.
It only takes people to spread the package, and it will be adopted widely.
You are correct that it does not matter what people actually use, and IMHO an editor of any type (especially a plain text editor, where compatability is not an issue) ought to be chosen by the end user according to individual preference. Other packages are converging on the OOo file format for word processing, which seems to be the way to go, whether in the form of Koffice (OK, that is for Linux/Unix only at the moment), Abiword, the next version of Word Perfect etc. It is becoming an OPEN STANDARD. OPEN STANDARDs as you say ensure compatability. That is what matters.
But everyone can help support the rise of an OPEN STANDARD, by using it, talking about it, demonstrating it to the boss......The learning curve for OOo is negligible if you know how to drive Windoze programs (or Linux, if that is what you use, but that is another issue...) You could give it to a secretary and get useful output right away. That is what matters.
BTW, rtf is a reasonable substitute except that M$ tend to add non-standard features which break compatability. I would rather stick to text, HTML, pdf (avoiding new features which not all readers support, of course), XML, and of course the OpenOffice.org standard is based around zipped XML. It seems to be much more efficient than .doc, my files are quite often tiny.
Please, everyone, let this be the year when Bill's stranglehold on "office" software is broken for all time. Let us have action as well as words. If you are a manager, give it to some of your staff to try out. If you are a "mere" worker, show it to your manager. If he/she is not fully in the picture, get them to play with it for a while, and then ask them how much they think it costs! It catches out accountants every time.

Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:40 · Score: 0, Troll

I work in a US government department as a sysadmin. We have a motto. We save Linux for when we're out of money. Until then, we spend spend spend on nice Sun boxes with Solaris, and Dell Poweredge servers with Windows 2003.

So thank you, fellow Slashdotters! Your tax dollars make sure I have plenty of toys to play with at work! Kthnxbye

Re:Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:44 · Score: -1, Offtopic

you consider that toys? try an ipod or an ipaq or a killer video card... or a mame controller....

or just go on getting all hard over your poweredge server.. wooooooooo... with Windows 2003.... woooooo

fool.
Re:Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:49 · Score: -1, Troll

No thanks, I'll sit here and play with my enterprise-grade "big boys" toys while you have little dolly teatime with Lunix and your iPod.

(P.S You know that $400 you paid the IRS last year? Thanks to that, I was able to add on a second PERC RAID SCSI controller to my Active Directory server, even though it's totally redundant and unnecessary! Wheee!)
Re:Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:27 · Score: 0

really , wow , now you can jack off to porn redundantly, WHILE being a bad citizen!
Re:Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:36 · Score: 0

Yup! Don't you know it! I'm a terrible human being who makes more money and has a better job than you! Have fun on Open Sores software!
Re:Yo wassup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:38 · Score: 0

entirely true. i am a sysadmin for a state agency (about 300 computers) that is funded with federal money. We have a 100% win@k network and the only *nix box we run is a BSD box that we use as a firewall.

For usability go with windows.
For security go with BSD

If your time is worth nothing go with whatever flavor of Linux is popular this month.
Re:Yo wassup by IANAAC · 2004-01-05 09:43 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet that on those shiney new boxes you end up installing all sorts of non-Solaris, Non-MS stuff just to effectively do your job. I also work with Sun and Windows boxes (as well as Linux), and as soon as the OS load is done I end up installing a boatload of GNU stuff on the Solaris machines and Services for Unix on the Windows machines.
And you probably don't even repartition your Solaris and Dell boxes, do you? Factory defaults are horrible for any kind of production use.

Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:41 · Score: -1, Troll

None of this will change the fact that My government can kick Your government's ass!
USA == AWESOME! EU == SUCK!
George W. Bush should win the Nobel Prize for being Awesome! WOOHOO! GO CAPITALISM!
Also, they should rename it to the CapitalOne Nobel Prize. Corporate America is the best!

Re:Who cares? by relrelrel · 2004-01-05 07:46 · Score: -1, Troll

an EU goverment is in existance is it...?

Not quite.

--
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Interesting nit to pick. Oh yeah... YHBT. Loser. HAND!
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:03 · Score: -1, Offtopic

existence
government

10,000... [troll] by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:41 · Score: -1, Offtopic

3. 1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 5082953311 6861727855 8890750983 8175463746 4939319255 0604009277 0167113900 9848824012 8583616035 6370766010 4710181942 9555961989 4676783744 9448255379 7747268471 0404753464 6208046684 2590694912 9331367702 8989152104 7521620569 6602405803 8150193511 2533824300 3558764024 7496473263 9141992726 0426992279 6782354781 6360093417 2164121992 4586315030 2861829745 5570674983 8505494588 5869269956 9092721079 7509302955 3211653449 8720275596 0236480665 4991198818 3479775356 6369807426 5425278625 5181841757 4672890977 7727938000 8164706001 6145249192 1732172147 7235014144 1973568548 1613611573 5255213347 5741849468 4385233239 0739414333 4547762416 8625189835 6948556209 9219222184 2725502542 5688767179 0494601653 4668049886 2723279178 6085784383 8279679766 8145410095 3883786360 9506800642 2512520511 7392984896 0841284886 2694560424 1965285022 2106611863 0674427862 2039194945 0471237137 8696095636 4371917287 4677646575 7396241389 0865832645 9958133904 7802759009 9465764078 9512694683 9835259570 9825822620 5224894077 2671947826 8482601476 9909026401 3639443745 5305068203 4962524517 4939965143 1429809190 6592509372 2169646151 5709858387 4105978859 5977297549 8930161753 9284681382 6868386894 2774155991 8559252459 5395943104 9972524680 8459872736 4469584865 3836736222 6260991246 0805124388 4390451244 1365497627 8079771569 1435997700 1296160894 4169486855 5848406353 4220722258 2848864815 8456028506 0168427394 5226746767 8895252138 5225499546 6672782398 6456596116 3548862305 7745649803 5593634568 1743241125 1507606947 9451096596 0940252288 7971089314 5669136867 2287489405 6010150330 8617928680 9208747609 1782493858 9009714909 6759852613 6554978189 3129784821 6829989487 2265880485 7564014270 4775551323 7964145152 3746234364 5428584447 9526586782 1051141354 7357395231 1342716610 2135969536 2314429524 8493718711 0145765403 5902799344 0374200731 0578539062 1983874478 0847848968 3321445713 8687519435 0643021845 3191048481 0053706146 8067491927 8191197939 9520614196 6342875444 0643745123 7181921799 9839101591 9561814675 1426912397 4894090718 6494231961 5679452080 9514655022 5231603881 9301420937 6213785595 6638937787 0830390697 9207734672 2182562599 6615014215 0306803844 7734549202 6054146659 2520149744 2850732518 6660021324 3408819071 0486331734 6496514539 0579626856 1005508106 6587969981 6357473638 4052571459 1028970641 4011097120 6280439039 7595156771 5770042033 7869936007 2305587631 7635942187 3125147120 5329281918 2618612586 7321579198 4148488291 6447060957 5270695722 0917567116 7229109816 9091528017 3506712748 5832228718 3520935396 5725121083 5791513698 8209144421 0067510334 6711031412 6711136990 8658516398 3150197016 5151168517 1437657618 3515565088 4909989859 9823873455 2833163550 7647918535 8932261854 8963213293 3089857064 2046752590 7091548141 6549859461 6371802709 8199430992 4488957571 2828905923 2332609729 9712084433 5

but by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:42 · Score: -1, Troll

is this open source dilemma capable of running linux?

Text for the soon to be slashdotted.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:42 · Score: 5, Informative

The Open Source Dilemma for Governments

by Tom Adelstein
January 04, 2004

If someone told you a hole existed in the competitive landscape for a large and highly addressable US market segment you would call them a niche miner. If I told you the cream of that niche totaled $56 billion and could be addressed in a three to five year time frame you might wonder how you missed it. Don't feel bad, it seems that the major computer companies have missed it too.

In a nutshell, the local government software market has not drawn large software firms. Also, independent software vendors (ISV's) have failed to adequately satisfy this market's needs as they lack the resources to serve the large geographical base. People have viewed this market as fragmented, requiring too much one-off customization with long sales cycles. Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001 those barriers and the poor economics of serving this sector have changed. You might call this a new opportunity.
What's At-Stake

Local governments must upgrade their computer infrastructures. That means additional taxes, levies and bond issues lie ahead. They could ignore their ailing systems and that means putting people's lives at risk. If the American public understood this problem one might see some intense interest at town hall meetings. If mayors and city councils really understood this problem they might panic. Perhaps some of us also wonder how much frustration US agency and department personnel feel as they hurry to make a bigger impact in a faster time frame and run into muck of local government.

An example of the problem local governments face exists on the website of the US Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs, under the Global Justice Data Model http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=43. On that page, the authors write:

Approximately 16,000 justice and public safety-related data elements were collected from various local and state government sources. These were analyzed and reduced to around 2,000 unique data elements that were then incorporated into about 300 data objects or reusable components. These components have inherent qualities enabling access from multiple sources and reuse in multiple applications. In addition, the standardization of the core components resulted in significant potential for increased interoperability among and between justice and public safety information systems.

Many of those 16,000 fields contain the same type of information with a different naming scheme. For example, some databases use the field " name_first" and others use "first_name". Then you might find "firstname" or "givenname" or "given_name".

As you go through the local government databases, you find a myriad of schemes for everything from last_name to zip_code. Obvious, the nation's information stores contain massive redundancies. These redundancies make it difficult to share data and provide alerts.

So, add all the separate naming schemes of local government databases together and you get 16,000 variations. Create a standard and it goes down to 2,000. Put those into categories of reusable components and you wind up with 300 database elements. That's why they call it a standard. It allows disparate systems to work together. It starts to open the window of a manageable task when the interoperable elements number 300 instead of 16,000.
Non-Compliance Problems and Their Costs to You and Me

Recently, I received two requests to assist a local government and a university in the same area of deploying justice databases. The requests involved implementing a new, comprehensive application to provide services and a tracking system using a web-enabled database-driven application. The requirements of the applications seemed simple and with the use of the Global Justice Data Model, I estimated delivery within 90 days. In both instances, the people controlling those projects dismissed implementation of the standards-based model.

What should one do when government entitie

Re:Text for the soon to be slashdotted.. by LittleKing · 2004-01-05 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

what's the dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:43 · Score: -1, Flamebait

opensource(sores) software is second rate trash that shouldn't be used by any gov or corp unless they have a death wish...

toying around with it at home is fine but i wouldn't trust it with anything you expect to make money with unless it plays a very trivial/minor role....

Re:what's the dilemma? by Jim_Maryland · 2004-01-05 07:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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".

The reverse would seem to be true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

For pure niche apps (patrol car suspect lookups, etc), I would posit that small commercial companies are in the best possible position to provide support and apps, not the FOSS world - after all, where does your teenage A-Patchy Webserver hacker get his hands on the specialty hardware used in patrol cars?

Re:The reverse would seem to be true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

"where does your teenage A-Patchy Webserver hacker get his hands on the specialty hardware used in patrol cars?"

What would that be other than a laptop and a GPS?

Maybe a webcam to do automatic license plate lookups?
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by worm+eater · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would posit that small commercial companies are in the best possible position to provide support and apps, not the FOSS world

Why wouldn't a small commercial company writing open source software be in this exact same 'best possible' position? Nothing about open source precludes it from being commercial, especially when we are talking about niche hardware. Making it open source would just allow citizens to know what is going on, and allow another commercial company to take over when the first one goes out of business.

--
Maybe partying will help...
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: -1, Troll

i heard that any zinfandel goes well with some cured horse manure. how about you?
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by z-kungfu · 2004-01-05 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by markov_chain · 2004-01-05 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:21 · Score: 0

How "pure" is that niche app really?

Is it written for some kind of specialized ASIC processor because the hardware requirements are too radical to be met with commodity components? Maybe for an aerospace application, but surely not for something designed to be installed in any standard automobile!

Does it use specialized protocols because somehow none of the standard protocols meet the communication requirements of the application?

Does it represent data in some form so unique that it defeats all efforts at creating a common specification for interoperability between public organizations? Adelstein provides numbers which illustrate the converse.

It's fair to assume that if failure to interoperate is a specified requirement of a government application, then there is something wrong with the specifications!
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by transient · 2004-01-05 08:21 · Score: 1

That "specialty hardware" is an x86 laptop on a mounting bracket, connected via IP to the same servers at HQ that the rest of the force uses.

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by Black+Parrot · 2004-01-05 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

> For pure niche apps (patrol car suspect lookups, etc), I would posit that small commercial companies are in the best possible position to provide support and apps, not the FOSS world

I have a friend who works in IT at a small college, and her group's primary responsibility is maintaining a big commercial app that manages schoolish stuff like registration, etc. Schools all over the state use the same app, so they have a sort of loose association of maintainers across the state, several per college, adding up to several score programmers in total.

She gripes a lot because every time a new release comes out the association has to hack back in all the customizations they've made over the years. I keep telling her that for the number of people and amount of effort involved, they could write their own FOSS application to do the same thing, and spend their time making improvements rather than restoring last year's hacks year after year.

> after all, where does your teenage A-Patchy Webserver hacker get his hands on the specialty hardware used in patrol cars?

Who says it has to be teenage hackers? If a dozen of the biggest cities' IT departments dedicated one programmer each, the job could be done easily at a dispersed cost, trivial in comparison to the total spent when thousands of cities buy the software at commercial prices.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by Yokaze · 2004-01-05 08:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

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"
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by CaptKilljoy · 2004-01-05 08:40 · Score: 1

If a dozen of the biggest cities' IT departments dedicated one programmer each, the job could be done easily at a dispersed cost, trivial in comparison to the total spent when thousands of cities buy the software at commercial prices.

Not gonna work. That designated programmer is going to be the first to get the axe when a budget crunch hits on the assumption that the other dept's programmers will pick up the slack. Soon, *poof*, all of the programmers are gone.
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by dzelenka · 2004-01-05 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

No way. The one programmer is going to look like a productive dynamo. And without the programmer, there will be nobody to compile and implement the product, to say nothing of the maintenance phase.

--
Bah!
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by fitten · 2004-01-05 10:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I keep telling her that for the number of people and amount of effort involved, they could write their own FOSS application to do the same thing, and spend their time making improvements rather than restoring last year's hacks year after year.

This is assuming that their changes are accepted into the root source tree (which is a false assumption). If the changes/features are too specialized/customized (they apply to only that particular college) and if they interfere with other features, they most likely will not be accepted and they will be in exactly the same boat as they are in now.

Just because a particular software package is "OpenSource" does not imply that any and all features will be put into the root source tree.
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 12:23 · Score: 0

Uh huh. And I suppose that this mounting bracket provides the connectivity back to HQ for you too? Oh wait, I suppose you're hacking apart Pringles cans and duct-taping them to the cars, right? Ever seen how well most laptop screens work when they're either hot, cold, or in direct sunlight? Some of the hardware is a little more specialized than the 'customize' options for your little Inspiron 1100's offer.
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by nathanh · 2004-01-05 12:45 · Score: 1

all, where does your teenage A-Patchy Webserver hacker get his hands on the specialty hardware used in patrol cars?

1. Apache wasn't written by teenagers.
2. If you've ever worked for a large software company, you might have been shocked at how many wet-behind-the-ears uneducated (or "self taught") programmers are writing the major infrastructure software you depend upon. I find it frightening.
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by miniver · 2004-01-05 19:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would lay good odds that once upon a time I worked for the company that made the software your friend maintains. (There aren't that many companies who do this sort of software, and I worked for one who now has more than 500 colleges as customers.) With that in mind, I think I can offer some explanation for your friend's complaints, and why open source wouldn't work to solve her problem. Let's start with a good rule of thumb:

Trader's Open Source Feasibility Factor: The likelyhood that a piece of software would be a good target for developing, maintaining, and improving as Open Source Software is proportional to the number of active installations, divided by the complexity of the software (measured in Source Lines of Code for lack of a more rigorous measure).

Any number greater than 10 indicates an excellent OSS candidate; numbers less than 0.1 indicate a poor candidate for OSS. As an example, Apache, with 31+ million websites and roughly 285,000 SLOCs would have a rough OSFF of 108; MS Windows with 200+ million users and 20-50 million SLOCs would have a rough OSFF between 4 and 10. Thus the Apache webserver would be a better candidate for OSS than MS Windows.

With that in mind, let's examine the software for administering a typical 4-year college. While much of the software would be recognizable as accounting software: inventory, accounts receiveable, account payable, general ledger, payroll, etc, it will have been customized specifically for the quirks of running a large institution with a continually changing student body. Then add on class scheduling and grade calculation modules, as well as security levels to protect the privacy and security of confidential data, such as financial and health records. Finally, throw in yearly updates for the financial aid software, which has to change to meet new requirements from the US Department of Education every year. At this point you're probably talking about 5-10 million SLOCs, with a user base of 500 customers, or an OSFF of 0.0001 or less.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are accounting certifications that have to be renewed on a yearly basis, or the college could fail an audit, which could result in its accredidation being suspended. All in all, maintaining this type of software is a very time-consuming and expensive proposition, and we're still only talking about the base package, before customizations.

Customizations can take many forms. Typical customizations are parameter-driven (school name, address, etc.) but many are the result of specific local policies and requirements. You're really talking about separate source code forks for each school. Add up the collective customizations from 500 schools are you might be talking about as much source code as the base software.

That much complexity is hard to manage; its not surprising that the company in question doesn't maintain the customizations for an individual school...

Almost any vertical application for a sufficiently complex business will have the same sort of problem, which is the major reason why Open Source Software will have a great deal of difficulty in displacing proprietary vertical applications. There just aren't enough customers for that type of software to develop the sort of community necessary to support the many man-years necessary to code an OSS competitor.

--
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by gonzo67 · 2004-01-06 06:22 · Score: 1

I would say that the base application would be an excellent applicant to be OSS as those functions are needed by almost every school. You then can add in local variations (and most are driven by accredidation board they are under and the state), which can also be shared by those who haev similar local needs (ie same accred board, same state, etc).
Re:The reverse would seem to be true by budgenator · 2004-01-06 07:57 · Score: 1

I suppose you're hacking apart Pringles cans and duct-taping them to the cars, right? Ever seen how well most laptop screens work when they're either hot, cold, or in direct sunlight?

our sherrif's dept uses pretty standard looking laptop's in patrol cars that have both heater's and air conditioning, these connect to a pretty standard looking Nextel cellphones.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re: The reverse would seem to be true by miniver · 2004-01-06 08:49 · Score: 1

I would say that the base application would be an excellent applicant to be OSS as those functions are needed by almost every school. You then can add in local variations (and most are driven by accredidation board they are under and the state), which can also be shared by those who haev similar local needs (ie same accred board, same state, etc).
That might make sense under the right circumstances; I don't think those circumstances will ever exist.

Currently the schools are running software that they've licensed from a vendor. Some of those schools may have paid for a source code license (which would probably restrict their rights to build competing products), others did not. Either way, the vendor owns the code, while some schools own some modifications. With that in mind, suppose you want to create an Open Source replacement system for administering colleges. You'd have to find enough schools that were willing to fund a replacement, identify all of their requirements, and then partition each of the requirements into "core", "federal", "state", and "school-specific". You're going to need a large pool of developers working for several years, and all that time you still have to pay for maintainence on the existing system, because you can't ignore the current system while building the new system. Someone will have to write software to convert all of the historical data from the old system to the replacement, because the school can't just throw away the old data. By the time you're finished, you've ended up building an entire company (even if it's owned and operated by schools) ... unlikely to succeed.

Alternately, suppose the vendor decides to Open Source the code (for whatever reason). Now you have several million lines of gobbledegook, probably written with languages and tools that are either (a) prohibitively expensive, or (b) probably unattainable. Hundreds of random programmers have spent the last 25 years hacking and patching the code as it evolved from a server/dumb terminal application through client-server and on towards something vaguely web-based (but with lots of background batch processing). Where do you get people who skilled enough to read through the code, make modifications, and build the end result? You may find that even with the source code, it's easier to rewrite from scratch than maintain that pile of hairy code. [This is the Mozilla scenario.]
(I really don't want to end this here, but I don't have the time to write the rest of this essay. Gotta go back to work to earn my salary.)

--
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.

it's already been admitted by relrelrel · 2004-01-05 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

by the UK goverment that they might "look-in" to open source software themselves simply because they know it scares Microsoft, like Germany, who got massive discounts.

A goverment just has to say it's thinking about it to get Microsoft scared and giving out vouchers left right and centre.

Expect to see alot more /. stories on goverments considering OSS and then stories a few months later about them receiving massive discounts.

--
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing

Re:it's already been admitted by Teux · 2004-01-05 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

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)
Re:it's already been admitted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:57 · Score: 0

If we want to grow the talent that will keep us safe, we need to develop the programs to teach and innovate within our borders. So far, this effort has come from the grass roots efforts of the Open Source Software community. Anyone wanting to prevent that from continuing needs to take a hard look at their priorities and ask if what they're doing works for the common good.
Re:it's already been admitted by gph · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: 1

It seems that European commission is really thinking about switching to free softwares http://europa.eu.int/(...)
Re:it's already been admitted by JoeBuck · 2004-01-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Microsoft thinks it's a bluff, they will call the bluff. The reason that they hand out discounts instead is because they know that it's not. OpenOffice/StarOffice might be an even bigger threat to their revenue stream than Linux is; it's already good enough for most office workers and is vastly cheaper. If a few people in the organization still need a function that they can only buy from Microsoft, no matter: the organization just buys a very small number of MS Office licenses.
Re:it's already been admitted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:12 · Score: 0

huh?
Re:it's already been admitted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:14 · Score: 0

huh?
Re:it's already been admitted by DickBreath · 2004-01-05 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

OpenOffice/StarOffice might be an even bigger threat to their revenue stream than Linux is; it's already good enough for most office workers and is vastly cheaper.

The profit on selling Microsoft Office must be much greater than the profit on selling a bundled OEM preinstll of Windows.

Furthermore, OpenOffice.org represents one less reason to be locked in to Windows. The more cross-over applications you run, the sooner you will realize one of these years that "Hey, we could just switch over to <Insert popular Open Source OS of the day>.

For both of the foregoing reasons, I agree that OpenOffice.org is a much bigger threat (short term) to Microsoft than Linux is. Linux is a longer term threat. But tools like OpenOffice.org are what helps to make it so.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Government not supposed to work that way by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Government not supposed to work that way by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:48 · Score: 0

i prefer a complex merlot, how about you?
Re:Government not supposed to work that way by happyfrogcow · 2004-01-05 08:45 · Score: 1

I agree with you about a federal government with too much power. as an aside, federal government as it exists seems, to my little limited view of life, as only federal politics. I don't see much governing at all. these federal politics are going to do as you say, run our local governments into the ground.

You are 100% dead on.

DITTO! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:47 · Score: -1, Troll

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949 12983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217 98609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051 32000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178 72146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892 35420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099 60518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318 59502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118 81710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473 03598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957 78185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019 89380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019 52035301852968995773622599413891249721775283479131 51557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509 83817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240 12858361603563707660104710181942955596198946767837 44944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 12933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935 11253382430035587640247496473263914199272604269922 79678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297 45557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029 55321165344987202755960236480665499119881834797753 56636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380 00816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685 48161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143 33454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025 42568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843 83827967976681454100953883786360950680064225125205 11739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118 63067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172 87467764657573962413890865832645995813390478027590 09946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940 77267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682 03496252451749399651431429809190659250937221696461 51570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813 82686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246 80845987273644695848653836736222626099124608051243 88439045124413654976278079771569143599770012961608 94416948685558484063534220722258284886481584560285 06016842739452267467678895252138522549954666727823 98645659611635488623057745649803559363456817432411 25150760694794510965960940252288797108931456691368 67228748940560101503308617928680920874760917824938 58900971490967598526136554978189312978482168299894 87226588048575640142704775551323796414515237462343 64542858444795265867821051141354735739523113427166 10213596953623144295248493718711014576540359027993 44037420073105785390621983874478084784896833214457 13868751943506430218453191048481005370614680674919 278191197939952061419663428754440643

Free software by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:48 · Score: -1, Troll

Warning!

FREE SOFTWARE is "FREE" as in "FREE LABOUR"!

Thus, FOSS promotes SLAVERY!

Act today! Partner with SCO and stop this crime against humanity!

SLG does not respond well to Open Source because by pauly_thumbs · 2004-01-05 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

1)"Free" is not a good motivator - coming in under budget is not a motivator if they want budget they need to spend budget

2) it's too complex for SLG admins, it's not as easy to pass an open source torch on to your new team mate or underling.

what will motivate Open Sopurce Adoption?

those 400k novell seats and their admins that still run win9x and office 97 need an upgrade very badly. If Novell/SUSe and Ximian can pull off a compelling solution then you will see huga adoptions -- not these onsie twosie deals.

Mod me down if you like but this is a strong emerging market.

AMBER ALERT! by drdreff · 2004-01-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry you need to update your version of Microsoft Office to 2003sp3 in order to report a child missing.

When timing is critical a commercial solution can fall flat on it's face.

--
As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC

Re:AMBER ALERT! by NanoGator · 2004-01-05 08:00 · Score: 3, Funny

"Sorry you need to update your version of Microsoft Office to 2003sp3 in order to report a child missing."

Careful about firing shots like that. Open Source has it's downsides too. You don't want anybody scoring a +3 funny on ya.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:AMBER ALERT! by IthnkImParanoid · 2004-01-05 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, but if someone takes down a critical part of an Amber Alert type system to update software without any sort of redundancy to keep the system going, the fault is with them, bot the software or OS. I dislike Microsoft software in general as much as the next /.er, but in what situation would this happen?

--
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Re:AMBER ALERT! by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-01-05 08:12 · Score: 1

All that means is you have idiot developers/managers. Which can and does happen with open source tools.
Re:AMBER ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:22 · Score: 0

drdreff writes:

Sorry you need to update your version of Microsoft Office to 2003sp3 in order to report a child missing.

When timing is critical a commercial solution can fall flat on it's face.

To summarize both drdreff's post and the article:

If you don't use Open Source, you are helping the terrorists and child molestors!!!
Re:AMBER ALERT! by transient · 2004-01-05 08:25 · Score: 1

You can't be serious. What the hell does MS Office have to do with a missing child report?

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:AMBER ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:00 · Score: 0

Well, the same people also think that government officials actually type up instructions in MS Word and e-mail it rather than having one of their 100+ aides send the message using say...a secured fax machine.

Missing child reports probably get done in a custom app with all kinds of nifty fields which probably ends up being put in a database and sent out.
Re:AMBER ALERT! by geekee · 2004-01-05 09:09 · Score: 1

" Sorry you need to update your version of Microsoft Office to 2003sp3 in order to report a child missing. When timing is critical a commercial solution can fall flat on it's face."

Nice straw man arguement. insightful my ass.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:AMBER ALERT! by transient · 2004-01-05 09:41 · Score: 1

Probably? They do. I just closed a project to install a system exactly as you describe. (It runs on Linux, by the way.)

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:AMBER ALERT! by Artifakt · 2004-01-05 18:27 · Score: 1

My local police dept. just implemented a multi-monitor dispatch system, where each dispatcher has several screens with information such as which ambulance servieces are already on call, what police and fire units are where, and such. It's projected to save time and reduce the error rate associated with having to tab through multiple screens and aggregate the information needed.
The amount of information involved is surprisingly high. For example, there's often a need to find, not the closest patrol unit, but the closest units of several kinds that have persons currently trained in Hazmat or paramedic assist functions.
This upgrade was first considered when MS OS products started supporting multiple monitors (I think that was Windows 98, but it might have been a little earlier, in the NT version of about that time). The 98 version was definitely considered way to unstable for this sort of mission critical use. Microsoft's quotes for system support integrated with existing dispatch software weren't encouraging either. At least part of the delay in fielding this system came from looking to closed source solutions only, and an initial feasability study influenced by MS sales dept. FUD.
These hypothetical arguements about delays in getting out an Amber alert or a terror warning may be speculative, but here's a real world example, not a hypothetical. Whether anyone died or suffered major injury solely as a result of the delay, or whether time to completion was also affected by budget and other concerns, these might be speculative points, but it's pretty hard to believe the open source/closed source factor didn't have some impact.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:AMBER ALERT! by FatAssBastard · 2004-01-08 13:13 · Score: 1

That would be nice, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that these reports are typed in MS Word and emailed, at least in some places.

--
/.: why the hell am I here?

THIS MAN SI ON TEH SPOKE - EU SUX0RS!!!`1~ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

YUO == TEH FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:56 · Score: -1, Troll

It's pi, the "3." is implied.

nancies.

Re:YUO == TEH FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:59 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Pi. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-05 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tactical considerations by GeckoFood · 2004-01-05 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

Re:Tactical considerations by Araneas · 2004-01-05 08:16 · Score: 1

What I would really want is a manual cocking handle and iron sights. Low tech redundancy for when the duracells go flat.
Re:Tactical considerations by TheSunborn · 2004-01-05 08:18 · Score: 1

Well, having used both gnome, kde and mozilla(Nice browser but still a bit buggy) all I can say is no. Both gnome and kde are far more buggy when any interface microsoft have ever put on windows, and mozilla does crash more then explorer 6.

Besides for most applications, the bugs are found by the users who then fill out a bug-rapport. Whatever the product is opensource or not, does not effect the abilities of people to find bug.

And yes there exists opensource products with almost no bugs, and really high qualiy software(Apache, gcc and so on).

And I still use mozilla as a browser even in windows. Not because it is less buggy, but because it got some really nice features.
Re:Tactical considerations by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-01-05 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Conversely, would you want all your image recognition algorithms (for TV guided missiles), your IR decoy rejection routines, your frequency hopping timings to be known to all and sundry, including the adversary?

"Look, {insert your favorite rebel army leader here]...here's the code for how the missile rejects the decoy flares. Now we can work around that." "ooohhh, and here's the Predator communications frequencies. We can start on spoofing those."
Re:Tactical considerations by miniver · 2004-01-05 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Would you really want your military systems to blue screen or dump core right in the middle of a firefight?
There are much worse ways that software can fail. One of the worst is software that looks like it's working, but in fact is not displaying new / updated items -- this leaves the warfighter with the false impression of situational awareness. Another popular failure is software that has time-consuming processing steps that don't have adequate progress indicators -- this leaves the warfighter wondering 'Is it done yet?' when it hangs or fails.

At least with a blue screen or core dump, you know you've got a problem, and you can restart / reboot to resume, with a well known startup time.

--
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Re:Tactical considerations by GeckoFood · 2004-01-05 08:29 · Score: 1

There are much worse ways that software can fail. One of the worst is software that looks like it's working...

I have to agree with you there, wholeheartedly.

--
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Re:Tactical considerations by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:35 · Score: 0

It's a good point in some respects. If an enemy is completely ignorant of your technology, you have an advantage over them.

However, that advantage, if it exists at all, is temporary. Other people can think just as well as you can, and they usually find it's easier for them to defeat a system than it was for you to engineer it.

Nobody in their right mind depends on obscuring a mechanism in order to assure its security. That's why we have the practice of using a combination of cryptographic keys and open algorithms. You don't want to replace an entire security infrastructure just because you suspect that someone has figured out how it works.
Re:Tactical considerations by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-01-05 08:51 · Score: 1

Temporary works quite well in many military situations. And the length of temporary differs. Having a 36 hour advantage for a particular system may be all that's needed. Other systems may rely on years of advantage.

There are many systems and weapons kept secret, but still in use. The knowledge of exactly how it works would negate any advantage.

For instance...there is a class of A/A missile that does X. Somewhat revolutionary in operation. Been in the field for several years. If its internal operation were public, well, then, it wouldn't be secret anymore. And defeating it would be trivial. As it is, the general aspects are probably known. But until you can glean the exact parameters...defeating it is very hard.
Re:Tactical considerations by CaptKilljoy · 2004-01-05 08:53 · Score: 1

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Military systems are more stable than either open source or commercial systems because the military spends metric buttloads of cash to develop excruciatingly detailed specifications and do extensive QA. With those two things (and all other things being equal), it doesn't matter in the slightest whether it's open or closed source.

(And even after all that, the results are still not perfect.)
Re:Tactical considerations by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-01-05 09:06 · Score: 0

Open Source systems (bazaar) are often much more stable than commercial systems (cathedral) just because of the number of bug hunters

How's that? You don't need to be using OSS to find bugs. People are complaining all the time about bugs in MS products. Given Microsoft's market share I submit MS has far more bug hunters than all of open sourcedom combined.

Perhaps you meant bug fixers? Who is going to run, debug, recode military applications? They would then submit the fixes through, what, anonymous CVS? Yes, that's a sound way to ensure your mission critical military applications are stable and bug free.

Now, is it a bug if all the missiles launched turn and head toward the White House if someone put that code in intentionally?
Re:Tactical considerations by stephanruby · 2004-01-05 09:47 · Score: 1

Would you really want your military systems to blue screen or dump core right in the middle of a firefight?
Mission critical military applications are not written the same way as bloated consumer based applications. Your argument may be valid, but your example is a little too much.
Re:Tactical considerations by miniver · 2004-01-05 10:55 · Score: 1

There's nothing that says that ALL of the elements of a critical system have to be open source (GPL flamewars aside). On the other hand, most of the infrastructure of a modern system (military or otherwise) is the same as any other IT system, except for having stricter reliability requirements (ie: no single-point-of-failure allowed / short recovery times). In fact, these are the same infrastructure requirements that most commercial entities would love to have, but generally can't justify on a cost basis.

Take clustered storage systems -- truly reliable (ie 0.99999 or better uptime) systems require redundant drives and redundant data paths. Proprietary implementations are expensive, but while open source implementations are gradually becoming available (ie: OpenGFS), they still have performance, scalability, and reliability limitations. There should be no reason for a military development program NOT to contribute to OpenGFS, and leverage the results for their infrastructure, even if the rest of their software is classified.

My only concern would be announcing to the world that specific strategic and tactical systems were using specific hardware and specific software -- a studious researcher could use that sort of information to estimate performance limitations. On the other hand, there are plenty of professional and industry journals that publish the same information today, often in more detail (Aviation Week has guys camping in lawn chairs ... Janes has their sources too) so I wouldn't worry a whole lot about it.

So I wouldn't necessarily Open Source the data analysis software for an air traffic control system, but I might use an Open Source infrastructure for storing the track data for playback.

--
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Re:Tactical considerations by cyril3 · 2004-01-05 17:32 · Score: 1

Conversely, would you want all your image recognition algorithms (for TV guided missiles), your IR decoy rejection routines, your frequency hopping timings to be known to all and sundry, including the adversary?
Why would you show those items to anyone especially your adversaries.
Oh, that's right. If I use Open Source software to develop my application I have to let everyone in the world have a copy of the entire program if they ask for it. Even the DSP algorithms and frequency tables I developed myself.
Re:Tactical considerations by cyril3 · 2004-01-05 17:36 · Score: 1

That's why you test software in a realistic situation before you deploy it operationally.
Amazingly enough the Military has a lot of experience at that. In fact they spend almost their entire career training in realistic scenarios. Lots of military personnel never actually use their skills in combat related activity.
So I don't think a missing hourglass is going to fool them in the heat of battle.
Re:Tactical considerations by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:47 · Score: 0

"Open Source systems (bazaar) are often much more stable than commercial systems (cathedral) just because of the number of bug hunters"

Got some actual numbers to back that up? And no, you can't reference all the other Slashdot posters who've also asserted that particular claim.
Re:Tactical considerations by chip33550336 · 2004-01-05 21:17 · Score: 1

I disagree sort of.

Depending on the situation. If you know you're going to die because your tactical computer bluescreened, is it really that much different than not knowing you are going to die because your software is screwed up?

Either way you die. Either way the software / hardware sucks.
Re:Tactical considerations by miniver · 2004-01-06 04:08 · Score: 1

Depending on the situation. If you know you're going to die because your tactical computer bluescreened, is it really that much different than not knowing you are going to die because your software is screwed up?
If I know that there's a problem, I can respond to it. Even if the problem leaves me with a miniscule chance of survival, that's still a chance. On the other hand, if I think everything's fine while an undetected threat is approaching, I won't have any chance at all to respond. Some chance is better than no chance, every day.

Yes, all systems should work correctly, all of the time. And when I'm developing systems (oddly enough, military systems), my goal is perfection. But I know that systems fail because nothing in this world is perfect or permanent, and so I plan for failure as well as success.

--
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.

gov't lacking in expertise and money for software by poopie · 2004-01-05 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Al Gore Invented Open Source Government Dilemma by larry+bagina · 2004-01-05 08:05 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I thought Michael Jackson invented break dancing. OR maybe I'm thinking of Child Molesting.

True story - as VP, Al Gore met Michael Jordan, and told him "I really loved Thriller"

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:Al Gore Invented Open Source Government Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait

No, that was the Catholic Church.

morons sign up to meet won-eyed girl? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:17 · Score: -1, Offtopic

first stuff that really matters since sometime last weak/year?

tell 'em robbIE.

Re:SLG does not respond well to Open Source becaus by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:19 · Score: 0

huh?

Re:gov't lacking in expertise and money for softwa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:21 · Score: 0

huh?

Huh? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-01-05 08:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:Huh? by nathanh · 2004-01-05 13:07 · Score: 2, Informative

So the Internet works because it "follows standards", and we know MSIE (price: free) has the largest share of the browser market.

They achieved that marketshare through illegal use of their x86 operating system monopoly. That's a fact as determined by the US courts.
So MS hasn't broken the Internet. Can someone give an example of what he's talking about?

He didn't say Microsoft had "broken" the Internet. Let's read it again:
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?

Adopt and resell. Not break. His preceding paragraph about following standards makes no mention of Microsoft. You are trying to put words into his mouth.
Re:Huh? by cyril3 · 2004-01-05 17:42 · Score: 1

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.
Yeah but I hate it when I get empowered. It usually means I gotta do something.
If I wanted to do something about homeland security I wouldn'ta bothered voting for someone who said they'd do it for me. Well I woulda if I hadda voted at all.

Re:gov't lacking in expertise and money for softwa by kiwimate · 2004-01-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:SLG does not respond well to Open Source becaus by peitao · 2004-01-05 08:31 · Score: 1

1)"Free" is not a good motivator - coming in under budget is not a motivator if they want budget they need to spend budget

Unfortunately this is so true... I built a web calendar for a research group at a major university, using linux/apache and an opensource calendar. They went ahead and bought a Mac X Serve and had me port the thing over, doubling the billable hours for me (not that I minded), even though I had already demo'd it on one of their spare outdated PCs.

The basic law of government/educational budgets is "Use it or lose it."

Lame arguments work against Open Source by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-05 08:33 · Score: 1

If we want secure software, it has to be Open Source..

I'm not sure how you can say this authoritatively just because Microsoft is a poster child for buggy software. There is nothing in particular that keeps Closed Source from being secure. The idea that "more eyes" looking at the code is the solution just does not fly when you consider the number of "eyes" that Microsoft employs (ever been to Redmond? Zillions of code ants work there...) still does not keep them from producing buggy software. Further more, there are plenty of first-class Closed Source products out there.

Granted, at the start the code quality of Open Source stuff is around equal to Closed Source stuff...

God, I just don't know how to approach this statement since it is just plain not true. Certainly, much of the most used Open Source such as Apache, Linux / *BSD, Perl, PHP, and such, is superior to most Closed Source, but really there are large heaps and piles of Open Source crap out there.

It's bad to generalize the argument into saying most Closed Source is unsecure crap, and all Open Source is Godly, when it just isn't so. When screeching frothing people blather this crud at the people in business and government that have the decision making power, it just invalidates the entire Open Source movement. The drum we really should be beating is the Total Cost argument: "It's better, and cheaper to use!"

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

The squeaky wheel gets the oil by Dukael_Mikakis · 2004-01-05 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with the parent.

In many cases, the way that government works is that the budget-busters will wnd up getting more funding (despite being called to make cuts and everything). This is especially true if you're facing "essential" government expenditures such as the military (notorious for paying $100 for toilet seats and such). It would simply be too difficult for any politician to justify slashing funds to a military at its budgetary "capacity", especially these days, and this is why the Army is giving Microsoft huge and (in my opinion) bloated contracts, so that when they need fighter jets or nukes they can say, "See we're operating at capacity, and you can't seriously *not* give us funding, right?"

It's the first trick in the bureaucratic hnadbook: spending money makes you look busy so that you can get more money and look even busier. Government agencies are like parasites that just consume as much as they can and continue to consume more (not that we don't need these agencies, per se).

This is why a giant surplus was effectively erased by Bush as a result of a substantial wealthy-heavy tax cut and exorbitant funding on this corporate-sponsored war effort.

Call it my paranoia. But in a word, open source would be great for our (and any government), but open source isn't precisely what governments want. I think they are looking more for the happy median where they can still break the bank a bit, without becoming too bloated. It's like walking the fine line between losing funding for not spending enough (and having unused cash in your account) and getting cut for spending too much (and looking bad and calling into question how "necessary" certain things are).

Which is why it is ideal (and why we see very often "looking into" open source but contracting a discounted Microsoft deal.

Re:The squeaky wheel gets the oil by cayenne8 · 2004-01-05 09:52 · Score: 1

"This is why a giant surplus was effectively erased by Bush as a result of a substantial wealthy-heavy tax cut..."
I'm not sure what you consider wealthy....I know myself and most of my friends, who are all broadly in the same area as far as age/salary range ALL benefited from the tax cuts. Some with families, and some single. And we're all FAR from what I'd consider 'wealthy'. Making over $30K-$50K a year does not make one a wealthy person, especially if you have a family.
I think the gov. takes way too much money as it is, they need to live within their means. I like the tax cut, but, I am alarmed that the current administration is not halting domestic spending. I understand emergencies like 9/11 and a war, but, they are also spending like there is no tomorrow for any pet project a senator or congressman has put forward.
I thought one reason to cut income (eg tax cuts) was that if you dried up revenues, they you'd force them to spend more thoughtfully, and trim govt. fat. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

True enough but by crovira · 2004-01-05 08:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

the problem lies not government "per se" but with the management thereof.

The same government that you are railing about is the reason nobody's dying in low speed head-on crashes from getting a steering column rammed through their chest.

The car companies were quoting "market forces" and "nobody will want to pay for collapsible steering columns," and people were pinned to their seats like butterflies to cardboard. Sound familiar? Its the justification of every elite to anything that's going to cut into sl/easy profit.

Management of government by objectives without citizen input into what the objectives are is disastrous.

Remember Clinton's medical plan fiasco that was thrown out, not by elected representatives like the congress, but by HMO lobby groups posing as experts, as being unmanagable.

You didn't get to register so much as a peep for or against or make a suggestion. It was managed right out of your hands.

People are dying because their only sin is being temporarily broke from the last scrape with the health care system.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

Re:True enough but by cayenne8 · 2004-01-05 09:45 · Score: 1

"The same government that you are railing about is the reason nobody's dying in low speed head-on crashes from getting a steering column rammed through their chest."
Unfortunately, they don't know where to stop..if one little thing is good...they think more regulation is better. Due to all the govt. restrictions, and the insurance companies...we no longer have the fun cars to drive these days. They killed the muscle cars for people who wanted them. Bumper restrictions kept cool cars like the Pantera from the US...many European models of cars can't be had here. I can see broad, high level safety standards...but, I don't want them legislating away my choices to a narrow few in cars (that are all essentially underpowered hunks of metal with no style or personality) nor other aspects of my life. What happened to personal responsibility....?
The govt. is there for infrastructure, defense...and I can see a safety net for the truly needy or infirmed or elderly...but, it should not be there to legislate morality or as a wealth redistribution system. There are always going to be the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in this world...that's tough, but, as long as people have the opportunies to create their own destiny...then their fate is in their own hands.
I think a little LESS govt. intrusion into personal choices and freedoms would be nice. And it should work to be the most efficient with our money that it can be.....oops, sorry, got into that pipe dream again...
:-)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:True enough but by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:50 · Score: 0

Remember Clinton's medical plan fiasco that was thrown out, not by elected representatives like the congress, but by HMO lobby groups posing as experts, as being unmanagable.

Out of curiousity, do you believe that a government-run HMO is going to be any better than a privately-run HMO? whom do you sue if they cut off the wrong leg? The Government? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Text for the soon to be slashdotted.. TROLL!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 08:41 · Score: -1, Troll

"Those who make information technology decisions (not taco or his butt banging linux buddies)today can effect the public safety in the near future.

Pool all Government software. by crovira · 2004-01-05 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:gov't lacking in expertise and money for softwa by egburr · 2004-01-05 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

The article is also about paying for the software ONE time and using it everywhere, instead of paying for EACH copy of it everywhere it is or might be used.

That does not necessarily require Open Source, but Open Source is much more likely to make this possible than current proprietary commercial solutions.

Instead of paying a license to use each copy of the software, you pay someone to write the software, and you pay someone (not necessarily the same person!) to support the software.

Eventually, we'll probably end up with a federally funded department that writes and/or supports these applications. Local governments can use them for free and get support as needed (maybe with a small fee?). If a local government wants something that does not already exist they can pay to have it created (so that department isn't flooded with unnecessary requests), then others can obtain it for free. It would be a lot cheaper than everyone paying for licenses to use commercial software, and would directly affect our taxes.

--

Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Author is misrespesentative by geekee · 2004-01-05 09:06 · Score: 2, Informative

"Mr. Bray has determined that Open Source Software appears as a bad idea as he further writes: (So what's wrong?) Plenty, if you're Microsoft or Oracle, or any of the thousands of smaller companies that make closed-source software for government agencies. According to the research firm IDC Corp., federal, state and local governments spend $34 billion a year on software. If Kriss's (Open Source in Government) ideas were to catch on across the land, a lot of that revenue disappears, and much of what remains won't go to firms like Microsoft, which refuses to offer open-source products."

Bray never says open source is a bad idea. He merely says companies like MS and Oracle will lose revenue as a result of OSS. Why should I believe an author who can't even interpret a quote correctly,

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Author is misrespesentative by gonzo67 · 2004-01-06 07:50 · Score: 1

Because (RTFA) he goes on to say that Mr Bray is wrong because ORACLE embraces and has called itself a LINUX company. Mr Bray says many companies will lose money, but the author points out that IBM, Apple, Oracle and others use OSS and make money. Even MS uses BSD on their hotmail system!!

Re:Pool all Government software. by Osrin · 2004-01-05 09:17 · Score: 1

We should be encouraging commercial and non-commercial sofware providers to do exactally this if we're going to get maximum return on invested dollars.

The "open source" for government movement is as responsible as the commercial providers for constructing an us or them scenario.

Any application, developed on any platform, in any government agency should be indexed and available to the wider government community.

This is all about reuse, it has little or nothing to do with open standards or any of the many other unrelated issues that are frequently used to trying and confuse policy makers.

Now I've heard everything... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:19 · Score: 0

"...Open Source collaborative initiatives may provide the only solution for the US if the people want to create a safer environment."

Oh ok, now open-source is the only thing that can save us from the terrorists, eh?
Is that what yer selling us today slashdot? Pbbttt...

Re:gov't lacking in expertise and money for softwa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 09:29 · Score: 0

I think the real problem is people. Most technical problems have already been solved. Very few things can't be solved with a decent database attached to a generic form handler.

The thing is that we have so many people for whom pushing bits of paper about, or maintaining some useless crap s/ware, is a living.

Hell - EJBs, XML, XSD, C++ et al are all just ways to enhance job security.

*Shakes fist angrily against an uncaring world*

My local government doesn't drive down your road by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 10:32 · Score: 0

The automobile standards analogy doesn't apply. Localities already have sensible relationships with each other when it comes to policing and emergency response.

Local governments are becoming the last place where individuals and small groups still have a voice and control. The federal government will put an end to that. We won't have any money left for actual local government once they get through with their reengineering of the homeland.

factual errors in quoted Bray article by Anthony · 2004-01-05 11:37 · Score: 1

Overseas, one of Australia's six states has passed legislation mandating the use of open-source code

1. The Australian Capital Territory is not at State

2. The legislation does not mandate open source software, but mandates only that it be considered.

--
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance

Re:gov't lacking in expertise and money for softwa by qtp · 2004-01-05 11:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

A few things of note... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 11:50 · Score: 0

- I thought Apple's OSX was BSD, not open BSD. Therefore not OSS?
- Some of the assumptions about local gvt (have direct experience) are true. There is very little understating of what IT requirements are at and above the level of IT directors of current development levels. But this is changing for the better.
- In America, local gvt's are islands. The level of intergovernmental coordination in Canadian, British, Australian is night and day better than America. But this is not always a good thing: In general, this has advantages for the very small local governments in the US, and disadvantages for the larger ones.
- The author does not fully address security needs. Reliability is implied in the word security. In particular he suggests using the internet for AMBER, I *think* this would not meet reliability requirements.
- Finally, the web is not in general understood by gvt. Lower funding being one reason, another might be that the web represents much more to be understood for a gvt than it does for Sears (privacy is not the same thing for these two). This is changing. For instance, the justice XML efforts are moving from "alpha" to "bata" state, within the next few years, they should be in the "mature" state. One of the interesting things that happens with XML efforts is that it educates some of those that do not normally understand IT. This type of technology allows the proprietary software and the OSS to play together. Once this happens, expect to see much more OSS in gvt (and private sector) regardless of legislation.

Document formats, not software by beforewisdom · 2004-01-05 15:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

One of the best ways to promote free(dom) software, would be for the government to mandate standard goverment document formats under a GPL.

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

Re:Document formats, not software by stephenbooth · 2004-01-06 02:11 · Score: 1

Unfortunately /. would then erupt in a cacophany of how the federal government was invading the privacy of every Citizen, violating the constitution (actually that might technically be a violation of the constitution), raping everyone's daughters and spying on everyone whilst giving tax money to the [RI|MP]AA. Personally I think it's a good idea, in theory we're trying to do something similar with XML schemas used by local and central in the UK. The problem there is that it has no teeth so people are going off and doing their own thing to create schemas that are as incompatible and obscure as possible whilst still sticking within the letter of the XML standard.

Stephen

--
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Re:Document formats, not software by Ernest · 2004-01-06 04:34 · Score: 1

Euh ?

There is nothing anticonstitutional about using a document format that any software package can read ... _if_ they can get there hands on the document.

In other words (just as it is now) secrecy and privacy must be garantied by some other mean than by hiding the document in some obscure, and probably proprietary, format.

--
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
Re:Document formats, not software by stephenbooth · 2004-01-06 08:19 · Score: 1

First off the comment about unconstitutionality was more the idea of the federal government telling the states what to do. Secondly there are people on /. who will claim that anything that the federal government do is unconstitutional and an invasion of their privacy. The government could fund a national voluntary "Know your constitutional rights" training scheme where any citizen anywhere could drop in anonymously to study the constitution and discuss it with others, and these people would claim it was unconstitutional and a violation of their privacy and right to privacy. Some of these people are obviously wearing tin foil hats but others appear otherwise quite normal. It was this group I was alluding to. Given that you've got a 4 digit user number I'd have thought you'd have run across that sort often enough.

Stephen

--
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall

"costs in terms of lives and dollars" by alex_ant · 2004-01-05 15:58 · Score: 0

Closed-source software is killing people now? I hadn't heard that one.

Security concern... by MisterFancypants · 2004-01-05 21:27 · Score: 1

This sounds like a security nightmare to me. Not because of the 'Open Source' nature of the project, but because the same code will be used in too many places..

Whatever happened to the argument that diverse heterogeneous systems are better from a security standpoint? I guess it only applies when bashing Microsoft?

If you base all of these government systems off of a single Open Source core, a hacker only needs to find a single bug in the core software and he or she has keys to the entire kingdom of federal data on ANYONE!

What dilemma? by tiger99 · 2004-01-06 06:20 · Score: 1

What dilemma? The choice is obvious. If the so-called developed world does not wake up, we will continue to be held to ransom by the Convicted Monopolist who produces the leading brand of trash with all the security holes, while lots of less-well developed nations get ahead. It is as simple as that.

With OSS the customer can see what he is getting, which should be a basic requirement for government use. Safety is slightly different from security, but there too, if you can see the code, you can check that proper procedures have been followed. You can at any time have the code subjected to independent audit, which is often a legal or at least moral requirement.

If they think that Open Source is too controversial (politicians and decision makers rarely understand the real issues) they should at least insist on getting the source, for their own use, even under NDA. That would be better than nothing, and enought to give Bill a nightmare or two.

Some, notably the Germans with Kroupware, but many others also, have funded OSS development for good reason. It makes perfect sense to do so. If most governments, both local and national, and large to medium organisations, fund bits of things that they need, out of their budgets, but with one eye on what others are doing, the end result is that virtually everything needed gets developed somewhere, in a cost-effective manner, and can then be shared. So everyone is a winner, including OSS developers, who actually get paid to do what they like doing.

The fact is that the world can help itself towards being free of domination by M$ and others, it just needs decision makers with guts and a bit of copmprehension.

Slashdot Mirror

The Open Source Dilemma for Governments

163 comments