Slashdot Mirror
Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts
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."
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.
Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)
You can find Linux as the court stenographer. But he's just not transcripting dictated litigation. He's learning. He's adapting. Soon Linux will become the bailiff, judge, jury, court illustrator, public defender, janitor, and CourTV anchor.
...that the wide use of Linux in the court system will make judges just a little more skeptical of the legal antics that Microsoft will undoubtedly be throwing against it in the years ahead.
I think it is especially significant that Linux has been adopted by the Judicial branch which is both the most savvy branch (people hate Congress and the White House, but few hate the SCOTUS) and, constitutionally, the one given the most power over the other two. I look forward to an activist judge mandating that all branches must use Linux to adopt and maintain transparent government.
They must not be too worried about the SCO case, eh?
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
The slashdot writeup makes it sound like 30,000 desktops. Rather, this is just the servers , not their desktop machines. No big deal here, as we already know that Linux is often a preferred back end. Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.
But my main point is that the slashdot writeup gives a false impression.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
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...
Maybe this is all part of a secret Finnish plan for world domination.
Best Windows Freeware
From the article:
;-)
Finally, consider that while an allegation of copyright infringement exists in the Federal Courts today, those same courts have decided to migrate to the alleged perpetrator in that case. It's something to consider. As Søren Kierkegaard once said, "Irony is a disciplinarian feared only by those who do not know it, but cherished by those who do."
Now, why on earth did I think about SCO reading this paragraph?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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.
Anyway, probably is the beginning of a good move. If something could shift the balance towards open source, open formats (hope there the court resolutions are not published in msword format, or required that format to present documents) and really wider access to information ("no, you can't show THIS for contract/base software limitations").
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.
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
for SCO to start sueing the Courts for copyright infringement.
SCO: "You owe us money!"
AOUSC: "Prove it."
SCO: "Pay up or we'll sue!"
AOUSC: "Go on then."
SCO: "Oh b...."
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
It doesn't much matter what branch of the govt uses it. At the end of the day the Gov't controls around 1/4 of the nation GDP. It controls how and where that's spent.
ALLOT of money flows out of the gov't and stirs allot of industry. Especially durring recessions, that have been a classic time for gov't over spending, since FDR, to restimulate the economy.
If you want that money, you will run what ever software the gov't tells you too. Ideologies aside you have a buisness to run. To be compatible with the gov't agencies is essentials.
And as that money spreads out, to subcontractors, and support industries the chain of compatibilty does as well.
I worked for 2 years for a company that did court document back up. They declared what their standards were. If we wanted the contract we did as we were told. And we chose the servers that meant the absolute least friction between start and support.
This is a much bigger deal than just public relations.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
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.
I'm not so sure about that. The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch has some powers over the other two, but the other branches have powers over it as well.
Let's take the Supreme Court, for example. You're probably referring to the power of judicial review: the ability to declare laws unconstitutional (this was actually never codified in the Constitution; it's an important legal tradition and perhaps ought to be codfied, but it is not). This is, in fact, a very important power. However, it is not unbalanced:
1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.
2) The executive branch appoints justices. It's a little-known fact that even SCOTUS justices can be impeached and removed from office, even though they otherwise hold life terms; this has never been done, but it is possible.
3) The SCOTUS cannot act of its own volition; it must be called upon before it can do anything. The Executive and legislative branches have limited power, but they can use (most of) those powers at will; the SCOTUS is powerless unless actually called on by one of the other branches, or by the people.
This is the whole point of checks and balances: no one branch is self-policing, no one branch has unlimited power, and most of the actions of one branch can be undone (though not easily) by at least one of the other branches. The idea is to fight corruption on two fronts: one, by reducing its ability to form, and two, limiting its ability to do damage even when it does form. It's actually a pretty well-designed system, at least on that score.
I recall hearing once that the government was required to go with the lowest bidder in a new contract for many of it's purchases.
So.. isn't linux the lowest bidder?
So, is the government required to use it then?
Just curious if anybody knows about this..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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."
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!
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.
My second reaction was "What if they don't like it?"
Then it dawned on me that individual judges neither have interest nor reasonable say in what their computers are running. So, for the most part, the point is moot.
However, there is one interesting twist. How much leniency is SCO allowed to give the federal government. You know the "if sco wins, it will cost the federal government $22M" point will come out in court. While that should not have a direct effect, no judge wants to have his name attached to that. Of course, SCO will cut a deal for government use of "their" code. But big a deal are they allowed to give the government before it's considered preferential treatment?
:wq
Low bid does not (typically) come into play unless and until you have multiple vendors meeting the requirements, or reasonably close to the same set.
You can certainly write requirements that only one vendor can meet, or that precludes certain vendors. It happens all the time. MS obviously loves it when the reqs lock out competition; presumably they are less happy when tey get locked out.
NSA has supported and activly developed SE linux.
"Zionism is simply the belief that there needs to be a sovreign jewish state. that's it"
You've never read any Ben-Gurion, have you?
I've seen enough quotes - from him and many other high-ranking Israeli politicians - to know what "Greater Israel" means - it means domination of the entire Middle East and screw the Arabs. Which is exactly where Israel started two thousand years ago until the Romans - who were better at it than the Jews - came down and ran all their asses out of their own country.
I'm against the Jewish religion (because I'm an atheist), I'm against Jewish politicians because I'm an anarchist, I'm against Zionism because it is racist bullshit - I'm not against Jews (hell, Winona Ryder is one of my favorite babes and like the Adam Sandler song says, she "drinks Maneshewitz" -or however that's spelled).
In fact, for the last year or so, my court-mandated psych therapist has been Jewish and has been agreeing with me about everything that's wrong with Israel.
Recently I posted an article on an Iraq war Web site from a Jewish Rabbi who attended a protest meeting in Massachusetts against the Palestinian occupation - he denounced Zionism thoroughly as the sole cause of Israel's problems! So you should know that many Jews in Israel denounce Zionism and the policies of the Israeli government both for religious and political reasons.
So it's ludicrous to claim that Israel's policies are innocent reactions against Palestinian "terrorism". Just as the true "terrorists" in Iraq are US troops, so are the Israelis the true "terrorists" in the Middle East.
(Not to mention the fact that they are the only Middle Eastern country with KNOWN "weapons of mass destruction" which they have threatened to use against their neighbors and for which the IAEA has been reluctant to call them to account.)
So forget the old "Jews are hardworking immigrants" crap - it's not relevant to the current issues. And forget chalking everything up to the Holocaust - that excuse for everything Israel does is wearing thin.
Technically a Nazi is a member of the National Socialist party (which doesn't exist any more) - period. Practically, a "Nazi" is as a "Nazi" does - and Ariel Sharon qualifies. So does George Bush.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!