Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Reports Linux is 'Viable'
CProgrammer98 writes "The Beeb is reporting that The UK Office of Government Commerce has published their final results following trials on the use of OSS and especially Linux and they conclude that Linux is a viable option for government use. From their summary: 'The report shows that Open Source software is rapidly maturing, offers significant potential benefits to government and should be actively considered alongside proprietary alternatives. It concludes that decisions should be based on a holistic assessment of future needs, taking into account total cost of ownership, with proper consideration of both proprietary and open source solutions.'"
From: "Steve Ballmer"
To: Anonymous Coward
Subject: Customer Focus: Comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:44:29 -0700
In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with
customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently
surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost
advantage compared with Windows? Which platform offers the most secure
computing environment? Given the growing concern among customers about
intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize
risk? In moving from an expensive UNIX platform, what's the best
alternative in terms of migration?
Customers want factual information to help them make the best decisions
about these issues. About a year ago, a senior Microsoft team led by
General Manager Martin Taylor was created to figure out how we could do a
better job helping customers evaluate our products against alternatives
such as Linux/open source and proprietary UNIX. This team has worked
with a number of top analyst firms that have generated independent,
third-party reports on cost of acquisition, total cost of ownership,
security and indemnification. Some of the studies were commissioned by
Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each
case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole
domain of the analyst firms. This was essential: we wanted truly
independent, factual information.
At the same time, our worldwide sales organization is going even deeper
with customers to understand their needs and create a feedback loop
with our product development teams that enables us to deliver integrated
solutions that support real-world customer scenarios, and
comprehensively address issues such as manageability, ease of use and reliability.
I'm writing to you and other business decision makers and IT
professionals today to share some of the data around these key issues - and to
provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform
rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the
real world. Much more information on this is at
www.microsoft.com/getthefacts.
This email is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft
executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer
users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high
technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please
go to
http://register.microsoft.com/subscription/subscri beMe.asp?lcid=1033&id=155
to subscribe.
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION COSTS
In the past few years, you haven't been able to open a computing
magazine or visit a technology Web site without running into an article about
Linux and open source. Not surprising: who doesn't like the idea of a
"free" operating system that just about anyone can tinker with?
But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored
global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and
Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the
major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM,
Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums
for must-have items such as technical service and support, product
warranties and licensing indemnification."
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant
Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to
four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as
an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out
of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any
tangible busine
Has the US government already stated that Linux is "viable," or is their vision still blocked by a large round pig known as Microsoft?
If the Brit government is anything like the US government, dealing with open source software may cause a cognitive short-circuit when they try to figure out how to handle bids on something that's essentially free...
Her son is a Solaris person.
Omnis amans amens
It's not like the British Government listens to anybody anyway (Well except for Dubayew), so why will they listen to this.
I am personally sick of windows worms and viri. Even will a fully updates system with the latest AV definitions you still have the hastle of sorting it out when the AV finds one that it has pulled down.
My Point - Love to see it happen, but not holding my breath
Windows for warships is scary.
I hope that this comes into fruition- Hopefully that will mean our tax payers money can be channeled into other things instead of micosoft fees.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
How much of our tax payers money was needed to come to this astonishing conclusion?
Why are we always breaking software into open and proprietary? Why can't people just create a prioritized list of requirements and then use it to pick the software that fits the best for them?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
I never realised linux had reached a level of maturity that would mean that it is inefficient enough for the gov to even consider using it.
While most government contracts do go to the lowest bidder, they are typically grouped together such that software is only a part of the bid (e.g. hardware, software, support, etc.), or the software might even be specified (150 computers with at least 512 mb of ram,...., running windows xp, with ms office and 2 years of support). I dont think they would take a bid for "100 license of an operating system" since the end use will probably dictate the operating system being used.
So most bids will include that fancy "total cost of ownership" thing microsoft touts. Still I think linux and other free and open alternatives will outshine their proprietary counterparts in many instances.
-- john
Repeat after me: we hate Microsoft/(name your proprietary software maker here).
I guess someone needs to go to Open Source re-education camp again...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Let's hope Linux can become viable enough for there to be actual competition with Microsoft. I find it ironic that a government must stamp it's approval on a product to show it's econimical feasibility.
Thanks, Beannie
Can the OSS movement afford the backhanders needed to get governments to use their software ;)
The Nigerian government reports that *BSD is still defunct!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
[Which berk modded this Karl Marx bullshit insightful? Just cos you've got mod points doesn't you have to use them.]
Firstly, stop thinking of OSS as a bunch of hippies writing free code which individuals then support themselves. This is the viewpoint that MS et al want to push (oh look, you're an anonymous coward...).
Most OSS in big business is now supported by a variety of other big businesses, each with a vested interest in customising, improving and maintaining it. These people are going to be paid for their business and some of that will be ploughed back into development. Even if the government supported it itself, it would result in any bugfixes being handed back to the community. That's the quid pro quo of OSS - fixing the thing that bothers you (or paying someone else to do it) will cost you time or money and the benefit will go back to the community --- until we have the perfect free solution!
Does that answer your complaint? I'm not sure, cos 'I have a bad feeling' is difficult to argue against.
I should add, btw, that the open standards for open information interchange argument suggests very strongly that governments should use OSS until proprietary solutions support them well.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
World's Fastest Computer Runs Linux
UK Government Recognizes Independence of American Colonies
Windows Considered Harmful
Stewart Recommends Telling Truth To Investigators
Experts Warn Not To Cross Street Without Looking
- film at 11
sigs, as if you care.
So the final results page offers some mild amusement when looking at the file types on offer. In June 2002, the "Open Source Software Policy Document" was released in RTF, PDF, HTML and ... Word DOC. September 2002's "Guidance on implementing OSS" was only released in PDF. Then, a glimmer of hope! The Qinetiq (what a stupid name...) report was released in PDF, RTF and none other than OOo SXW! There may be hope yet... but no, the final report that this article is about was released in RTF, PDF, HTML and DOC.
The question is: why bother releasing in .DOC when there's an RTF right above it? Hmm...
Linus reports UK Government is inviable - that would be a much more interesting new story.
I think I will start using linux now. I am very reassured by this.
The UK govermnent has always been second to none in their execution and understanding of IT projects. They are get things right first time and are consistently under budget and finish early.
I trust nobody more to speak with authority on issues like this.
BWAHAHAHAAA!!!!!
The UK GOVERNMENT!! says LINUX IS VIABLE!!!! HAHAHA!!!!
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
In a stunning admission that post Ptolemaic science may in fact be an acceptable realm of study, the Vatican announced today that it is entirely plausible that gravity in fact, exists. This reverses nearly 2000 years of Christian theology which until now had answered such questions with "God says, case closed, now go home and make more Catholics."
those government reports include, besides the objective description of cost/benefits into their organization, the positive "social" issues involved if their pick FOSS, in the sense of:
* Home contracted taylorings and enhancements, instead of buying foreign "enhanced" versions from the original editor, leads to more local IT employment.
* The attractiveness of government as customer leads to more FOSS awareness in the market, extending the viability, and then, the benefits they already found for themselves on smaller firms and organizations. That is, if they think is good for they and adopt it, then it could become good for at least some of the people the government supossedly work for.
Of course, it is harder to apply in USA where most of proprietary software if produced (point one semi-voided), and it is harder to apply everywhere government don't really care about their people's walfare.
Got Pike?
Three years ago (2001), while I was working in London at a Medical Software Development firm, I recomend that the company move from ColdFusion to J2EE for scaleability and I wanted to work with Java. But the company, on Micro$ofts urging, went to .NET. Then a year later(2002) after attending LinuxExpo in London, I presented to the IT Director a plan to build a desktop OS for the National Health Services using Linux. But the Brits do not like chage and they really do not like Americans recomending change. Also around that time Sun approchad the same Director and showed him their first run at linux the SunLinuxOS. But the business reality was "We are an Microsoft shop and we cannot afford to change direction." Which was fair enough.
Now just a few weeks ago there was a story about how Sun scored a deal with the NHS for $9 Billion dollars or 5 Billion (GBP).
Respond if you want but I am jsut trying to vaildate my self worth now that I am back in the
US and unemployed.
I like-a do-the cha-cha.
Rapidly maturing? How is that possible when freely available code programs pre-date closed apps by decades? Free software (and 'open source') is older than the locked & buggy alternatives.
If I read your post correctly, you have a problem with OSS in government because it means many people get the benefits of open source, without consciously chosing for it and without paying for it.
I don't get the problem here. Isn't it good if everyone benefits? And isn't it even better if it doesn't cost them anything?
As for the programmers not getting compensated (and assuming they indeed don't get compensated - i.e. they are not hired to improve and maintain the software) - it was their own choice to make the software available without demanding compensation.
And your TANSTAAFL remark, what does that relate to? Are you afraid that the software won't really live up to the expectations? Or that it's not actually free to use? Or are you saying that governments _should_ pay for it, even though it's offered to them for free?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
For example, if their websever were using OSS, doubtless I'd be able to RTFA rather than getting 500 internal server error.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
I just realised that this document and the email from the government I got today are exactly the same thing.
:)
I was part of this
Karl Marx bullshit? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is what Karl Marx espoused, not "TANSTAAFL". I think Karl would be very happy with government adoption of OSS, and I think you would be well served by taking a political history course.
Rumour has it they're now considering alternatives to help get M$ to lower prices.
The British Public Sector goes out of its way to procure the most expensive, unreliable, unwieldy, complicated and unsuitable solutions to its problems. It's hard to explain. It's kind of a mind-set that it has. It's pointy-hairedness taken to the extreme.
I could go on, but I'm just making myself depressed. It's my tax money too...
Stick Men
Because there is a solid break when comparing most proprietary software to FOSS. Proprietary software companies design their software so you can't easily switch to anything else. FOSS doesn't "lock the exit door" on you with software patents or proprietary data formats. You want to leave a FOSS program? Fine, leave and take your data elsewhere. Want to leave Microsoft? While it's possible to extract your data they purposely make it very difficult. In many cases even though a proprietary software program is more "refined" the long term costs of required licenses and updates greatly diminish it's value.
Imagine if your driver's license only allowed you to drive Ford cars since that's what you were driving when you took your driver's test. Most people would find this an unreasonable restriction. Don't get me wrong, Ford makes nice cars (I own a Focus ZTW) but what if I want something else? Why should I have to get another driver's license just to buy and drive a Honda, Toyoto or VW? The answer is I shouldn't have to. This is one of the arguments supporting FOSS over proprietary programs: the freedom to switch with minimal hassle when it's best.
The business model for most proprietary software companies is not to build great software (IMO except companies like Google) but how to bleed the customer dry and never let them go. Instead of improving their product they just tie the data in a proprietary format so you can't easily switch. Most proprietary software is also covered by EULAs which allow the company to demand you stop using their program upon demand, unlike FOSS. While this clause is rarely used Bill Gates once said he'd terminate all MS Windows licenses if the US Govt broke them apart. While a quick retraction followed, the point was he could legally do this. Imagine waking up this morning, booting up XP and getting a window that says "Microsoft has decided to terminate your license. If you wish to continue using this product please purchase a new license". You agreed to the EULA so you're stuck. I can say that I have no concerns of Linus or the people at Gentoo doing this to me. =)
Why can't people just create a prioritized list of requirements and then use it to pick the software that fits the best for them?
This is a reasonable question. If a proprietary software program works better than anything else, has an open data format and a reasonable amount of time (maybe two or so years) of no cost bug fixes then it's worth looking at. But how many proprietary programs pass this test? Some, but not many.
While your comment makes sense to us, most proprietary software companies aren't listening unlike many FOSS projects who are. Is all proprietary software evil and all FOSS good? Of course not. As you said "pick the best" and I agree. I just think that the rights that are included in FOSS many times outweigh most anything the proprietary world can offer.
Thanks for your comment. I suspect it's one that has people thinking.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Linux is used by the fbi for forensic research. The NSA added valuable code to linux to make it a lot more secure for the user and didn't even add any backdoors for evil agents to activate your computer over the net and hypnotize your dog into telling on you. NASA uses it in some roles. The army has switched from windows for it future soldier computer system to linux because they said that windows sucked donkey balls and even with billions to throw at it they couldn't get it stable were linux could and could do it on cheaper more robuust hardware. Well they didn't say as goverment never uses statements shorter then 10 pages but that is the gist of it.
So where the british goverment has said that linux can be considered, the germans have one town swithing the US has billions invested in it AND is giving back to the world free open code that did something amazingly usefull.
MS must be having a fit. Loosing contracts as the US army is not good.
It knows it can't compete at the top with companies like SAP. It says it doesn't want to but really it can't Not just that it ain't got the code. No one in their right mind would a major supply system on an OS everyone knows crashes. Often. (No don't tell me how XP is much more stable, when boeing is doing last minute ordering a reboot costs millions.)
And now it is loosing contracts to people who really should buy into the MS spin hook line and sinker. Some geeks running linux is bad enough, but generals buying it? What next? The suits at wall street, OOps to late. The suits at IBM? Oops to late.
So the US is plenty linux friendly. Just in a different way. Munich buying linux is nice for IBM and Suse (or was it redhat) but it means shit for the rest of us.
NSA adding security features as opensource to linux is very very nice indeed. Thank you american taxpayer for supporting our communist OS.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In this climate, open source software like Linux and Apache has a good chance of seizing a large chunk of their respective markets. Such software is free, and service is low cost due to a supportive community of geeks willing to offer free advice via various bulletin boards and chatrooms.
By contrast, Linux has little chance in China. In China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong), all software is essentially free. The Chinese freely steal what they do not want to buy; 95% of software in China is pirated. Since Windows is "free" and Linux is free, there is no motivation for Chinese people to choose Linux over Windows.
Apple continues to lose market share, as they have for a long time. Even with the introduction of Power Macintosh G5s, new Power Macintosh G5s, and the new iMac G5, growth of sales of Macintosh computers haven't kept up with the overall growth of the PC market. Apple is a profitable company in little danger of disappearing in the near future, but it is in even less danger of becoming a dominant force in the overall PC market.
Linux is gaining traction in industry, but it seems that it is still mostly in customers moving from other UNIX systems. Sun, HP, SGI and IBM are losing the low-end UNIX workstation market to Linux. The mass migration to Windows has stopped, but Windows is still taking a little bit of that. A more common path I've seen is a move from proprietary UNIX to Linux. With Linux comes cheap x86 machines. Shortly after the x86 machines arrive people start running Windows. That is, the migration goes proprietary UNIX->Linux->Windows. Overall I have seen more Linux to Windows migrations than the other way around.
I don't mean this as doom and gloom to Linux. Proportionally, Linux is growing much faster than Windows. Linux is also improving much faster than Windows. As the installed base grows bigger, more services will become available, and Windows to Linux migrations will become more viable.
Hmm... let me make a WAG. Microsoft is really concentrating on security now. I think that Microsoft will handle security issues just as well as they have handled stability issues. That is to say in ten years Windows security jokes will be a cliche that out-of-touch Slashdot readers make, and get corrected on by the more normal users.
At that point, there will be some other big issue. I propose (another WAG) that it will be how well the operating system supports new hardware models, and highly parallel personal computers in particular. Hardware will move from todays fast single-threaded processors to processors that run a single thread not much faster than today's processors, but can run many threads in parallel. Windows and Linux both have trouble with scalability now. In this future scenario it is quite possible that one operating system will be four times faster than the other. If you want Linux to beat Microsoft, make sure that Linux is the one that is four times faster.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
TANSTAAFL ... "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" ... Lunch is a physical product, as is beer; software is not. It costs nothing to make a copy of Linux, except maybe the cost of the media to which it is recorded. Remeber that Free Software in the OSS movment is Free as in free speach, not as in free beer.
It costs nothing to make a copy of Linux
That's a tremendous lie.
It costs nothing to reproduce a copy of Linux once created, but that's a different statement.
Government adoption of OSS, unlike every other form, has the potential for zero reciprocity.
Furthermore, if governments use individual- or corporate-form methods of contributing back to OSS, they are de facto corrupting it because the money fueling government additions will have necessarily been seized using coercion or force from its populace. In the case of, e.g. Microsoft, at least a cogent entity determines whether or not they choose to dirty their hands in this way. In the case of OSS, everyone's hands get dirtied and nobody made a choice.
- based on MineSweeper technology -
What's wrong with us generous techno-hippes, eh?
Peace & Love!
it is encouraged that more OS's besides Microsoft's should be used. Diversity is important. Linux is authorized for use throughout the government, and actually is used alot more than you would think.
Unfortunately the Navy has implimented a brain-dead, microsoft only, across the enterprise, $8 Billion (yes, that is a B) contract call NMCI adminstrated by EDS.
The contract was designed for typical office use with no thought how it would work in a Development, Research or Industrial environment which the Navy has considerable. All of my existing Linux installations are now referred to as "legacy systems" and any new system development is required to comply with NMCI (Read microsoft).
The system is a monoculturist dream. One vulnerability and the enitre Navy's infrastructure will be fall like a house of cards. Not that someone thought it wise to relocate all our local LAN servers in central locations across the country - increase the likehood for failure and data compromise.
We cannot install software unless it is on an approved list. Only problem access to the list is restricted and difficult to get. The list is a joke. I am allow to install Mozilla but it must be verion 1.1. Or I can install perl but only 5.6 is approved on windows. Notepad is the text editor of choice.
Any fellow NMCI suffers out there take not that I found a place to complain here at NMCISUCKS.com.
And No to any NCMI lurkers I did not post this from work.
Here in America of course adoption of Linux will allow the US government to spend more money on covering the breasts of statues, so as not to offend John Ashcroft, and they'll be able to give more money to Halliburton. Wheeeee!
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Because that government "support", including those bugfixes, would have been generated using taxes and not wealth as a basis for salary. Government does not earn taxes - you don't pay them after the job's been completed to your satisfaction. Government coerces them from its population, sort of like a mugger in the streets.
OSS has been seen as a shining beacon of freedom. Governments attaching themselves to it, leech-like, may generate some benefit for end users but at what cost? "Microsoft does it, so why can't we" is not a valid response IMO.
Not really. There are many disadvantages to pirated software. Pirated copies of Windows usually have troubles using Windows Update and pirated software always comes without any sort of support. That is a downside also to the Chinese customers who buys pirated software (they do buy it still, just at lower cost).
For organizations of some size, pirated software has many limits. First off, they may be so large that it is worth suing them. Secondly, they need support and stability something hard to achieve with pirated software.
Free software doesn't have these issues. If the Chinese government deceides that it prefers Linux due to among other things these issues, Linux stands a fair chance in China.
Evolution is just a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
Just thinking of what the business case would be, I suppose they would have to implement at least .NET and a Win32 subsystem for Linux. They would have to convince the Office group and various server groups that supporting Microsoft Linux was a good case. The Win32 subsystem would be essential for convincing those groups that a port would be viable, given that supporting a new platform is both difficult and risky. If they could get those ports then Microsoft Linux might be very compelling. It would certainly attract a lot of businesses who are already examining Linux, but are tied to Office. It might also drive new sales of Microsoft server products. They are actually quite decent products, but a lot of people won't trust the Windows platform when they need high reliability. Running SQL Server or Exchange on Linux could be very compelling.
I really don't think they will do it. The NT kernel is quite different from Linux, and matching the capabilities on Linux would be difficult, and translating between them would probably involve a significant performance hit. It's an interesting idea, though, and if I were a strategist at Microsoft I would definitely look into it further. Making a Win32 layer for the Linux kernel might also be an interesting project for a Masters student, perhaps using the Windows CE sources as a starting point.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
This isn't purely an academic exercise. I have an appointment with the progressive mayor of a medium sized city to show off a LAMP project that I'm doing for the city bureaucracy. This city administration is stuck with a nightmarish tangle of legacy proprietary software garbage and yet the city is home to one of the world's leading CS departments and is a hotbed of OSS. It's absurd.
Anyway, even if that weren't the case there's a case to be made that governments should not merely tolerate OSS but demand it. This mayor and council would be open to such arguments if they were appropriately presented.
I'm sure it's been made somewhere by someone besides me, but Google has not been kind to me so far.
I'd appreciate any discussion or links on this topic. Resolved: a democratic government, in service to its constituency, should whenever possible refrain from building its public services around proprietary software built upon trade secrets.
Thanks in advance.
mt
That's the quid pro quo of OSS - fixing the thing that bothers you (or paying someone else to do it) will cost you time or money and the benefit will go back to the community
If your fix is incorporated into the authoritative source code for a project, you also won't have to re-do your fix when the next release of the project comes out.
To: Microsoft
... ... is so
Re: Linux
"Nothing else in the world
not all the armies
powerful as an idea whose time
has come."
-- Victor Hugo
Pro-Linux report sexed down by government1 25400 ,00.htm
A copy of the report, seen by silicon.com with amendments still visible, shows changes were made to the government's stance on the particular advantages of Linux versus proprietary software when it comes to security. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is the Treasury office charged with improving public sector procurement and project management in the UK.
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39
Could this be A taste of things to come?
The Sustainable Development Commission is running its consultation exercise online using the open source software package PHPWiki.
...what distro would she use? And would she grant it a royal warrant?
I think it would be cool if say, every box and/or CD of the official SuSE Linux distro had the royal arms stamped on it, surrounded by the phrase "By Appointment to her Majesty the Queen". Maybe Novell could put the parliament buildings on the box to make it look a bit like the label on a bottle of HP sauce...
mmmm.....HP sauce...
According to this report, the always so useful MS Word change tracking reveals that this report was originally even more enthusiastic about Linux. Obviously this was not in keeping with the officially sponsored Government policy because the claims were toned down before release.
Sounds like a job for Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency !
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
You sez:
"Any line of questioning that begins with "Why
don't men wear skirts?" is going to come around
to an answer which can best be paraphrased as
"Because men don't wear skirts"
Another name for it is Tautology
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yes, but volunteerism needs to be outlawed. It's communism at its finest! And housework needs to be outlawed, too. Our economy would grow by 50% if we required everyone to hire someone else and pay them at least minimum wage to do their housework.
Guess what? Your sarcasm doesn't disguise your ignorance.
The OP wasn't against your straw man of simple volunteerism. Or any of the other straw men offered in response by people too harried to bother trying to understand difficult concepts to do anything except knee-jerk assume this argument is an attack on Linux.
Here's an example even you, and a chimp, could understand: You just found out that your favorite OSS Desktop Environment was created in a Chinese labor camp at the behest of the PRC, and all of the coders were executed once the project finished. Do you have any moral qualms over using it? Should derivative projects be concerned with the method in which the code came to be a contribution?
Governments are different operational entities than individuals. You can't get around it, or pretend that government wealth is earned in the same way indvidual/corporate wealth is. Government funding of OSS, due to A) the viral nature of OSS licenses and B) the coercive nature of tax collection by governments, will taint OSS with slave labor - still a laughing matter?
Personally, I don't find the prospect funny. But laugh on, all the way to the society and situations you deserve.
What's funny to me is the view of the "software industry" about OSS. The idea that you have to jealously guard all the code because that's your value. They forget that a heck of a lot of companies don't really view their code as "IP" - it's just something they use. For them, there are some benefits of giving away code...
implemented in the software. Next release, it's back in there.
familiarity for developers. The code may become more familiar to people outside. This can protect the investment because there are a lot more developers know your code.
part of something/familiarity/goodwill. I do a lot of things on a couple of forums, and I help a lot of people out. When I get up shit creek, I can ask a question, and I get a lot of help, people are reciprocating. IBM are open sourcing a ton of code at the moment, and you hear quite a lot of geeks speaking nicely about IBM. This may translate into more laptop sales or whatever.
For some companies, giving it away is a bit of a no-brainer. They had to do the change whether they give it away or not. Giving it away doesn't affect that cost. And the cost of giving it away? In many cases, it's an upload.
The only download is competitor advantage. That if you own a bank and upload your interest calculation routine, one of your customers can use it and take advantage or your investment. But rarely do people write a huge project and OSS it now. It's either a small project that grew big, or something sitting around which a company decided to open source, often because they couldn't make money from it. So, often the changes added by 1 company in 1 go are often quite small.
And absolutely governments should be pro open-standards. And government, unlike many businesses can do it - start by insisting that any communication between a supplier and government has to be in OASIS format. Business will do it because they will want the contract. You'll immediately raise the install base of OpenOffice.org, and as a result have a lot more businesses communicating between each other with it.