Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts

Posted by simoniker on from the guilty-of-being-a-penguin dept.

Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein writes in Linux Journal that, technically, one-third of the U.S. Government has moved to Linux: its Third Branch, the Judiciary. That's 30,000 users across 800 locations, comprising the nation's Federal court system. Given our information overload, it's easy to miss the most significant kernels of news."

26 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by neiras · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.

    1. Re:Wow! by presarioD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you want open source to die?

      Seriously now, this is kind of scary. If Open Source ever "dominates" in the governmental sector, the impact it will have on the Open Source community will not be a trivial matter to consider.

      The worst thing that happend to socialism for example is that they actually got elected for government.

      New forces will be created in the Open Source community once it becomes mainstream and the temptation to "bend" GPL for more and more profit might be there. Of course you might argue that this will automatically exclude anybody that does it from the Open Source community but I am just wondering how the future might look 40 years from now...

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    2. Re:Wow! by warrax_666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [...] a market that can (and will) take care of itself.


      The market (by which is assume you meant "free market") cannot "take care of itself" as you put it if there are monopolies within the market. That's why there are anti-trust laws and government regulation of utilities.
      --
      HAND.
    3. Re:Wow! by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the grandchild of several Holocaust survivors, I hereby inform you that there is not a shred of cleverness in this sort of posery. It is merely trite and repulsive.

      If my grandmother were addressing you, she wouldn't be doing it nearly as politely as I am, you spoiled twit.

      With all due respect to your grandmother, most of the Holocaust survivors I've met have been polite and thoughtful persons (and one was a rather pervy old guy with a who always made it obvious which women he was staring up and down, at least in the class I took from him).

      One grants your grandmother a certain deference because of her suffering -- just as I didn't question the apparent contradiction of the Holocaust survivor, a Polish Jew, who told me that he didn't blame the camp guards because "they were young men far from home, in the army, and ordered to be guards" -- but that he did blame the Poles, who "learned to throw stones at the Jews before they learned to walk". Absolving the Germans who were taught to hate but condemning the Poles who were taught the same hate was that survivor's way of understanding what had happened to him, and I was not about to suggest he believe otherwise.

      But if my argument is wrong, it's wrong whether or not you're the grandchild of several Holocaust survivors. And if it's right, it's right regardless of your ancestry -- or mine.

      Ideas are funny things: they don't become more or less valid depending on who says them. If a prisoner says the Earth moves, and the Pope says it doesn't, "Eppur si muove," -- "it still moves".

      Being the grandchildren of survivors does give you a special responsibility to understand their pain, and to perhaps even to work to make sure the Shoah survivor's cry of "Never again" really does mean "never again".

      But it doesn't give you any special claim to wisdom, and while it may have prompted you to study history, it doesn't necessarily give you any magical understanding of history, or any special moral vantage point from which to rule on the validity of the arguments of today. And to use your grandparents' suffering to make a rhetorical point -- to merely win an argument -- seems to me a tawdry way to use them.

      Again, my reasoning is valid -- or invalid -- independent of who you are or even who I am. An argument stands -- or falls -- on its own, regardless of the personality, background, or ancestry or its proponents.

      --
      Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
  2. Re:One can only hope... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt most judges will be familiar with the software underlying the filing process.

    However, it would make for an excellent argument on behalf of whatever pro-Linux guy is in the court.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  3. Re:One can only hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or a little less skeptical of Microsoft's claims that it is not an unchallenged monopoly.

  4. Liability by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They must not be too worried about the SCO case, eh?

    --
    Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  5. Woo hoo by adam.skinner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So our judicial system is moving from Solaris to Linux for their servers. This would have been a story of note had they put Linux on the desktop, but as it stands it hardly seems newsworthy. I mean, the multinational company I work for uses Linux on many of it's servers as well.

    Adoption of Linux as a server is one thing; adoption of Linux on the desktop for 30K is quite another...

  6. Why are they moving to Linux? by mOoZik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it is better? Because it is easier? Nay, because it is free. Why does everyone get so excited about this? It obviously is free, but will its users be as productive? What about support? I don't know, but only long-term studies can assess these.

    --
    A blog like any other.
  7. Re:Misleading by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I think that the fact that their servers run Linux is a key point. With client-server models currently dominant, servers are your muscle and bone. They hold up everything else.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  8. Check the math there, chester. by chumpieboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One third?

    One of three branches, yes.

    Those 30,000 users are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of Federal employees and offices.

    Will the slashdot readers be hypocrites or will they denounce FUD when it comes from Linux Journal? If Microsoft (or a journal that is focused on MS technology) had released a statement that "two-thirds of the US government runs MS software!" then there would be a huge shitstorm.

    1. Re:Check the math there, chester. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know why you got modded up as insightful, when you are lying.

      There's no FUD.

      The article didn't say one-third of the government is using Linux.

      And the intro didn't say one-third is using it either.

      The intro said, "_technically_, one-third of the US Government has moved to Linux."

      See the "technically?" In other words, it's tongue-in-cheek -- a joke.

      Then the intro went on to clarify with the real information by stating, "its Third Branch, the Judiciary. That's 30,000 users across 800 locations, comprising the nation's Federal court system."

      Everyone knows that that's not actually one-third of the number of federal employees, so even if you missed the joke, the second part makes it obvious.

      Now I could assume that you are simply to stupid to have understood the joke, and the additional information.

      But I just think you're lying.

  9. I like this... by Richthofen80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because paying ZERO dollars for software means my government isn't spending any money when it doesn't have to, which means that I can keep more of my money instead of it going to taxes, right?

    right?

    (crickets chirping....)

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    1. Re:I like this... by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What usually, for real, happens is, some department near the end of the budget period realizes they saved $120,000 - so they go on a spending spree to erase the surplus so they don't get cut next budget period. EVERY government agency is ALWAYS SHORT of funds and desperately NEEDS MORE. ALWAYS. It never fails. You can bank on it. It's an inherent property of offices that depend on begging instead of profits, there is no reward mechanism for being efficient.

      The best that can happen is they free up funds to buy things that actually help fulfill their mission, instead of upgrading software just to help Msft meet financial goals.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  10. Re:Nothing but good news by mchawi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mandating that all branches use one thing - ie: taking away all their choice - would be using the same sort of pressure techniques that people complain about MS for.

    I would hope that if the other branches were to move to Linux they would do it because it is the best option, not because it was the mandated option.

    How would you feel if they all moved to FreeBSD?

  11. What a load of crap. by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    technically, one-third of the US Government has moved to Linux:

    Uh, no.... technically one of the three branches of governement has moved to Linux. That is a far cry from the misleading assertion that "one-third" of the government has moved to linux.

    Of course, I can't find this quote anywhere in the actual article, so it must have been the "analysis" of the submitter. Isn't this the type of misleading claim we continuously beride MS for?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  12. One can only hope not by ScouseMouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From a purely impartial point of view, I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

    The judicirary is supposed to be impartial. I think for the most part it is. I would like it to stay like that no matter whatever happens.

    1. Re:One can only hope not by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

      I agree, but I believe the point was that judges are essentially ignorant of Linux and free software in generally, and some greater familiarity will actually allow them to be more impartial.

      So far they really only know one side of the "story."

      KFG

    2. Re:One can only hope not by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All this seems morally perilous. If Linux is in the backoffice of some court, it would be particularly hazardous for it to officially judge against Linux in some broad way that illegalizes their usage of it. In this fashion, I'm sure many judges arrive home to find their brood up/downloading MP3s at record paces.

      My point is that the whole thing should mean something to the judiciary. The MP3 downloading thing has ramifications on fair use. Hence, the use of OSS should strike them similarly.

      But in the broader sense, you are correct. The judiciary should rule on points of law and not particularly ones of public opinion.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  13. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

    I know you're being funny, but let me draw attentions to a significant detail: if courts grok Linux it will be far more difficult for "people" like Dearl to initiate such "operations" like the one we witness.

  14. Re:Gov't adoption is the good news by Vengeance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the only reason that a lot of money flows from government coffers into industry, is that these very same dollars have been extracted from some other industry, or directly from our pockets.

    Never make the mistake of believing that our government has any money to spend. It has only your money and mine, and it's not asking for permission nearly often enough.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  15. Re:Yay! by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

    Nah! Lockheed Martin's got "dibs."

    KFG

  16. Re:Strange by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Assuming you are from the USofA you *do* get to vote for them.
    OK, it might by indirect but it's *your* vote for Congress and The President that eventually get's you the Supreme Court's judges.

    So next time get registered, go voting and stop moaning!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  17. WordPerfect by justanyone · · Score: 4, Insightful


    It's a widely recognized fact that most of the legal community (law firms, etc.) used to use WordPerfect. I'm unsure of the current situation given WP's decline in popularity due to domination by MSOffice.

    However, if whoever owns WordPerfect now (Corel? Novell? Underpants Gnomes?) would re-issue it on Linux, and provide favorable licensing to allow it to run from the server to the desktop nicely, many legal offices and courts that currently use WordPerfect could move to Linux far easier than to MSOffice. It would be a change of OS and NOT a change of application.

    Any lawyers out there that can comment on what software (especially larger) legal firms are using, and on what platforms, and for what reasons?

    I would wager that another large tipping-point factor would be how Lexus and Nexus are used. If they operate via a web portal instead of a fat client (Lawyers? Paralegals? Anyone know?) then making sure they operate nicely on Linux is a key adoption factor. IBM, are you listening? Law firms might like a suite of applications specially tailored to their needs, and they don't mind paying for high functionality if it gets them ease of use (not being typically technofiles).

    Also, billing software, the back-office function of legal offices, might benefit from some kind of scheduling application that keeps track of which case someone's researching and thus bills time to that case in an easy manner.

    An ex-lawyer friend of mine (now works as NOC designer for Siemens) mentioned what a pain in the butt it was to itemize his timesheet (bill) for 10 minute segments of his time, espeically if he was making lots of calls. Make a better application and they will love you (again, IBM or Novell, you have options here... and not only for US court systems).

    -- Kevin J. Rice

    --
    Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
  18. Finally, Gov't Approved Applications by James+McP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone migrating from Solaris->Linux isn't a big deal for stuff web, ftp or email services.

    The real reason this is significant is because it means that US Government-approved application developers are making Linux software. An OS is something you run apps on; no apps, no need for the OS.

    BakBone's backup system, ehh, it's a quasi-embedded product. I'm more impressed by Momentum, the financial management package in use by 94 districts. THAT is where Linux will start to make real inroads.

    --
    I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
  19. Re:Gov't adoption is the good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It makes as much sense to say that the government "has only your money and mine" as to say the same thing about any private corporation. All money that anyone has was someone else's before, so this boils down to a cheap rhetorical trick empty of any real meaning.

    As for "asking permission," of course they do it enough: every two or six years, IIRC. Your real problem isn't that the government doesn't ask permission, but that you disagree with the majority of those in your community who continue to grant permission.