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.
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."
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.
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...
Of course. However they damn well better not spend my tax dollars on something I can't review.
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
Yes as a matter of fact I am. Besides that the military contributes BILLIONS to research with no immediate use. The military has at least spent SOME of my tax dollars developing software I can review and which is available to everyone.
Security through obscurity DOES NOT WORK. I wish people would get that through their heads.
The state of mass however does NOT work on issues of national security at all. If they have software developed it should be open source and available to the public. It should also be out in the open so that taxpayers can review the states purchasing decisions and determine whether or not the current state and local governments need fired.
Who said anything about reviewing ALL their source code? But I may well review some of their sourcecode and certainly anything they have developed since that should not only be open source, it should be public domain.
They are accountable to ME the taxpayer, the people who hired them, the people who ultimately CAN and will if need be fire them. If I want to have the source code available for everything they use as part of that accountablity. So I can be sure the information regarding me they handle is secure, so I can verify they are telling the truth if they claim all the power grids in the state went down due a glitch. So I can verify pretty much anything I want AT NEED not neccesarily as an automatic process. They damn well better do it.
Not every individual person will read every line of source code, that is nearly an impossible task with comprehension. However if every citizen reads just two lines of code they could review 1000's of times the amount of software used by the state. But the reason the state needs the source open is so that the citizens can check up on them. And to ensure they don't spend my money developing for proprietary software when they could have developed code that would benefit anyone without advertising a private company.
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".