Slashdot Mirror
Governments, Beyond the Open Source Hype
An anonymous reader writes "ForeignPolicy.com takes a look at Open Source as it applies to governments and some of the reasons that a governing body may or may not like OSS. From the article: 'Governments around the world are enchanted by open-source software. Unlike proprietary software, for which the code is kept secret, the open-source variety can be copied, modified, and shared. [...] Trouble is, the benefits of open source are not always so clear-cut. Software is too complicated a creation to be captured in rhetoric, and assertions about some of the technical benefits of open source fail to tell the whole story.'"
Tell your citizens that its cheaper and they'll thank you for it. The details about where the saved monegy goes usually become obfuscated however.
I don't get it.
is not switching to OSS, until it works out of the box. Most people do not have the time or patience to work on getting NIC and video drivers working. Let alone the effort involved in getting mp3's, DVD's, and the what other have you.
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
> Caroline Benner previously worked as policy researcher for Microsoft's Geopolitical
> Policy and Strategy Group
Ya know, I knew something like that was coming before I clicked into this article. The summary alone smelled of astroturf. But they do it because they realize while we will spot the paid 'independent scholarship' almost instantly the intended audience either won't.
Democrat delenda est
Ok, so your military doesn't run windows. Our military runs (or at least used to) Solaris and HP-UX... but those are closed source, too, and owned by a foreign entity.
In the end, open source provides me -- as a sovereign nation -- the ability to control the critical pieces of my own infrastructure.
That's how I (as a person) see it, anyway. Whether or not foreign governments agree, I don't know.
This is how it's always going to be as well. Example: People don't move to Firefox because it's open source. They move to it because they're told it's better than IE, and they then stick with it because it's demonstrably better.
At the end of the day ideology is irrelevant to most people.
I think poorer nations have the most to gain from employing open source software. The lower real cost of obtaining and updating computer systems (when using open source options) enables them to build infrastructures that would cost many times more to operate with closed source OS's and apps.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Perhaps she quit because she became disgusted with the way in which MS does business, and in fact the entire notion of proprietary software?
Perhaps she quit because she didn't think they went far enough, and was disgusted that they gave consumers as much freedom as they do?
The point is, who knows? It might amaze you to learn that not everyone who works for a company necessarily believes in the same ideals, and even if they did, people can change. On the other hand, maybe she is a true believer, and would never change.
Also just sayin'.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Open Source is really a threat to most governments. Open source software gives everyone equal access to the same tools, regardless of social class. It threatens the entire model of top-down hiearchy, as open source is a means for equalizing all access to information and exchange of information. Anyone can put together an Apache webserver and begin experimenting with having their own website, for free. No need for expensive schooling, as information is freely available to teach yourself. This will become a "problem" for places like the US, where we utilize the leverage of patents and trade secrets to maintain our superiority in the global marketplace. As places like India and China quickly become more technologically saavy, our economic model becomes threatened. One of the biggest keys in the future will be the regulation of the internet, and the censoring of information. I believe the best thing for the global society is free and anonymous access to all (public) information on the net.
Make your own DemocraKey, and help spread the technology for free and anonymous access to all information.
I write proprietary software; and I write it primarily for government organizations (and maybe some private companies, but they have yet to express an interest). No, I'm not willing to ID myself here, hence the coward bit.
Here's some more FUD for you: the article author makes an association between For-Profit Corporations and proprietary software, on the one hand, and no-corporation amateurs and F/OSS on the other.
I see this association all the time, and it annoys the hell out of me. Yes, it's convenient for the F/OSS evangelists, and for the proprietary reactionaries. But for people who want to see the free exchange of ideas (and thus the rapid improvement of software) and who want to see everyone, especially their clients, get the best software possible, this association is lethal.
It's quite simple: if big clients, such as governments and corporations, make "open source" a requirement, and pay more for the software (or pool as groups to commission it), more companies will produce open source software. If more companies do that, those big clients will find themselves paying for fewer titles outright, and instead commissioning customizations that make that software work well for them.
Yes, it's a stretch. But, at heart, "Open Source" is not anti-commercial; it is simply a different way of doing business. Incidentally, it is a form of doing business that predates the notion of proprietary intellectual property and is far easier to support legally.
Microsoft wants Office to be usable around the world. But Microsoft could still make money on Office customization and make it open-source.
Yes, I am insane.
From the Article... it is misleading to say that open source empowers people in ways proprietary software does not. Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior of a software program in significant ways without touching the program's source code
Those two sentences go beyond mere FUD to outright deception.
Bad doggie! No cookie for you!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
No, No, No! The headline and much of the article is extremely misleading).
Sure, governments are starting to use Linux as the ONLY viable alternative to the hated Microsoft.
But that's it. While Linux is open source, open source is not defined by using Linux.
Much of the US government explicitly bans open source and I've supported 2 foreign government contracts that also had explicit anti-open source requirements. And they ban open source specifically because it is a potential security risk. In fact, it seems quite reasonable to question why the US (or European) countries would want to use open source code that may have been developed in China or even France (or others countries well known for their industrial espionage).
In any case, who the hell actually believes open source is MORE secure simply because they publish their millions of lines of code? Like ANY customer is actually going to look at the code.
Ok, before flaming, I agree some, well tested, well accepted, and well controlled open source with blessed versioning is more secure (probably MUCH more secure) because of exhaustive testing and support by real companies, but that's VERY different than arguing it's more secure governments can peek at the source code.
As a side note, open STANDARDS are a completely different topic and all governments want, love, and support open standards. Unfortunately, Open Source and Open Standards are very often confused by governments and government contracts.
That said, some countries like open source because it providesa competative advantage. For instance, China is rapidly excelling in HW production so open source acts to undermine the competative advantages more developed countries have built up in their commercial software industries. (That, and open source allows the Chinese government to insert all sorts of filters in place, but that's a different story).
Proprietors agree with you, which is why they're interested in cutting their prices or giving away gratis copies of their software to large-seat clients in exchange for locking government users into something that will pay off (both monetarily and in terms of control) in the future. Money is not and should not be the chief rationale by which these decisions are made or else more valuable points that pay off now and in the future will be lost.
Digital Citizen
Good one.
Governments could very well profit from Open source software, as well as the programmers hired to make it.
Just because it is Open Source, it doesn't mean that the work the programmers put in is free.
What it does mean is that:
But because of the omnipresent FUD, very few people in governments worldwide have any idea whatsoever about these things.
P.S.
5. ???
6. Profit!
Ignore this signature. By order.
... as are most of the body shops that install and implement these projects. There only foreign if you live outside the US. Following that logic shouldn't the US governments be supporting their own US economy and buying more software from the big boys?
We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.