Slashdot Mirror
Mass. Backs Down From Open Source Stance
MeanMF writes "eWeek reports that the state of Massachusetts has moved away from specifying that open source software be given preferential treatment over proprietary systems. Instead, they have chosen to focus on software that provides the best value and flexibility. This is a major reversal from their previous direction."
I don't see this as being bad for Open Source - because if Open Source is truly the best option for the state, they will choose it. It won't force the state to use it if it isn't right. That will make the software better in the long run - if it needs to improve to compete.
My guess is that microsoft gave them a great deal and the whole announcement was just a means to gain leverage over microsoft.
This is a good thing. Yes. I said /GOOD/ thing
/lots/ of software projects were put on hold since this opensource intitiative started. Everyone had to drop everything and start reviewing whether or not they could reimplement their projects on Linux. EVERYONE. Including projects that were ready to go out the door.
Why is this a good thing? Because
Plus, the 2nd problem is the person who suggested this is the head beancounter, who has no idea how stuff worked in the trenches. He was asking why people could implement a Multi-Terabye Oracle DB (which was already purchased and filled with data) onto MySQL. It just grates me.
Instead, they came to their senses and are now wanting to use the best tool for the job. *phew*
(FYI: I work for Commonwealth. I am not speaking for the Commonwealth, and all the things said above are purely scuttlebutt that I overheard.)
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
"This is a major reversal from their previous direction."
A major reversal would be if they said to avoid OSS altogether. Instead, they just made it fair to all involved. For all the benefits of OSS to be worth anything, the software has to do its job. If OSS is ready, you all have nothing to worry about. If it's not, then start coding.
"Derp de derp."
yeah, this is a no brainer. Everyone should use the best software for the job. Not use something BECAUSE it's OSS.
Pretty Pictures!
It seems more like a clarification to me:
The state's new Enterprise Open Standards Policy defines open standards as: "Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body."
While open standards aren't the same as open source, it certainly leans away from a Microsoft-style, vendor lock-in.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
I guess you could say "Mass. weighs their options."
Basically they are focusing on the important aspect of open source: Freedom. If you have closed-source software which does the job, but costs an arm and a leg to replace, you've got lock-in.. but if you have closed-source software that is begin used simply because it's BETTER, then you've excercised your choice, and are still free to choose a different solution in the future. This is good. It makes the closed-source software work hard to stay competitive.
Demand freedom and open standards. Open source software is the easy no-brainer way to get these things, but sometimes you actually need something that OSS doesn't supply. Fair enough.
The continued vitality of all software development models depends on the merits of their respective products, and not the method of development chosen. [pdf]
Which sounds great, but this is an organization that also supports evils such as the DMCA and DRM.
As for choice, I never understood why IT managers haven't been fired en masse when they've commited a business or university to Microsoft products. MS has a proven history of closed standards based on embracing and extending open standards for the sole purpose of creating an artificial dependence on their products. Based on this fact alone, products build on open standards are superior...
One of the major reasons for the Militaries use of OSS is that it is auditable. Anyone who has worked for a government agency knows how important it is once in a while to explain and demonstrate how and why of what they do.
A substantial sore point for closed source software is that it cannot be reviewed. That is why the Military writes so much of its own code.
Now with the faucet running full-on with OSS, they can and do examine the code, build from source, and even make desired changes. Because They Can.
That is not to say that the Military operations and internal efforts are visible from the outside, it is to say that they are visible on the inside.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I'm glad they've backed down from their earlier "FLOSS everywhere" policy because it was simply impractical while also being completely unfair to NFCSS (non-free closed source software) companies. I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job. It seems Massachusetts has now chosen a similarly balanced policy and that makes me happy.
Another motivation is practicality. I know of and sometimes work in certain areas where moving to FLOSS would be a significant step backwards. I am not talking about office automation, but areas like scientific software and certain limit cases (eg, terabyte databases). These are niches where the NFCSS companies have had several decades head start. It will take a very long time for FLOSS to catchup to NFCSS in those niche fields, if that's even possible.
BTW: my real motivation for supporting "choice" over "mandate" is partly fairness, partly common sense, but also partly smugness. I have no doubt that FLOSS software will win on its own merits, given enough time. I definitely don't want FLOSS to be govt-mandated now and 10 years later have a bunch of disgruntled ex-Microsofties bitch about how "FLOSS would never have won if the govt didn't make it compulsory".
'Nuff said.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
The croweaters' law says words to the effect of "thou shalt not buy lockin risks". That is aimed straight at the heart of everything opposed to FLOSS, and it's a very difficult approach to attack without coming across as a selfish cad. (-:
It's especially interesting because this has wider implications than IT, and it reflects some of what "third world" countries have been learning as they roll out their own FLOSS policies. People become less reluctant to shoot co-developers, and more interested in meeting to solve common problems as a result of the practice that they get on-line.
So much of the progress in this world is held up by blind faith in the existing dogma, so many people are held in thrall to greed and fear because of it. These same problems extend beyond business.
For example, science tells us and we all agree that craters are formed either by meteorite impacts or vulcanism. What? all of them? I think not. But as long as we hang onto that obsolete idea, we're blind to any other possibilities.
Despite all of the benefits already expounded upon herein, the legislation we're seeing enacted is most important for forcing people to seriously consider alternatives for the first time. For that reason, it's sad to see Massuchusetts backing down at all. It's not as if the original wording was exactly draconian to start with.
Nathan! I'm shocked - absolutely shocked - at the level of self-deprecation I see here! (-:
They'll whine anyway. And we'll survive that experience, too. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How much will it cost to migrate data or upgrade to a newer version?
Unfortunately, governments (like most organizations) rarely are able to look that far ahead.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Money has changed hands. I'd stake my reputation on it.
I'd just like to follow the dollar upstream and know who felt threatened? Anyone know of any just-about-to-be-cancelled contracts?
However, I think that an official pro-OSS stance is no better than any other kind of so called "positive discrimination".
OSS source software is on the whole less of a risk as for example the OSS community has been forced to implement interoperability with proprietory standards, and the big commercial names like MS have been desparate to obfuscate their file formats in order to try and evolve away from the OSS equivalents' compatibilities. Therefore they're much less of a lock-in risk. You can take your data with you as you leave, you can't with proprietory formats, you only need to replace the binaries. (Oversimplified of course.)
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.